Imaginary Locomotives

[Niels]

6 minutes ago, Signal Box Cat said:

Hi,

the Bavarian 0-4-0T had NO inside connecting rods and NO oposing pistons!

There was a single piston moving inside the cylinder but its rod was connected at each end to the drivers via coupling rods. That´s all.

 

 

 

They  had two inside coupling rods and four opposing pistons in two outside cylinders.

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Great Western Garratts 

 

 

 

probably would have been as poor as the Midland ones

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Great Western Garratts 

 

 

 

probably would have been as poor as the Midland ones

Hi Dr Frittters,

 

If only the railway companies had kept their ideas out of Beyer Peacocks drawing offices !

 

On the plus side GWR axle boxes were somewhat better designed and proportioned for a locomotive of that size than those of the Midland Railway.

 

Gibbo.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Great Western Garratts 

 

probably would have been as poor as the Midland ones

 

That is to say, they would have trundled away adequately enough at their assigned tasks for thirty years without adding any sparkle to the name of Beyer-Garratt.

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, Signal Box Cat said:

the Bavarian 0-4-0T had NO inside connecting rods and NO oposing pistons! There was a single piston moving inside the cylinder but its rod was connected at each end to the drivers via coupling rods. That´s all.

 

12 minutes ago, Niels said:

They  had two inside coupling rods and four opposing pistons in two outside cylinders.

 

@Signal Box Cat, @Niels summarises the layout of the Bavarian Class ML 2/2 locomotives built by Maffei in 1906-8, which were the locomotives under discussion. I suspect you may be thinking of the Class PtL 2/2 locomotives built by Krauss in 1905-6 which were more conventional except that the coupling rods drove a jackshaft that was connected to the drivers via coupling rods - something like a 0-6-0 but without the centre wheels. 

 

Curious machines, one and all. Far too many bearing surfaces for the job at hand.

[melmerby]

37 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

Great Western Garratts 

 

 

 

probably would have been as poor as the Midland ones

I doubt it as it was starting from further up the ladder.

The boiler is unlike a GWR one apart from a slight taper, copper capped chimney & brass S/V cover.

It's short, fat & has a wide firebox, the engine units are based on existing GWR designs which were proven.

The Midland Garratt didn't even use an existing loco type as a base.

(Gresley's Garratt was based around two of his 2-8-0 machines, which were more than satisfactory.)

 

The problem with these giants is finding work for them.

The Midland Garratts pottered along adequately doing the work of a couple of 4F locos but using one crew and as such they could be classed as successful, if a tad maintenance hungry.

The GWR managed quite happpily with what they already had.

Gresley's Garratt did the job it was designed for, when that went it was found difficult to find any more suitable work for it.

It proved too long as a Lickey banker and just slipped into obscurity and scrapping.

 

[JimC]

2 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

If only the railway companies had kept their ideas out of Beyer Peacocks drawing offices !

Think the boot was on the other foot, and it was a Beyer peacock proposal to the GWR.

[RLBH]

14 hours ago, JimC said:

Think the boot was on the other foot, and it was a Beyer peacock proposal to the GWR.

One imagines Beyer Peacock were desperate for a British railway company to buy some Beyer-Garratt locomotives. It really doesn't help an export effort if you can't sell your product at home!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎09‎/‎02‎/‎2020 at 14:02, rockershovel said:

Thats interesting, for a number of reasons 

 

- it explains why the possible 9F 2-8-2 wasn’t preferred...

I'd argue that it doesn't. The argument advanced that the 4-8-0 is based on proven designs ignores that the 4-8-0 is a relative rarity, whereas the 2-8-2 was very numerous indeed and generally a great success where employed. So there must be ways of working around the cited problems, no? The immediate benefit of the deeper grate and larger ashpan over a carrying wheelset is so well proven as beneficial in the use of low grade coal to make anyone ignoring this factor look like very low wattage light bulb indeed...

 

Happily, we are going to get the machine that should enable the imagined bogeys of the 2-8-2 format to be put to bed.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, jf2682 said:

I don't think Beyer-Peacock had any difficulty at all selling locomotives around the world!

 

2682

B-Ps excel where the combination of high T.E., low axle loads, low grade fuel needing a wide forebox, and sharp curvature occur.  A loco for the Empire, no real work for it here. 

