Imaginary Locomotives

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I prefer a Lesley Garrett myself

 

 

Gooooooood heavens.....

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

At the risk of starting a bun fight, I would venture to suggest that the J class was an entirely different beast from most UK locomotives.   Built to a much higher standard all round, fully equipped with roller bearings, properly balanced, etc.

 

The N&W was recognised for taking a 'scientific' and thoroughly modern approach to the steam locomotive.  Even the later built UK locos were essentially pretty crude by comparison.   There's a reason the J is classed as a National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark

 

To be fair, it also outclasses most US steamers as well, with the possible exception of the later ALCO articulated (Challenger, Big Boy) and the FEFs

 

Ah, the fully modernised Stephensonian steamer... never to reach its apotheosis

 

 

 

[rodent279]

To be fair, even the BR standards were a good decade or so behind the later German and French standards. Some nods to modern practices, such as rocking grates, self-cleaning smokeboxes etc, but still wouldn't really have been out of place on the 1930's railway.

[AlfaZagato]

I think the designer(s) were from the 1930's railway, too.   It's been said before, steam engineering was largely trial-&-error, save for a few enlightened minds that observed & studied theory, then applied it.

 

So, what could have Chapleon or N&W done with the UK loading gauge?   Balanced, roller bearings, BFB wheels, streamlined steam circuits, Kylchap blastpipe, etc.   Could we see a 140mph Baltic making the trip to Edinburgh?

[rodent279]

Start off with a Britannia, with roller bearings throughout, including big ends and rods. All steel welded boiler and firebox. Add electric lighting, air brakes, either oil or pulverised coal firing, feedwater preheater, steam jacketing, streamlining the internal passages, and you're just about on a par with the German Rekoloks.

[figworthy]

8 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

I prefer a Lesley Garrett myself

 

 

 

Her father used to work on the railway, so vaguely on topic.

 

Adrian

[Corbs]

On 07/05/2010 at 12:47, 28XX said:

It has struck me that there is a significant disconnect between the behaviour of modellers towards rolling stock when compared with the places we model.

 

Many people go to great lengths to ensure that every detail of their engines is historically correct, then cheerfully place them in a ficticious piece of geography.

 

If we allow ourselves to create an imaginary world, then surely we should imagine also that the railway companies built additional stock to serve the line, because all the real vehicles were busy serving the real world.

 

I am not necessarily advocating freelance designs but, rather as we adopt characteristic architectural styles and standard buildings, we could postulate extra members of real locomotive classes. If the traffic demands it, we could also propose variants or sub classes of real designs.

 

Discuss....

 

 

Jumping back a bit, it's interesting that the OP (28xx) did not intend for this thread to be either about whacky designs, nor 'what ifs', but extensions to existing classes.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Start off with a Britannia, with roller bearings throughout, including big ends and rods. All steel welded boiler and firebox. Add electric lighting, air brakes, either oil or pulverised coal firing, feedwater preheater, steam jacketing, streamlining the internal passages, and you're just about on a par with the German Rekoloks.

 

then modernise one of those and you end up with, oh... it has a certain charm I suppose

 

 

[RedGemAlchemist]

On 07/05/2010 at 12:47, 28XX said:

If we allow ourselves to create an imaginary world, then surely we should imagine also that the railway companies built additional stock to serve the line, because all the real vehicles were busy serving the real world.

 

I am not necessarily advocating freelance designs but, rather as we adopt characteristic architectural styles and standard buildings, we could postulate extra members of real locomotive classes. If the traffic demands it, we could also propose variants or sub classes of real designs.

And what's wrong with freelance designs? 

[Corbs]

Bear in mind that this thread was started 10 years ago.

[RedGemAlchemist]

14 minutes ago, Corbs said:

Bear in mind that this thread was started 10 years ago.

Well, technically 9 years and 10 months but I see your point.

[rodent279]

34 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

then modernise one of those and you end up with, oh... it has a certain charm I suppose

 

 

For me, it needs Witte smoke deflectors. Otherwise a nice looking machine.

Why not take one of the unrestored Merchant Navies or BoB/WC's and update it similarly?

[Traintresta]

On 19/03/2020 at 10:39, rockershovel said:

 

That’s quite a good point. I took the opposite view; being an engineer, I could never take much interest in locos which had no credible basis in reality. I’ve always had a passing interest in never-wazzers, locos which MIGHT have been built but weren’t for whatever reason; I’m interested in extensions or projections of existing designs or concepts which for whatever reason, aren’t feasible; but unbuildable flights of fancy? Not so much...

 

 

It is partly my fault that this thread became a bit technical, but for the above reasons.  I like to look at what is feasible, possible, plausible and technically acheivable, as well as something with a use.  That said, I'm thinking of coming up with a GWR-esqe 4-6-0 with 4'7.5" driving wheels, so I mostly want to be able to bat off any criticism when I do.

 

16 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

And what's wrong with freelance designs? 

There has been a suggestion that we look at a Gresley lead LMS, or a Stanier lead LNER on several occasions on this thread, and I know there is another thread for imaginary railway companies but this and/or freelancing are what make this thread what it is.  Doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

There's not just those two to consider either.  If we are talking about the grouping era, why not think of John Clayton having a greater impact on LMS designs after the S&DJR 7F's.  How about Harry Holcroft not going to the Southern, he could have followed Stanier, or perhaps if the LNER had put Robinson in charge to start with, he may have gone there and Gresley may have absconded to the LMS.  Bulleid may never have played the crucial part he did and somebody else would have got the job on the Southern.  Perhaps that would have been Stanier, Collett, Thompson, Ivatt or Riddles?

[JimC]

From the imaginary loco perspective not all changes might have been fruitful. I can imagine, for instance, if Cook had been recruited by the LNER, the emphasis might have moved from new design to improving reliability on the existing stock. 

