Imaginary Locomotives

[WD0-6-0]

No problem Corbs, it is a good point and I fully welcome any advice and constructive criticism the Std 5 front + Clan rear you've come up with there is quite a handsome machine!

I did consider a wide firebox but I don't currently have one I can graft in. I am keeping my eye out for an old Hornby Britannia body I can chop up. (The original firebox I used came from a Princess not a Standard) 

No matter how realistic it becomes it is subject to a heavy dose of rule one, having said that I would like it to look realistic. Now, how about smoke deflectors?...

Thanks

Rhys

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

How about a small drivered prairie based on the 2MT and a small drivered pacific based on the 4/5MT 

[Corbs]

54 minutes ago, WD0-6-0 said:

Now, how about smoke deflectors?...

 

 

When you see a 6MT without smoke deflectors it looks like an embiggened 5MT, so presumably the reverse is true and it would in turn resemble one of the 'big standards'?

 

[WD0-6-0]

2 minutes ago, Corbs said:

 

When you see a 6MT without smoke deflectors it looks like an embiggened 5MT, so presumably the reverse is true and it would in turn resemble one of the 'big standards'?

 

Sounds good to me, I think that's what I'll do

I've now ordered a Britannia bodyshell so soon I shall have a wide firebox and some (slightly too thick) smoke deflectors so watch this space.

Thanks

Rhys

[JimC]

39 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

How about a small drivered prairie based on the 2MT and a small drivered pacific based on the 4/5MT 

Presumably, though, any small drivered 10 or 12 wheel locomotive would be better 8 coupled.

[The Johnster]

12 hours ago, Corbs said:

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.

Sort of copying the V2 would suggest 3 cylinders.  That's a whole nother thing.

 

My instinct is that Riddles got it right with the 5MT as a surefooted mixed traffic 4-6-0 with a slight edge in speed over a Black 5.  The boiler isn't big enough to take advantage of the wide firebox and the loco works fine as it is feeding 2 cylinders.  But 3 cylinders is, like I said, a whole nother thing.  In this case, a loco of about the size of the 5MT but with 3 cylinders (perhaps there's an application for smaller outside cylinders which needs 3 instead of two of them to use the same amount of steam, lower overall width for route availability clearance reasons), but reconfigured as a prairie to accommodate the wide firebox so that the boiler can generate enough steam quickly enough to feed 3 cylinders instead of 2, might be worth trying.  I have a feeling that the extra demand on the exhaust might require a double chimney as well!

 

And you could argue for a smaller version to do the work of the 75xxx 4MT.  But multi cylinder layouts were out of fashion in the 50s, and I can't see either of these locos ever being made, which is no reason not to model them...

[Justang]

8 hours ago, JimC said:

Presumably, though, any small drivered 10 or 12 wheel locomotive would be better 8 coupled.

 

I agree. Small-drivered locomotives tend to more often be designed for goods work.

[WD0-6-0]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

I have a feeling that the extra demand on the exhaust might require a double chimney as well!

Exactly the crazy thinking I'm going for

You're almost certainly right Johnster, it's highly unlikely that either of my designs would have been built, let alone in the Standard range but it's all good fun. 

I'm just trying to bring some diversity to the BR Standards... wait, something's not quite right about that...

Thanks

Rhys

[runs as required]

Aesthetically Cox/Riddles Standards (an early example of 'branding'?) to my eye, always had too much of the "stylist" arty-farty designer look about them (like Misha Black's  Westerns with their little peaked caps compared to the ECML Deltics).

 

The Standard 5s had nothing like the easy balance of the Black 5s (Coleman ?) especially from the front where the boiler and smoke box looked total lost in that over-deep running plate raking down to the buffer beam.

I always wondered why they had to bother with a new version.

dh

[Ben Alder]

Because they could?

 

[Compound2632]

9 hours ago, runs as required said:

I always wondered why they had to bother with a new version.

 

 

Because:

• they had the locomotive drawing office staff of the four grouping companies to keep employed
• there was pressure from above to produce something that at least looked like it was demonstrating the advantages of nationalisation
• they saw an opportunity to have some fun?

Edited April 6, 2020 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

In the case of the Standard Class 5MT, there was an increase in driving wheel size over the Black 5 it is alleged to be based on, which necessitates a higher running plate.  There is also a difference in axle spacing, with a larger gap between the centre and trailing axles, so the 'look' of this loco is going to be different to a Black 5, with the boiler presumably pitched an inch higher as well.  I rather like the Standard 5MT's appearance from a side or rear ¾ perspective, though I'm not a fan of that sloping drop in front of the smokebox that all the Standards had.  

