RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted May 20, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 20, 2019 I think the Fell is an impressive looking machine, worthy of a decent 4mm scale model. It's a shame it wasn't preserved. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 51 minutes ago, rodent279 said: I think the Fell is an impressive looking machine, worthy of a decent 4mm scale model. It's a shame it wasn't preserved. Hi Rodent, If you are good with a soldering iron, Mike Edge does a kit of said contraption. Gibbo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 19/05/2019 at 00:49, Steamport Southport said: The Liverpool Overhead Railway and Mersey Railway had them. Jason One of the best corners of "The Museum of Liverpool". Underneath the LOR is a Sentinel steam wagon, and to the right is Lion! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 84C Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 If you need an idea of what a Fowler 4MT looked like then the Derby designed and built (some not all) 2-6-0's that ran on the LMS/NCC in Ireland are your answer. And for those that want build a 4mm scale one a kit is available from Worsley Works 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traintresta Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 18/05/2019 at 19:00, LNWR18901910 said: Nice models! So, this is what the Fowler Mogul would have looked like had it been built... Good luck mkaing it into a model! Stanier actually proposed a 4MT 4-6-0 with 5’6” drivers for the Oban line but decided against it. It would have looked nice, the depiction in locomotives that never were reminds me of a BR 2MT 2-6-0 with Stanier running plate and cab. A fowler 2-6-0 seems a likely project but they built the crab instead. I’m surprised it wasn’t given the midland treatment but a smaller version would have been an obvious replacement for the 4f. Shame the likes of it only appeared across the Irish Sea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 Imma change subject for a post! Scribbled this up a couple of weeks a go; a modern UK take on the BLS AE 8/8 using a pair of class 90s. The BLS AE 8/8 were made by combing pairs of AE 4/4, removing the inner cabs and having them share 1 pantograph. Admittedly there's not much call for double heading 90s in the UK, but I did realise one possible use for such a contraption would be for long heavy Channel Tunnel freight operations as it fits the requirements of minimum number of powered wheels, pantographs, etc, required in the tunnel, the space provided by the removal of the cabs could accommodate extra signalling etc gubbins required, and plenty of roof space for fire suppression equipment. No good for third rail territory moves, but until CTRL was built there would have been nothing stopping them running to Dollands Moor and then freight taken over by a 47. All that means I really should have used an RfD 90 as the base for this and added the Tunnel 'rings' to the side rather than using a 'mainline' liveried example... My first thought was to do this with a pair of 86s as they do double-head a lot, but I think I may have done that previously somewhere in this thread anyway. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLBH Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Traintresta said: Stanier actually proposed a 4MT 4-6-0 with 5’6” drivers for the Oban line but decided against it. Was that one not made obsolete by persuading the Civil Engineers to get their shovels out and improve the infrastructure to allow Black Fives on the line? Sadly that's normally the sensible approach to most cases of restricted branch lines needing specialised rolling stock. Unless you're up against a major restriction affecting a lot of the network (e.g. the British loading gauge being significantly smaller than UIC gauges), improving substandard bits to allow standard equipment to be used is a better choice in the long run. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traintresta Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, RLBH said: Was that one not made obsolete by persuading the Civil Engineers to get their shovels out and improve the infrastructure to allow Black Fives on the line? Sadly that's normally the sensible approach to most cases of restricted branch lines needing specialised rolling stock. Unless you're up against a major restriction affecting a lot of the network (e.g. the British loading gauge being significantly smaller than UIC gauges), improving substandard bits to allow standard equipment to be used is a better choice in the long run. Yes it was, but I think it was also expected to be less than a success because the smaller boiler wouldn’t have been suitable to provide enough steam for the faster portions of the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfaZagato Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, RLBH said: Was that one not made obsolete by persuading the Civil Engineers to get their shovels out and improve the infrastructure to allow Black Fives on the line? Sadly that's normally the sensible approach to most cases of restricted branch lines needing specialised rolling stock. Unless you're up against a major restriction affecting a lot of the network (e.g. the British loading gauge being significantly smaller than UIC gauges), improving substandard bits to allow standard equipment to be used is a better choice in the long run. How does that hold to Hastings? Everything I've read makes Hastings seem as bad as the L or Underground. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 Ultimately the tunnels on the Hastings line were singled, ie the infrastructure was modified to enable standard stock. As a relatively major route it was viable to have special trains for longer than some other routes. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted May 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 22, 2019 37 minutes ago, Zomboid said: Ultimately the tunnels on the Hastings line were singled, ie the infrastructure was modified to enable standard stock. As a relatively major route it was viable to have special trains for longer than some other routes. They weren't singled, the tracks were interlaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) On 18/05/2019 at 20:03, rockershovel said: Strictly speaking, the first domestic oil production was as early as 1919 and the Eakring oil field produced a total of 47m Bbl between 1940 and 1984, but onshore oil has always been a minor element in the nation’s energy budget Some of the earliest domestic mineral oil production was in the 1850s from the Scottish shale oil industry. http://www.scottishshale.co.uk/ Edited May 22, 2019 by JeremyC 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted May 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, JeremyC said: Some of the earliest domestic mineral oil production was in the 1850s from the Scottish shale oil industry. http://www.scottishshale.co.uk/ Another "earlier than people think" is fracking which the UK has been doing on a commercial scale since the 1970s 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted May 22, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 22, 2019 19 minutes ago, AVS1998 said: I wonder what the 375/77s would look like if built to Hastings Gauge. Could be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 3 hours ago, JeremyC said: Some of the earliest domestic mineral oil production was in the 1850s from the Scottish shale oil industry. http://www.scottishshale.co.uk/ I knew of this, but not ABOUT it. You learn something every day on here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Traintresta said: Stanier actually proposed a 4MT 4-6-0 with 5’6” drivers for the Oban line but decided against it. It would have looked nice, the depiction in locomotives that never were reminds me of a BR 2MT 2-6-0 with Stanier running plate and cab. A fowler 2-6-0 seems a likely project but they built the crab instead. I’m surprised it wasn’t given the midland treatment but a smaller version would have been an obvious replacement for the 4f. Shame the likes of it only appeared across the Irish Sea. What about the Dublin & South Eastern 2-6-0 15 and 16? They are the only surviving inside-cylinder 2-6-0s. Perhaps created from a Fowler 4F with a Robinson O4 tender, extended running board and front pony truck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLBH Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 13 hours ago, AVS1998 said: On the other hand, there's a spot on the ECML from what I've read that singles down at a bridge and that seems to function just fine... That would presumably be Welwyn, where the ECML narrows down from four tracks to two for the viaduct and tunnel (one straight after the other). It does indeed cause capacity problems. Unfortunately, the viaduct is listed, which makes it far more difficult to solve than just building a second one in parallel. Apparently having pretty-looking infrastructure is more important than functional infrastructure. And without addressing the viaduct, there's no point dealing with the tunnel either. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 The only bit of single line on the ECML is at Montrose as far as I know. Which isn't really at the busy end of things. Depends how you define the ECML really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traintresta Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 17 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said: What about the Dublin & South Eastern 2-6-0 15 and 16? They are the only surviving inside-cylinder 2-6-0s. Perhaps created from a Fowler 4F with a Robinson O4 tender, extended running board and front pony truck? If you’re going to go to that extent you might as well model the proposed GCR 2-6-0. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 7 hours ago, Traintresta said: If you’re going to go to that extent you might as well model the proposed GCR 2-6-0. GCR Mogul? How would that play out? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted May 24, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 24, 2019 Pom Pom with a pony truck and 04 type outside cylinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traintresta Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 8 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said: GCR Mogul? How would that play out? Like this: 2 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 The thing that jumps out at me from that text is the 2-10-2. Made me wonder about some kind of cab-forward for the Woodhead tunnels (even though it would have been the long way round to go from South Yorks to Immingham via the Woodhead pass). Which would have been quite something, I suspect. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLBH Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, Zomboid said: Made me wonder about some kind of cab-forward for the Woodhead tunnels (even though it would have been the long way round to go from South Yorks to Immingham via the Woodhead pass). Which would have been quite something, I suspect. In the absence of electrification, and given the coal traffic across Woodhead, I could see the 2-10-2 being looked at very closely for the line. Though there would be issues, not least loading gauge. I believe it would have blown the normal loading gauge out of the water, and Conisbrough Tunnel was to have been opened out to a cutting to make space for it. The whole thing was tied up with GCR plans for 40-ton coal wagons, and generally running the pit-to-port operation in the most economical way possible. I've never seen any indication of the 2-10-2's actual characteristics (save that for some reason I thoguht it was to be a 2-10-4), though I believe there's an artist's impression out there somewhere. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 There's a model of it here: 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now