[Traintresta]

15 hours ago, JimC said:

From the imaginary loco perspective not all changes might have been fruitful. I can imagine, for instance, if Cook had been recruited by the LNER, the emphasis might have moved from new design to improving reliability on the existing stock. 

That’s quite an interesting point that I’d not considered. 

[Compound2632]

17 hours ago, JimC said:

From the imaginary loco perspective not all changes might have been fruitful. I can imagine, for instance, if Cook had been recruited by the LNER, the emphasis might have moved from new design to improving reliability on the existing stock. 

 

Which would have been exactly what the cash-strapped LNER needed for say 98% of its operations.

[Traintresta]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Which would have been exactly what the cash-strapped LNER needed for say 98% of its operations.

Indeed it would, albeit whenever improving reliability crops up, it's usually followed by standardisation to achieve efficiency so it's likely that there would have been some new builds.

[runs as required]

Gosh!

 This thread has got terribly anxious about its motivations (as compared to the Ugley Women’s Institute locos thread - to which a number of IL posters are also contributing).

 

I’ve been trying to imagine the future railway recently - what with climate change, tree planting, radically increased gov spending etc.

What will trans-Pennine routes, inter and intra urban lines and rolling stock look like? Boringly standardised or competing visions and propositions?
Will there be any view out of a train window anymore, except of continuous Baltic style thick silver birch planting.

 

After all, it was the work of masters like Isaac Jackson of Wylam who modelled and tested components of the early locos meticulously in table-top scale brass that gave the blacksmiths the courage to forge and beat stuff at 1:1 scale.

WWII triggered the issue of Puffin books proclaiming  a post war utopia. These are now Collectors’ items.

 

Would such future speculation in these times justify a new rmweb thread at this time?

Dh

[WD0-6-0]

On 08/09/2018 at 09:15, WD0-6-0 said:

What with the recent discussion of non-standard BR standards, I thought it might be time to share my own time waster.

I've not done any research into it's power or put much effort into justifying it, I had some spare parts and too much time on my hands.

I imagine it being mixed traffic but ultimately used mostly on fast fitted freight. Just for fun the only part that's not off a spare br standard model is the Firebox, the rest genuinely is standard parts!

Mainly just a little project though, the BR STD 2-6-4, 5/6mt?F?

I haven't got a tender yet but I would like to use a BR1F or BR1H

So nearly two years later and the lockdown madness has kicked in and I picked up this project once more. Corbs pointed out on the original model that the rear bogie should be bearing the weight of the firebox and unfortunately it still isn't however I'm still pleased with the visual balance. The loco is now slightly smaller overall and I've also taken into account comments on the boiler size. The loco now uses an mostly unmodified Std 5 boiler on a 2-6-2 chassis. When it comes to tenders, it's currently partnered with a BR2 tender, despite it's small size it looks right. I now imagine this loco more as a partner to the Std 5 4-6-0 in the same way the Std 4 2-6-0 is to the Std 4 4-6-0.

Here it is before painting

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by WD0-6-0
Add Photos

[Ben Alder]

Like this - can you go over what you did to the body and what chassis you used, please.

[WD0-6-0]

Certainly, the body is very simple, so far its virtually unmodified except for re-routing some pipework, moving the whistle from behind the chimney to the cab face and adding a set of brass smokebox door handles.

The chassis is a shortened Bachmann BR Std 4 2-6-4t. I removed an amount from the rear portion (unfortunately I did that back when I first started the build, maybe two years ago, and I didn't measure... but I can measure what's left) I then shortened the bogie and used the exterior trailing axle frame from a Hornby Brittania, available as a spare. I removed the DCC chip slot and moved the socket which allowed me to put in a lower portion to the boiler. The other jobs were mostly little plasticard jobs, filling gaps, building a rear frame and packing up the cylinders and to close the gap to the running plate.

I chose the BR 2 tender A. because I thought it looked appropriate but B. because had one. I also had a BR 1B but didn't like how that looked. The tender is from a mainline Std 4 and the only modification will be a repaint and a new loco-tender coupling.

I'll put up some more in depth photos tomorrow.

[Ben Alder]

Thanks - I have a half finished one sitting on the bench for some time now and probably kicked off by your go at one, with a Standard Five body and a 76xxx chassis, but I didn't think this combination was going to work, so matters stalled there. Using a Standard tank underpinning might get me going again, and look forward to see what you have done. I find all this what ifs and could have beens a fascinating subject and yours looks quite the part...

 

[Corbs]

Hi mate,

 

Sorry to be the moaning myrtle once more, but I think it was better as it was  The rear pony truck doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and now the rear axle is in the middle of the firebox, unless it has a twin hopper ashpan, but on the Std.5 the rear axle carries the weight of the firebox and cab all by itself without needing a carrying axle.

 

 

If you have a trailing pony truck, it makes sense for it to be carrying a big wide firebox like you had before, just without it being a 2-axle bogie. So you'd have an enlarged 4MT 2-6-0 front end welded to a shrunken 6MT 4-6-2 back end. On the 6MT you can see where the axle is to support the firebox etc. with the driving wheel being well in front of the leading firebox edge, but then I guess the overall length is kept down because the driving wheels are so closely spaced.

+

=

or

?

 

Sort of copying the layout of the V2?

 

Sorry  By all means tell me to shut up, as you know I like to make things as dull as possible. Sort of thinking out loud.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Corbs

[PenrithBeacon]

There is also the issue of whether a wide firebox is really worth it for a Class 5 locomotive. Riddle's design team went through the process and decided not.

Cheers

[Corbs]

Unless it's a class 6 2-6-2 like making a V2 out of standard parts? Just throwing ideas around.