 

I'd have to say that, for me (this is very much down to personal taste), the Britannias were the best lookers of the Standards, but I'm easily impressed by smoke deflectors; they look awful without these.  The Clans were a close second, the epitome of what a light pacific should look like IMHO.  The 4MT 2-6-4T has a lot going for it, very stylish, and I find the 3MT prairie tank a well balanced design.  The Ivatt 2MT clones were too much like Ivatts to be considered different, but the 4MT mogul looks awkward to me, whereas the Flying Pig it derives from manages a degree of modern functional attractiveness, as a no-nonsense modern steam loco should.  The 4MT 4-6-0 looks comfortable in it's frame, especially with the WR double chimney, and the 9F has too much daylight beneath the boiler, but can be forgiven much as it has smoke deflectors (I like a well turned out smoke deflector, me) and looks very good in a front ¾ view with all those little wheels crowding together.  The 3MT mogul looked even more awkward and odd than the 4MT version

 

The cabs were nice as well, on all the Standards.  But a Canton Brit, gleaming and with the WR type handholds in the smoke deflector, on a sunny morning with the Red Dragon in platform 2 at Cardiff General; perfection, especially when the safety valves lifted...

 

If you want stylish and arty farty, a Deltic is just as overstyled as a Western any day, and to my mind plug ugly.  Can't deny they had 'presence', though, and they made a lovely noise!

Edited April 6, 2020 by The Johnster

[runs as required]

An interesting post above by Johnster on the Standards

I was an Architecture student in Liverpool at the time many of the diesel 'boxes' were on the drawing boards . I had charge of the student Society lecture programme and we I lured designers along twice on "The Modernisation of British Railways" (remember that?).

Misha Black, we thought afterwards, modelled himself on Raymond Loewy - priding himself on designing anything from a streamline steam loco, via Studebakers to domestic irons.

MB too was scathing about the Deltic (prototype) and all the WR Hydraulics down to the Warship (which, in slides, he showed how his studio had just scaled the DB loco down to fit WR clearances). He criticised the North British locos as visual disasters and l leaked views of the Hymek as "modish". 

I suppose I was always biased about Deltics (like the rest of his student audience) because they were built in Liverpool and Newton le Willows.

Three years later I watched a very de-glitzed dignified two tone green  squadron service Deltic race horse being named Pinza (always my fave afterwards) from the mezzanine office windows over platform 1 at Kings+.

All in our office (R&D Group) went over one lunchtime to view a brand new Western in desert sand at the buffers at Paddington.

We were critical of 'car styling' that failed to scale up adequately. The high gloss sheet metalwork reflected light like the reflections off a choppy coarse fishing pond. 

This is well captured in a painting by Christine Pulham of a maroon Western.

 

 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, runs as required said:

MB too was scathing about the Deltic (prototype)

 

The design consultant appointed by British Rail to the production Deltic project had some interesting ideas on styling (reproduced in Brian Webb's book) leaning very strongly on 1950s automotive design and including wrap-round windscreens and undercut nose ends. EE were not enthusiastic.  The sketches showing how a full size gangway might be included are even more striking, though I think in that case EE were trying to fend off a BR requirement they thought unnecessary.

 

IMO English Electric did a more lasting styling job, but if anyone has a spare Class 55 to chop they would make eye-catching might have beens.

[AlfaZagato]

I've never much liked the EE aesthetic.   I think I have the same problem with it that I do with EMD's styling, in that everything looks the same.   Deltic is somewhat excluded, but you can still see the family there. 

[BernardTPM]

The Deltic was perhaps closer to their export designs (two windows and a squarish profile nose) than the 40/23/37 family, but with the more rounded roof to fit the BR loading gauge.

[runs as required]

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I've never much liked the EE aesthetic.   I think I have the same problem with it that I do with EMD's styling, in that everything looks the same.   Deltic is somewhat excluded, but you can still see the family there. 

Of course the outstanding thing about Zagato is that ‘family look’ ! 

(The best one is the Lancia coupe where the windows behind the doors curve up into the roof - oops OT)

[scots region]

Quote

THE BRITISH RAIL CLASS 30 (GAS TURBINE)

In the history of motive power development, gas turbine locomotives, that is to say that those locomotives that obtain their power from gas turbines rather than diesel engines, occupy a unique niche. Only two countries in history have ever employed a class of these locomotives. In the united states the Union Pacific railroad made extensive use of a large heavy-oil burning machine supplied by Alco, though on reflection the locomotives prodigious appetite for fuel certainly coloured their legacy, if not amongst enthusiasts. The British machines were something altogether different. You see, the standard features of diesel locomotives around the world are usually; two or one forward facing cab, all powered wheels, two or more bogies containing said wheelsets. However there is no design rule nor engineering law that states that a liquid fueled locomotive must be built with these feature. This was the thinking of a young English Electric engineer, one J.O.P Hughes, who believed that it would be far faster to produce a turbine locomotive if one used the same practices as the steam age, after all most factories during the 1950s in the UK were tooled for the production of steam locomotives. Thus was GT3 (gas turbine three) made.

