Imaginary Locomotives

[RedGemAlchemist]

2 minutes ago, AlexHolt said:

Heres one I did. Although not an imaginary locomotive its an imaginary livery.

Thompson A2/1 in BR Black.

 

Imaginary livery, but it does look gorgeous. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

You'd need a gas axe to get that to fit the LNER loading gauge!

It's a pity the GWR didn't keep the broad gauge structure clearance, then we could have had 16' high x 10' wide locos like the USA.

[PhilJ W]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

? 

 

For South Coast services ..

60710 Hengist and 60711 his wife (?or horse), Horsa 

 

 

 

IIRC Hengist and Horsa were brothers.

[rockershovel]

25 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

IIRC Hengist and Horsa were brothers.

 

But note the definitive authorities on “all the history you can remember”...

 

“Memorable among the Saxon warriors were Hengist and his wife (? or horse), Horsa. Hengist made himself King in the South. Thus Hengist was the first English King and his wife (or horse), Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse).”

― W.C. Sellar, 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by rockershovel

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

The Hiawatha F7s were something else altogether; do we get the illuminated drivers and motion? ...

Well, the W1 in original form was fitted with electric lighting in this style. so why not?

 

As for the 2-8-2, a sadly missed opportunity in the UK - and we all know who was responsible for destroying the few examples constructed, don't we children? - three hundred of a  6' wheel 2-8-2 'Britannia' would have been a better investment than the Riddles pacific and 2-10-0 build, a truly universal heavy mixed traffic machine. They worked well in France, Germany and North America...

[JimC]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

It's a pity the GWR didn't keep the broad gauge structure clearance, then we could have had 16' high x 10' wide locos like the USA.

 

What's easily forgotten is that only a part of the eventual GWR was built to that structure. I haven't managed to find most of the detail, but I understand that although the GWR structure gauge for GWR built lines (London Bristol Line et al) was indeed very generous and would solve a lot of problems today, not even all of the broad gauge was built to that. If my understanding is correct the Bristol and Exeter and the South Devon were built to a smaller structure gauge, and all the northern division lines were never broad gauge anyway. 

 

GWR 9'6 width carriages were prohibited N of Wolverhampton and Hereford, and much of Wales, ex MSWJR and various joint lines, which suggests those were areas where the bigger structure gauge never applied.

[JimC]

22 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

As for the 2-8-2, a sadly missed opportunity in the UK - and we all know who was responsible for destroying the few examples constructed, don't we children?

 

Or alternatively the mediocre record of those few examples demonstrated that they were not a good idea in the UK. One invokes one's prejudices and takes one's pick...

[rockershovel]

26 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

Or alternatively the mediocre record of those few examples demonstrated that they were not a good idea in the UK. One invokes one's prejudices and takes one's pick...

 

Surely the REAL point is that the prevalent 2-8-0 and 4-6-0 types demonstrated that it was possible to construct a firebox as large as could be made practical use of, without trailing wheels.

[Gibbo675]

5 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

Surely the REAL point is that the prevalent 2-8-0 and 4-6-0 types demonstrated that it was possible to construct a firebox as large as could be made practical use of, without trailing wheels.

Hi Mr Shovel,

 

The point regarding fire boxes is not just size but shape. The shape of a fire box is dependant upon the type of coal to be burned in it, which is the main reason why  2-8-0 and 4-6-0 types prevailed in Britain for as long as they did. By the time traffic requirements justified large fire boxes diesels were well on their way as was electrification.

 

Gibbo.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

Heres one I did. Although not an imaginary locomotive its an imaginary livery.

Thompson A2/1 in BR Black.

 

I like the Black A2/1 (tender lining will set it off even better) but in the background, an Edinburgh-Glasgow Push-Pull set which passes under the Isle of Wight line with it's '38 Tube stock.

You're clearly someone of eclectic tastes!

[rockershovel]

20 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Mr Shovel,

 

The point regarding fire boxes is not just size but shape. The shape of a fire box is dependant upon the type of coal to be burned in it, which is the main reason why  2-8-0 and 4-6-0 types prevailed in Britain for as long as they did. By the time traffic requirements justified large fire boxes diesels were well on their way as was electrification.

 

Gibbo.

 

That’s quite true; but the 9F 2-10-0 was a completely new design, produced from a blank sheet of paper. BR had an established large firebox and trailing bogie format, used on 4-6-2 designs. There was the opportunity to produce a 2-8-2, without reference to any type then in service, and it wasn’t chosen. So we must assume that the 2-10-0 was judged superior in technical terms, and it seems to have been a very well regarded design. 

 

The 4-6-0 had shown itself to be well suited to a range of applications. The 2-8-0 and 0-6-0 could find no place in the new scheme of things, despite being highly successful for decades. 

 

We must regard the BR Standards as the culmination of British steam locomotive design.

 

The LNER 2-8-2 had shown itself to be capable of drawing trains too long for the network to cope with. The LNER and LMS Pacifics were making 400 mile, high speed runs on 9 tons of coal, 10 US tons, without coaling en route. Assuming that the best elements of US practice were incorporated in the BR Standards where appropriate, the obvious conclusion is that traffic loads were nowhere near high enough to justify fireboxes requiring 4-wheel trailing bogies to support them. 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

On 06/01/2020 at 17:29, sir douglas said:

i dont think i ever posted my FFestiniog made-ups apart from the mallet many years ago

 

the Englands suffered from a lack of tractive effort on the heavier trains which resulted in extra weight being added with cast iron blocks, extra wheels would give more as well, but would greatly increase the radius of curve they are able to traverse. the large Englands have just enough room in the wheelbase for an extra wheelset but the small ones dont

 

made using a drawing in the industrial and narrow gauge modelling review

 

works drawing of Little Giant. named after Samuel Holland one of the earlier quarry owners in Blaenau, his slates were the main traffic in the early years

 

Little giant at Portmadoc in 1897

 

all the same pros and cons of the above but x2

 

Oh, go on... now you have to show us the Mallet? 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

5 hours ago, AlexHolt said:

Heres one I did. Although not an imaginary locomotive its an imaginary livery...

