Imaginary Locomotives

[Corbs]

Just seen in Chris Eden-Green's newest video he mentions Bulleid drew up designs for an 0-6-0 steam shunter at the same time as the DEs were being worked on. Does anyone have any drawings or concept images for these?

[Gilwell Park]

There are diagrams on page 80 of "Bulleid of the Southern". Looks a bit like a cross between a Q1 & a USA.  Don't like to scan because of copyright. Roger

[Compound2632]

15 hours ago, Gilwell Park said:

There are diagrams on page 80 of "Bulleid of the Southern". Looks a bit like a cross between a Q1 & a USA.  Don't like to scan because of copyright. Roger

 

I'm quite happy not being able to see that. The thought is ugly enough!

[Traintresta]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I'm quite happy not being able to see that. The thought is ugly enough!

Quite agree. The Q1 is a pleasing enough loco but any tank engine derivative I’ve seen is fugly. I’ve seen the sketch of this one as I have s copy in a book and it’s not pretty. 

[scots region]

10 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Quite agree. The Q1 is a pleasing enough loco but any tank engine derivative I’ve seen is fugly. I’ve seen the sketch of this one as I have s copy in a book and it’s not pretty. 

 

I will see your ugly Q1 tank and raise you a Q1 style pacific. 

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157636006074406&set=gm.10156388325635959&type=3&theater

 

Efficient I'm sure, but man its looks are robust. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by AY Mod
Image reproduced without consent, read our copyright rules!

[Compound2632]

But Oliver, I am your father.

[PhilJ W]

What about a 'stretched' Q1, say to a 2-8-0 (8F?).

[Corbs]

I did that somewhere in this thread, I forget where but probably within the last 100 pages...

[rue_d_etropal]

Q1's have come up a few times here. I added several versions to my 3D printed list.

http://www.rue-d-etropal.com/3D-printing/3d_printed_sg-trains-q1-variations.htm

[sir douglas]

LMS styled o gauge single faiirlie from the Model Railway News February 1939

[62613]

1 hour ago, sir douglas said:

LMS styled o gauge single faiirlie from the Model Railway News February 1939

Thought it was some kind of Meyer at first.

[RedGemAlchemist]

1 hour ago, sir douglas said:

LMS styled o gauge single faiirlie from the Model Railway News February 1939

Wow. That's certainly an interesting beast.

[brack]

2 hours ago, sir douglas said:

LMS styled o gauge single faiirlie from the Model Railway News February 1939

Reminds me of the 15" sand Hutton 2-8-4t single fairlie proposal.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎04‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 19:35, 62613 said:

... Clay and Cliffe (The LNER 4-6-0 Classes) have pointed out the difficulties of fitting a decent-sized ashpan to a large-wheeled, large-boilered 4-6-0. I know the GWR managed it, but they seem to have been the exception. It may account for the indifferent steaming of some of the early express passenger 4-6-0s, as they reached the end of a trip.

There's no magic in this. The physical volume available for the ashpan 'is what it is' at the limit for any particular format. Once the ash build up begins to fill the ashpan enough to seriously interfere with airflow to the underside of the grate, power available falls because the maximum combustion rate possible on the grate reduces. This is why all over the world the narrow firebox constrained between the frames became obsolescent as higher power outputs were required.

 

Now, if the fuel produces more energy and less ash per unit mass, you can get more range out of any given ashpan capacity. The GWR's access to boutique welsh coal with 10% higher energy content and a third the ash content, compared to the typical Yorkshire steam coal used in locomotives elsewhere, enabled them to stay narrow firebox over the maximum route lengths their loco had to run.

 

It would have been interesting if it had been possible in the BR exchanges to put the King on a fast through schedule London - Scotland. It simply wouldn't have completed the run on Yorkshire coal, coming off the train 100 miles short as the ashpan choked. (It could probably do it on welsh coal, but not with its own tender which had insufficient bunker capacity, would have needed a 9 ton bunker tender substituted.)

 

That's the why of the wide firebox pacific and larger tenders for such routes, resulting in a loco and tender combination typically 25+% heavier than the 4-6-0. That's rarely taken into account in performance assessment, the 4-6-0 benefits from less weight to move around, roughly one coach less. But if the extra sustained power output gained by the wide firebox is required, it's a price that has to be paid. And despite that, when compared on the same fuels and routes, the LMS and LNER pacifics outperformed the 4-6-0 format overall.

[Traintresta]

6 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

There's no magic in this. The physical volume available for the ashpan 'is what it is' at the limit for any particular format. Once the ash build up begins to fill the ashpan enough to seriously interfere with airflow to the underside of the grate, power available falls because the maximum combustion rate possible on the grate reduces. This is why all over the world the narrow firebox constrained between the frames became obsolescent as higher power outputs were required.

 

Now, if the fuel produces more energy and less ash per unit mass, you can get more range out of any given ashpan capacity. The GWR's access to boutique welsh coal with 10% higher energy content and a third the ash content, compared to the typical Yorkshire steam coal used in locomotives elsewhere, enabled them to stay narrow firebox over the maximum route lengths their loco had to run.