[PenrithBeacon]

On 09/02/2020 at 11:13, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

The BR late steam 4-8-0 was pretty thoroughly worked out in this scheme I found in one of my elderly railway books.   Quite an odd looking beast...

 

There doesn't seem to be any provenance with this engine; it isn't mentioned in any histories of British steam loco design I know of and that tender is alien.

[PenrithBeacon]

On 09/02/2020 at 14:02, rockershovel said:

 

Thats interesting, for a number of reasons 

 

- it explains why the possible 9F 2-8-2 wasn’t preferred

- it uses what appears to be, some sort of Engerth-style semi-articulated tender 

- it clearly identifies that the general state of the rolling stock fleet, was a primary constraint on motive power design, that as much power as could be effectively used, was available within the existing loading gauge

 

I’ve heard it said, more than once that steam traction was originally envisaged as ending in the 1980s, to achieve cost-effective service lives from the massive programme of building locos necessary to replace the worn-out, ageing Pre-War and in many cases, pre-grouping fleet inherited in 1948, as quickly as possible. 

 

The proposed BR 2-8-2 design was opposed by Riddles because he foresaw the need for a heavy freight engine that was  more powerful than the existing grouping 2-8-0 designs and he was impressed by the possibilities of the extra adhesion shown by the WD 2-10-0. He therefore insisted that work on the 2-8-2, which was intended as a heavy duty mixed traffic engine, was stopped.

 

History, I think, shows he was right.

[Gibbo675]

12 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There doesn't seem to be any provenance with this engine; it isn't mentioned in any histories of British steam loco design I know of and that tender is alien.

Hi David,

 

It looks like one of David "Red Devil" Wardale's contraptions.

 

Gibbo.

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I'd argue that it doesn't. The argument advanced that the 4-8-0 is based on proven designs ignores that the 4-8-0 is a relative rarity, whereas the 2-8-2 was very numerous indeed and generally a great success where employed. So there must be ways of working around the cited problems, no? The immediate benefit of the deeper grate and larger ashpan over a carrying wheelset is so well proven as beneficial in the use of low grade coal to make anyone ignoring this factor look like very low wattage light bulb indeed...

 

Happily, we are going to get the machine that should enable the imagined bogeys of the 2-8-2 format to be put to bed.

 

Up to a point, Lord Copper; it states quite clearly that the proposed 2-8-2 was not preferred due to issues with tracking at speed, and weight transfer rearwards when starting. 

 

It’s worth remarking that the 2-8-2 type was primarily favoured where large fireboxes for burning low grade fuel were felt to be required. The Americans had great success with them, in particular. 

 

 

 

[RLBH]

13 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There doesn't seem to be any provenance with this engine; it isn't mentioned in any histories of British steam loco design I know of and that tender is alien.

It's credited to an A. C. Sterndale, seemingly a railway photographer writer also credited as Tony Sterndale - so I assume the 'A' is Anthony. He worked variously in the Swindon drawing offices and testing team, so would have had some familiarity with locomotive design.

 

The 4-8-0 does seem to be Swindon influenced in design - the choice of that wheel arrangement over a 2-8-2 in particular being consistent with GWR preferences for 4-6-0s over Pacifics. I would suggest that the 4-8-0 is a private 'flight of fancy' from Sterndale in the same vein as those we know about from Durrant or Powell. Such schemes are endlessly fascinating as they illustrate the thoughts of those who were there about what they would have liked to have done, given a free hand.

[BernardTPM]

That possibly explains the coil sprung tender bogies - the B4 coach bogie was designed at Swindon.

Edited February 11, 2020 by BernardTPM

[rockershovel]

On 10/02/2020 at 12:17, jf2682 said:

I don't think Beyer-Peacock had any difficulty at all selling locomotives around the world!

 

2682

 

..... until they suddenly couldn’t, when they found that British Railways would commit to dieselisation, the Empire was gone and they had backed the wrong horse in the diesel-electric/diesel hydraulic stakes....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

18 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The proposed BR 2-8-2 design was opposed by Riddles because he foresaw the need for a heavy freight engine that was  more powerful than the existing grouping 2-8-0 designs and he was impressed by the possibilities of the extra adhesion shown by the WD 2-10-0. He therefore insisted that work on the 2-8-2, which was intended as a heavy duty mixed traffic engine, was stopped.

 

History, I think, shows he was right.