 

In a similar vein.

 

It's not my model (I wish it was!) but it looks terrific.  And not too much of a stretch to assume that the BR standards were in fact the final generation of LMS locomotives...

 

 

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

4 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

IIRC Hengist and Horsa were brothers.

 

IIRC Hengist and Horsa were gliders

 

[rockershovel]

21 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

IIRC Hengist and Horsa were gliders

 

 

.. as were Hamilcar and Hadrian http://www.dday.center/d-day-technology-gliders.html.    The recovery business sounds absolutely terrifying....

 

[rockershovel]

28 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

In a similar vein.

 

It's not my model (I wish it was!) but it looks terrific.  And not too much of a stretch to assume that the BR standards were in fact the final generation of LMS locomotives...

 

 

 

 

That has the rare quality among neverwazzers, of looking wholly plausible. There must have been some quite clear engineering reason why it wasn’t built. 

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

But note the definitive authorities on “all the history you can remember”...

 

“Memorable among the Saxon warriors were Hengist and his wife (? or horse), Horsa. Hengist made himself King in the South. Thus Hengist was the first English King and his wife (or horse), Horsa, the first English Queen (or horse).”

― W.C. Sellar, 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England

 

 

1066 and all that is not all that reliable>>

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hengist

 

[rockershovel]

19 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

1066 and all that is not all that reliable>>

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hengist

 

 

Oh, I don’t know. “1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates” sounds pretty fair, although I confess I’ve never actually counted them to be certain. 

 

[The Johnster]

On 11/01/2020 at 15:29, melmerby said:

Pity the NCB or LT didn't buy more of the Western's 1960s cast offs, there might be few more preserved tanks.

Dai Woodham's collection of every type of GW side tank that survived beyond 1962 not enough for you?  Missing; Grange, County, 97xx condensing, no.4 boilered large prairie 31xx, 81xx, 74xx (but later 64xx look similar) and 58xx (but 14xx look similar).  A much better representation in preservation than any other big 4 company's tank locos, and perhaps somebody'd like to work out if this is a higher percentage of classes than BR standards, with no Crosti 9F, Clan, 77xxx, 78xxx, 82xxx, or 84xxx preserved as original builds.  

 

LT found the 57xx suitable because of the low cabs, but NCB locos from South Wales seem to have been taken on simply because they were local, in reasonable nick, and available at short notice; the long wheelbase was not particularly suitable for NCB work.  

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Another of my NCB super shunters.  I like lots of twirly bits and outside cylinders, so this is a beefed up Austerity.

 

 

This is a better version than one I did earlier in this thread.

[Flying Pig]

20 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Another of my NCB super shunters.  I like lots of twirly bits and outside cylinders, so this is a beefed up Austerity.

 

 

This is a better version than one I did earlier in this thread.

 

I assume it has all mod cons under the skin?

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Dai Woodham's collection of every type of GW side tank that survived beyond 1962 not enough for you?  Missing; Grange, County, 97xx condensing, no.4 boilered large prairie 31xx, 81xx, 74xx (but later 64xx look similar) and 58xx (but 14xx look similar).  A much better representation in preservation than any other big 4 company's tank locos, and perhaps somebody'd like to work out if this is a higher percentage of classes than BR standards, with no Crosti 9F, Clan, 77xxx, 78xxx, 82xxx, or 84xxx preserved as original builds.  

 

LT found the 57xx suitable because of the low cabs, but NCB locos from South Wales seem to have been taken on simply because they were local, in reasonable nick, and available at short notice; the long wheelbase was not particularly suitable for NCB work.  

Beat me to it, the GWR is very well represented in preservation.  Sadly only one LNER design loco made it to Woodhams.  I agree with your logic as to why the NCB in South Wales acquired GWR Pannier tanks, but it's a shame that they didn't take on a few 94xxs later on.

It would be nice to imagine that other areas of the UK coalfield had done the same, so Scottish and Yorkshire coalfields had things like J83 or J50 tanks which sadly escaped preservation.  After all, a few Jinties survived at collieries (and their predecessor 41708 was one of the ones that ran across the road from Barrow Hill shed, where it now lives).

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I'm not sure if this counts, as it's not an imaginary locomotive but it is an attempt to improve upon its original appearance...

 

[TangoOscarMike]

So, recently Steampunk locomotives have been a topic of conversation. Steampunk locomotives in general, and in particular those based on Hornby's 0-4-0 chassis.

 

I thought about it a bit, and the produced this crude, un-detailed doodle. 

 

 

 

Insofar as this needs (or deserves) any kind of explanation, that's a bunker and a water tank sharing the back. Between the bunker and the firebox there is a mechanical coal feed - the problem with this chassis is that the motor and its mount aren't especially space-efficient.

 

I honestly don't know what I think of this - it might be hideous and stupid or whimsical and charming - I really can't tell.

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by TangoOscarMike
Correcting link

[DavidB-AU]

1 hour ago, TangoOscarMike said:

I honestly don't know what I think of this - it might be hideous and stupid or whimsical and charming - I really can't tell.

 

Just add lots of brass, a telescope and some guns.