 

It would have been interesting if it had been possible in the BR exchanges to put the King on a fast through schedule London - Scotland. It simply wouldn't have completed the run on Yorkshire coal, coming off the train 100 miles short as the ashpan choked. (It could probably do it on welsh coal, but not with its own tender which had insufficient bunker capacity, would have needed a 9 ton bunker tender substituted.)

 

That's the why of the wide firebox pacific and larger tenders for such routes, resulting in a loco and tender combination typically 25+% heavier than the 4-6-0. That's rarely taken into account in performance assessment, the 4-6-0 benefits from less weight to move around, roughly one coach less. But if the extra sustained power output gained by the wide firebox is required, it's a price that has to be paid. And despite that, when compared on the same fuels and routes, the LMS and LNER pacifics outperformed the 4-6-0 format overall.

Now I understand why the BR STD class 5 was originally conceived as a Pacific, even though nothing came of it. 

 

I’ve always wondered why the 2-6-2 didn’t get more attention, the V2 is practically a Pacific sized loco but the V4 would have been a very interesting alternative to the B1 and other companies similar 4-6-0’s. Better riding qualities for the crew and a reasonably low axle weight to boot. A BR std 4 or 5 2-6-2 tender loco could be interesting. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 minutes ago, Traintresta said:

...I’ve always wondered why the 2-6-2 didn’t get more attention, the V2 is practically a Pacific sized loco ... 

The LMS took a look during the war, but nationalisation killed that, and exploration of the even more promising 'next size up' mixed traffic format loco, the 2-8-2. These machines were very successful utility machines in North America, France and Germany, and there is no reason why they should not have been so here. A build of 311 6' wheel 2-8-2's instead of the 7MT, 6MT, 9F and 8P standards would have been a considerable asset to BR as a 'universal' high power steam unit.

 

Now that would be a machine to see for real. Just rebuild a Brit...

[rockershovel]

On 03/07/2019 at 23:13, brack said:

Reminds me of the 15" sand Hutton 2-8-4t single fairlie proposal.

 

Oh, you can’t leave it at that! Do tell! 

[62613]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

There's no magic in this. The physical volume available for the ashpan 'is what it is' at the limit for any particular format. Once the ash build up begins to fill the ashpan enough to seriously interfere with airflow to the underside of the grate, power available falls because the maximum combustion rate possible on the grate reduces. This is why all over the world the narrow firebox constrained between the frames became obsolescent as higher power outputs were required.

 

Now, if the fuel produces more energy and less ash per unit mass, you can get more range out of any given ashpan capacity. The GWR's access to boutique welsh coal with 10% higher energy content and a third the ash content, compared to the typical Yorkshire steam coal used in locomotives elsewhere, enabled them to stay narrow firebox over the maximum route lengths their loco had to run.

 

It would have been interesting if it had been possible in the BR exchanges to put the King on a fast through schedule London - Scotland. It simply wouldn't have completed the run on Yorkshire coal, coming off the train 100 miles short as the ashpan choked. (It could probably do it on welsh coal, but not with its own tender which had insufficient bunker capacity, would have needed a 9 ton bunker tender substituted.)

 

That's the why of the wide firebox pacific and larger tenders for such routes, resulting in a loco and tender combination typically 25+% heavier than the 4-6-0. That's rarely taken into account in performance assessment, the 4-6-0 benefits from less weight to move around, roughly one coach less. But if the extra sustained power output gained by the wide firebox is required, it's a price that has to be paid. And despite that, when compared on the same fuels and routes, the LMS and LNER pacifics outperformed the 4-6-0 format overall.

I think that was what I was trying to get at. The book in question was a thorough-going look at the LNER 4-6-0 classes; the locos in question were mainly the ex-GC express passenger types, and the later LNER B17/B2, all with comparatively large coupled wheels

[RLBH]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 

Now, if the fuel produces more energy and less ash per unit mass, you can get more range out of any given ashpan capacity. The GWR's access to boutique welsh coal with 10% higher energy content and a third the ash content, compared to the typical Yorkshire steam coal used in locomotives elsewhere, enabled them to stay narrow firebox over the maximum route lengths their loco had to run.

 

In essence, the GWR was very fortunate in having access to exceptionally high quality coal, and a network with comparatively short workings, which meant that it could get away with 4-6-0s up to the point where alternative traction was replacing steam of any kind. Although the repeated references to a GWR Pacific suggest that the writing was on the wall, even if the drawings hadn't been authorised yet.

2 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Now I understand why the BR STD class 5 was originally conceived as a Pacific, even though nothing came of it. 

 

 I’ve always wondered why the 2-6-2 didn’t get more attention, the V2 is practically a Pacific sized loco but the V4 would have been a very interesting alternative to the B1 and other companies similar 4-6-0’s. Better riding qualities for the crew and a reasonably low axle weight to boot. A BR std 4 or 5 2-6-2 tender loco could be interesting. 