Insufficient evidence. He had a success. Whether he might have had yet greater success with a 2-8-2, cannot be evaluated because it was not tested. A larger wheeled explicitly mixed traffic 2-8-2 might not have run into the speed restriction imposed on the 9F for example. And it could have run on the present network thanks to no flangeless wheel...

[PenrithBeacon]

44 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Insufficient evidence. He had a success. Whether he might have had yet greater success with a 2-8-2, cannot be evaluated because it was not tested. A larger wheeled explicitly mixed traffic 2-8-2 might not have run into the speed restriction imposed on the 9F for example. And it could have run on the present network thanks to no flangeless wheel...

Sorry but the comment about the flangeless wheel is irrelevant. The proposed 2-8-2 was to have 5'-3" wheels while the 9F had 5'-0" wheels. the difference is only relevant because a ten-coupled engine would have better adhesion than an eight-coupled engine while the 3" difference in wheel diameter would make no difference at all to top speeds. The 9F could reach 75mph comfortably, with a top speed of around 90, and might have become a mixed traffic design in time if given train heating. The problem, of course, was that time wasn't on the side of steam traction.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

2 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Sorry but the comment about the flangeless wheel is irrelevant. The proposed 2-8-2 was to have 5'-3" wheels while the 9F had 5'-0" wheels. the difference is only relevant because a ten-coupled engine would have better adhesion than an eight-coupled engine while the 3" difference in wheel diameter would make no difference at all to top speeds.

But only if the rather muddled and timid Riddles concept is accepted. Forty square feet in the grate isn't necessary for a secondary route loco. BR was awash with locos suitable for that application. Go for the sensible 20 -22 ton axleload for what is only ever going to make sense as a main line loco, and adhesion aplenty is available. Use a wheel in the 5'8 to 6' range well proven for sufficient speed in mixed traffic service, and a much different machine emerges. That's the missed opportunity, an explicitly heavy fast mixed traffic mainline machine. Essentially a high adhesion Britannia.

[The Johnster]

I really can’t think of anything more contentious, and repeatedly so, on this thread than Riddles’ Mikado, though the Mattingley Pacific runs it close.  Neither loco ever progressed beyond GA drawing stage, equivalent to thinking aloud in your general musings.  There were very good reasons why they were never built, better than the reasons for some locos that were, but their popularity with enthusiasts is undying; an RTR model of either would probably sell better than a new Manor!

 

I respectfully propose giving them their own thread, so as to prevent them continuing to be a distraction here....

 

(I neither confirm nor deny that there may or may not be an element or no element whatsoever of ‘tongue in, or out, of cheek’ to, or from, this comment...)

Edited February 11, 2020 by The Johnster

[Corbs]

I could be mistaken, but does the Sterndale 4-8-0 have a cast bed frame rather than a plate frame?

[rockershovel]

30 minutes ago, Corbs said:

I could be mistaken, but does the Sterndale 4-8-0 have a cast bed frame rather than a plate frame?

 

Says so, in the text

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

But only if the rather muddled and timid Riddles concept is accepted. Forty square feet in the grate isn't necessary for a secondary route loco. BR was awash with locos suitable for that application. Go for the sensible 20 -22 ton axleload for what is only ever going to make sense as a main line loco, and adhesion aplenty is available. Use a wheel in the 5'8 to 6' range well proven for sufficient speed in mixed traffic service, and a much different machine emerges. That's the missed opportunity, an explicitly heavy fast mixed traffic mainline machine. Essentially a high adhesion Britannia.

Seem to be getting close to Churchward's 47XX here!

[Niels]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

 

I respectfully propose giving them their own thread, so as to prevent them continuing to be a distraction here....

 

(I neither confirm nor deny that there may or may not be an element or no element whatsoever of ‘tongue in, or out, of cheek’ to, or from, this comment...)

 

i hope this is not to far of.

Mr Raven (My Hero) made   a Pacific that mr Gresley did not care for.

If  CMEs had not been so obsessed with 6feet nine drivers for expres trains, he could have saved shareholders a lot by just having fitted a wide firebox boiler and trailing truck to an S3(later B16/1) with 5 feet 8 drivers.

He could have studied/copied the hungarian class 424 locomotive that was produced to order from 1924 to 1955 I think in more than 500 pieces.

It would have meant no further UK Pacifics antedating Chapelon going that way.

With five feet drivers,three cylinders and a wide firebox it could have been a world beater

Edited February 12, 2020 by Niels