Imaginary Locomotives

[rodent279]

Earlier on in the thread, there was some discussion about turbine locos, and I suggested that some turbine driven 8F's might have been useful. I was surprised to read in Tim Hillier-Graves book "The Turbomotive, Stanier's Advanced Pacific", that Stanier himself considered exactly that. Shame it didn't come about, I think an impressive machine would have been the result.

[Cunningham Loco & Machine Works]

Interestingly enough, a rough equivalent operated in revenue service(!) in Sweden.

[rodent279]

8 hours ago, Cunningham Loco & Machine Works said:

Interestingly enough, a rough equivalent operated in revenue service(!) in Sweden.

Yes, Stanier knew about them, and visited Sweden to see them. All 3 are preserved, and one has been in operation, though what it's status is now I don't know.

[Corbs]

I tried to see if I could make a Ljungström Turbine loco out of 8F components. One of the issues is, as always, the loading gauge.

 

-Because you can't go taller, you can't plonk the firebox on top of the wheels. The SJ 2-8-0 has a stubby boiler but mounted quite high up.

-Therefore the rear two axles need to be spaced apart

-Even if you shorten the smokebox, you can't put the jackshaft in front of it without having an unfeasibly long rod connecting to the lead driving axle.

-If you add a driving axle, you still get the weird spacing because of the firebox, so it ends up with a longer wheelbase than a 9F

So this has become a 2-8-2 with outside axleboxes on the carrying axles. Perhaps the front one should be smaller diameter wheel to make more room for the jackshaft but you may have to use your imagination.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Corbs

[Ramblin Rich]

That still looks like a workable setup, Corbs. Nice work

What on earth have you used for the turbine image?

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Ramblin Rich
silly phone keyboard

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

I tried to see if I could make a Ljungström Turbine loco out of 8F components. One of the issues is, as always, the loading gauge.

 

-Because you can't go taller, you can't plonk the firebox on top of the wheels. The SJ 2-8-0 has a stubby boiler but mounted quite high up.

-Therefore the rear two axles need to be spaced apart

-Even if you shorten the smokebox, you can't put the jackshaft in front of it without having an unfeasibly long rod connecting to the lead driving axle.

-If you add a driving axle, you still get the weird spacing because of the firebox, so it ends up with a longer wheelbase than a 9F

So this has become a 2-8-2 with outside axleboxes on the carrying axles. Perhaps the front one should be smaller diameter wheel to make more room for the jackshaft but you may have to use your imagination.

 

Nice artwork, and as Rich says, it does look convincing.

But, step forward 50+ years to the late 80's, and take inspiration from the class 91-why not use a cardan shaft drive to the front axle?  Then mount the forward and reverse turbines (if they are separate units) in place of the cylinders, between/across the frames, like on 6202?

And if you're going to give it a trailing axle, why not go the whole hog and give it a wide firebox as well? Maybe the whole arrangement would suit either a 9F or a WD 2-10-0 better?

Edited February 24, 2020 by rodent279

[Corbs]

3 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

That still looks like a workable setup, Corbs. Nice work

What on earth have you used for the turbine image?

 

 

Cheers Rich, the turbine was taken from this photo of one of the preserved ones:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/9534925437/in/photostream/

 

Note how the leading wheels are right under the smokebox. I kind of considered a rebuild of one of the LNWR G2as, or maybe Stanier could have found an excuse to rebuild some of the Austin 7s?

 

Maybe the 9F type boiler would work, perhaps even a Brittania boiler and rear axle would work better, or base it on the 'neverwazza' 2-8-2 design?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Corbs

[Gibbo675]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Nice artwork, and as Rich says, it does look convincing.

But, step forward 50+ years to the late 80's, and take inspiration from the class 91-why not use a cardan shaft drive to the front axle?  Then mount the forward and reverse turbines (if they are separate units) in place of the cylinders, between/across the frames, like on 6202?

And if you're going to give it a trailing axle, why not go the whole hog and give it a wide firebox as well? Maybe the whole arrangement would suit either a 9F or a WD 2-10-0 better?

Hi Corbs,

 

Why not put the turbine under the smoke box and drive the leading axle directly rather than trough a jack-shaft. That way you could leave the coupled wheels where they are and dispense with the trailing truck, also only the front truck would likely need altering. After all that is all that was done to the Princess Royal class to end up with Turbomotive.

 

Gibbo,

[Corbs]

Thought I might as well try it on an Austin 7, one with an ACFI heater (though I did have to shorten the boiler a tad).

 

The smokebox door has been replaced with a smaller, offset one and the coupled wheelbase has been shortened.

 

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Corbs said:

I tried to see if I could make a Ljungström Turbine loco out of 8F components. One of the issues is, as always, the loading gauge.

 

-Because you can't go taller, you can't plonk the firebox on top of the wheels. The SJ 2-8-0 has a stubby boiler but mounted quite high up.

-Therefore the rear two axles need to be spaced apart

-Even if you shorten the smokebox, you can't put the jackshaft in front of it without having an unfeasibly long rod connecting to the lead driving axle.

-If you add a driving axle, you still get the weird spacing because of the firebox, so it ends up with a longer wheelbase than a 9F

So this has become a 2-8-2 with outside axleboxes on the carrying axles. Perhaps the front one should be smaller diameter wheel to make more room for the jackshaft but you may have to use your imagination.

 

 

 

I think a turbo-8F would be more likely to follow the pattern of the Turbomotive pacific and look pretty much like a standard 8F as far forward as where the cylinders would usually be. 