A Standard 2-6-2 might have been an interesting beast, as might be the proposed LMS 2-6-2 - which I believe was to have borne a similar relation to their Pacifics as the V2 did to an A3. 

 

On a totally unrelated note - the feverish imaginings of Robert Francis Fairlie in 1868.

 

 

It's not entirely clear to me whether to class this as a locomotive or not. The description of this... thing is:

 

"The Metropolitan [Railway] should be conducted by stock giving the minimum of dead weight with the maximum of efficiency; this, I think, could be best done by wyat may be termed steam omnibuses, made to carry say 60 passengers, but with power sufficient to haul additional carriages during the busiest hours of the day -- in the middle or slack time the omnibuses could alone carry the mean average of passengers. The weight of the entire machine, together with its load of passengers, would be less than that of the present locomotive engine alone. I have brought here to-night the drawing of a steam carriage, designed expressly for conducting the traffic of the proposed cheap lines in Ireland, which will be useful to show you the character of steam omnibuses (to be modified to suit circumstances) I should recommend for working metropolitan lines. This carriage would work with efficiency and economy the line over Mount Cenis."

 

So there we have it. A lightweight locomotive, capable of carrying 60 passengers plus hauling a number of carriages, and ideally suited to cheaply built rural lines, steeply graded mountain railways, and busy city commuter lines! I can only assume that the passengers were presumed to be of small stature, given the height of the passenger saloons.

[62613]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

Now I understand why the BR STD class 5 was originally conceived as a Pacific, even though nothing came of it. 

 

I’ve always wondered why the 2-6-2 didn’t get more attention, the V2 is practically a Pacific sized loco but the V4 would have been a very interesting alternative to the B1 and other companies similar 4-6-0’s. Better riding qualities for the crew and a reasonably low axle weight to boot. A BR std 4 or 5 2-6-2 tender loco could be interesting. 

The V4 was overly complex for what it was though, wasn't it? The B1 was class 5, and the V4 was class 4

[Traintresta]

From what I understand the LMS 2-6-2 would have been very much like the V2 in respect of its relationship to the Pacific’s. The resin it probably wasn’t built was that there wasn’t much need to have a loco in between the black 5 and the Pacific’s. The LNER didn’t have a decent, all-around 4-6-0 at that point. 

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

The V4 was overly complex for what it was though, wasn't it? The B1 was class 5, and the V4 was class 4

Could quite easily have made a 2 cylinder version which would have been less complex. The wide firebox was deemed to be more expensive but you would have got more sustained power on less desirable coal. 

 

According to Wikipedia, the V4 was a 6p5f. 

[The Johnster]

I think the main point about the GWR Hawksworth/Mattingley pacific is that it was so much talked about, but never even seriously considered for building.  A pacific had been tried before on the GW, and not been worth pursuing, and in the late 40s Castles were capable of most of the work, though I am sure the loco dept would have liked more King sized locos for the heaviest work.  They were of course hobbled by the Civil Engineer, who didn't like the axle loads.  A King is about the biggest you can get a 4-6-0 to go without sacrificing wheel diameter to the extent that you curtail top speed and ride within the loading gauge.  

 

It's close to what the basic layout will sustain as well; note that when power output was increased by double chimneys and other tweaks in the 50s the locos dropped like ninepins after a few years with broken frames, something that also happened to the similarly uprated rebuilt Royal Scots.

 

When a pacific was sent to the WR, it was not liked (except at Canton, where a big free-steaming boiler and the capacity of a 2 cylinder loco to slog was appreciated on the long drag from the bottom of the Severn Tunnel to Badminton with 14 on unassisted) and in any case intended only to perform Castle work, not King.  By and large, GW men saw them as pointless.  For the reasons stated by others; shorter distance runs and Welsh coal.

 

A Hawksworth/Mattingley pacific would most likely have been a Swindon version of the Princess Royal, a rather dated design in the late 1940s.  This would have been long enough to demand oval buffers and too long for King sized turntables.

[62613]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

Could quite easily have made a 2 cylinder version which would have been less complex. The wide firebox was deemed to be more expensive but you would have got more sustained power on less desirable coal. 

 

According to Wikipedia, the V4 was a 6p5f. 

In my 1955 Ian Allan combined it was 4MT. Gresley was wedded to 3-cyliner designs, apart from the J38/J39, which were, IIRC entirely Darlington products.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by 62613

[Traintresta]

59 minutes ago, 62613 said:

In my 1955 Ian Allan combined it was 4MT. Gresley was wedded to 3-cyliner designs, apart from the J38/J39, which were, IIRC entirely Darlington products.

 

 

I'll take Ian Allen's word over Wikipedia's. 

 

Gresley did rely on the 3 cylinder design very heavily, I'm not sure I could argue that was a problem but he did seem to use it on almost everything. The J38/39 was drawn up at Darlington, as were the D49's i believe, hence the NER quadrants in the running plates as opposed to the doncaster reverse S-curve.