 

 

The Original GT3

 

 

 

From the footplate up the locomotive took the from of a futuristic machine, with a large casing covering its large and low pressure turbines which generated some 2750 BHP, and prominent side mounted air intakes, from the footplate down a casual observer could be forgiven for assuming that some strange new breed of Steam engine had been produced. Nothing of the sort, GT3 was the first 4-6-0 gas turbine. The locomotive weighed 125 short tones and could attain a top speed of 90MPH. How the class came to be excepted into production, was down to delays in the electrification process of the West Coast main line and the need for a stop-gap from of express power. Thus the GT3 was approved for a production batch as the class 30. To further cement its new status as a West coast machine, the class of 25 locomotives would be given names of ex LMSR Coronation class 4-6-2s.
 

An as yet unnamed example in BR blue

 

They certainly caused confusion amongst passengers, assured the age of Steam had ended

CLASS LIST
30001 GT3
30002 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
30003 CITY OF BRADFORD
30004 CITY OF BRISTOL
30005 CITY OF CARLISLE
30006 CITY OF CHESTER
30007 CITY OF COVENTRY
30008 CITY OF EDINBURGH
30009 CITY OF GLASGOW
30010 CITY OF LANCASTER
30011 CITY OF LEEDS
30012 CITY OF LONDON
30013 CITY OF MANCHESTER
30014 CITY OF LIVERPOOL
30015 CITY OF SHEFFIELD
30016 CITY OF LICHFIELD
30017 CITY OF LEICESTER
30018 CITY OF ST ALBANS
30019 CITY OF STOKE-ON-TRENT
30020 CITY OF HEREFORD
30021 CITY OF SALFORD
30022 CITY OF STIRLING
30023 CITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON
30024 CITY OF ABERDEEN
30025 CITY OF INVERNESS.

 

A post of mine from another site I frequent, I've got GT3 on the brain. Maybe in another timeline, this could have been the basis of diesel design, at least temporarily.

 

ScR 

[BernardTPM]

At 2750hp* I'd have thought Class 53 would be more appropriate (Falcon at 2800hp then being Class 54). The Brush Type 2 (with original Mirrlees engines) were Class 30 and a mere 1250hp.

 

*The Brush Type 4 was originally 2750 hp but had been downrated to 2600hp by the time TOPS classifications were being drawn up in 1967.

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, scots region said:

30001 GT3

 

The only survivor when the class was rapidly withdrawn in the mid 80s following the spectacularly successful introduction of the APT to the WCML, 30001 was retained for railtours pending preservation. Due to its striking livery of Executive dark grey with a red bodyside stripe it became known as GTi during this period.  It is no longer mainline certified, but still holds the record for the largest quantity of fuel consumed between London and Liverpool, calculated in BTU per mile, easily beating the record set by Claughton 6004 during the latter's final months of service. 

[scots region]

Well, I never said it was a good idea!

[Corbs]

@scots region are you going to buy Silver Fox's entire stock of GT3 bodies when the new RTR version comes out?

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

At 2750hp* I'd have thought Class 53 would be more appropriate (Falcon at 2800hp then being Class 54). The Brush Type 2 (with original Mirrlees engines) were Class 30 and a mere 1250hp.

 

*The Brush Type 4 was originally 2750 hp but had been downrated to 2600hp by the time TOPS classifications were being drawn up in 1967.

So was there ever a class 51?

[Trog]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 22:34, runs as required said:

.........................................

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

..........
Will there be any view out of a train window anymore, except of continuous Baltic style thick silver birch planting.

.......................

 

Dh

 

Planting trees on the lineside would be madness the things are a menace, Damaging earthworks, dropping leaves on the line, harbouring burrowing vermin, then falling onto the track. The tallest thing grown on the lineside should be grass.

[Northmoor]

22 minutes ago, Trog said:

 

Planting trees on the lineside would be madness the things are a menace, Damaging earthworks, dropping leaves on the line, harbouring burrowing vermin, then falling onto the track. The tallest thing grown on the lineside should be grass.

Actually all those are true except the burrowing vermin and damaging earthworks.  Rabbits will happily burrow in almost any soil and don't need trees to do it.  Tree roots bind soil to prevent landslips, think of them as a lattice structure binding through a loose solid.  The skill is planting the right trees with a good root structure, which don't grow too tall, don't shed their leaves and sufficient distance from the track.