 

It might even be possible to retain the 2-8-0 layout at the front.  The Turbomotive had a large bulbous casing over the bogie, but oddly the drawings and photos suggest it was mostly empty.  If that was the case, then the pony wheel would fit below the turbine exhaust ducting in its usual location. Otherwise, or if weight was an issue, a bogie arranged as on the Turbomotive could be used. 

 

The smokebox would in either case need to be lengthened forwards to accommodate the exhaust pipes and the running plate would need to be raised over the turbine casings.

 

I doubt the expense of such a loco would be worthwhile for most of the kind of work the 8Fs did, though.

[Corbs]

Yeah, different kind of turbine altogether isn't it? Rather than the hybrid Ljungström version I went for. Would make much more sense. Then again the NOHAB ones worked until the end of steam on their routes.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

Thought I might as well try it on an Austin 7, one with an ACFI heater (though I did have to shorten the boiler a tad).

 

The smokebox door has been replaced with a smaller, offset one and the coupled wheelbase has been shortened.

 

I reckon that's a massive improvement on the looks of an Austin 7, and might have transformed it into a decent loco, especially with better axleboxes!

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

Thought I might as well try it on an Austin 7, one with an ACFI heater (though I did have to shorten the boiler a tad).

 

The smokebox door has been replaced with a smaller, offset one and the coupled wheelbase has been shortened

 

Top shoppage and a completely credible experimental loco from the pre-Stanier era of confusion on the LMS.  Still a terrible idea though:  again, much too pricey for Austin 7 work.

 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I reckon that's a massive improvement on the looks of an Austin 7, and might have transformed it into a decent loco, especially with better axleboxes!

 

To make a decent loco, all that was needed were better axleboxes and preferably a proper cylindrical smokebox: the boiler, cylinders, motion etc were actually fine. I'd add a Horwich cab to complete the aesthetic of a modernised Hughes teddy bear, but that isn't strictly necessary.  As I've said before, probably on this thread, the result would have been perfectly adequate to plod along with unfitted coal trains and cheaper to build than an 8F. 

[sir douglas]

unofficial proposal for the Harrogate gas works Peckett drawn by an FR member during the time it was owned by the Ffestiniog but never restored to working order (1957-87). this came up in a facebook NG group last week

[rockershovel]

On 25/02/2020 at 09:53, sir douglas said:

unofficial proposal for the Harrogate gas works Peckett drawn by an FR member during the time it was owned by the Ffestiniog but never restored to working order (1957-87). this came up in a facebook NG group last week

 

Interesting, in the light of subsequent alterations to the “Penryn ladies”

[rockershovel]

As a general comment on the Lundstrom turbine locos - 

 

- do they have self-cleaning smokeboxes? Shovelling out the smokebox over the turbine casing seems a right palaver. 

- what sort of traffic were they employed on? Continuous runs, or the stop-start patterns most common in U.K. usage? 

 

[rodent279]

22 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

As a general comment on the Lundstrom turbine locos - 

 

- do they have self-cleaning smokeboxes? Shovelling out the smokebox over the turbine casing seems a right palaver. 

- what sort of traffic were they employed on? Continuous runs, or the stop-start patterns most common in U.K. usage? 

 

Ore trains on a 150 mile run between Oxelosund-Grangesberg. Don't know about continuous running, but it sounds like the sort of work suited to turbines. They were at it for 30-odd years, so clearly weren't an abysmal failure.

Edited February 28, 2020 by rodent279

[Corbs]

Interestingly I asked Sabina (who is Swedish) how to pronounce it and she said it’s ‘yoond strurm’ so the L is silent and the J is pronounced as a Y.

 

ö is pronounced as ‘urrrr’.

[rodent279]

1500 tonne trains at around 43mph, according to Tufnell's "Prototype Locomotives". I doubt if anything similar existed in the UK until the block trains of the 60's onwards.

 

Edit:-maximum 43mph. The turbine was rated at 1270hp at 27mph. Maybe not far off the sort of thing the LMS Garrets were used on, though not sure they loaded as much as 1500tonne.

Edited February 28, 2020 by rodent279

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

Interestingly I asked Sabina (who is Swedish) how to pronounce it and she said it’s ‘yoond strurm’ so the L is silent and the J is pronounced as a Y.

 

ö is pronounced as ‘urrrr’.

 

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

45 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

1500 tonne trains at around 43mph, according to Tufnell's "Prototype Locomotives". I doubt if anything similar existed in the UK until the block trains of the 60's onwards.

 

 

It's a god-awful looking thing, but it seems to run well enough.  Steady as a rock, no slipping and fussing.  Impressed.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[PhilJ W]

Strange little 4 wheel tender.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

 

It's a god-awful looking thing, but it seems to run well enough.  Steady as a rock, no slipping and fussing.  Impressed.

 

Compared to most of the turbine locos, not least that Beyer-Ljunstrom contraption, it looks quite handsome - at least, as though it was designed that way, rather than assembled from anything lying around in the works. Not as stylish as Turbomotive, but definitely a step in the right direction. 

 

The LMS Beyer-Ljunstrom seems to have ultimately been like the rest, though - worked well enough, but not worth the extra cost and complexity. 

 

The Americans got it right, though - there’s no reason why a locomotive of this sort, needs to look like a Stephenson steam loco at all; and ultimately, if you are going to have a turbine, the best place for it, is in a power station. 

[rodent279]

I think it looks a beaut!

[Niels]

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Ore trains on a 150 mile run between Oxelosund-Grangesberg. Don't know about continuous running, but it sounds like the sort of work suited to turbines. They were at it for 30-odd years, so clearly weren't an abysmal failure.

It is also 300 meter down so hardest job was probably taking emty cars back.