scots region Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said: has anyone metioned the lanky 2-10-0 at all? i got some drawing of the loco and i was thinking about sharing them if anyone wanted to see it. Its been discussed a fair few times before, but by all means share the drawings, I’m a sucker for a good technical diagram. I think the consensus behind the Lanc 2-10-0 is that it wasn’t so much a serious proposal as it was a show room model. Set up to impress would be customers. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph the L&YR lover Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 from what i've read it had a use on the lancashire and yorkshire railway and probably could work but higher ups seemed against it. just now realizing i probably should scan this and a few other things in the book but the printer is currently down. 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 11 hours ago, The Johnster said: Didn't those have outside cylinders? See what you mean, though. Amazingly enough, there are TWO of them on eBay right now; curious things, one painted in LMS colours. The body shells seem to differ in detail, too... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 3 hours ago, scots region said: Its been discussed a fair few times before, but by all means share the drawings, I’m a sucker for a good technical diagram. I think the consensus behind the Lanc 2-10-0 is that it wasn’t so much a serious proposal as it was a show room model. Set up to impress would be customers. Hughes proposed a Pacific pre WW1 and this was (IIRC) the mineral engine variant of that proposal. Neither was proceeded with because they were deemed to be far too powerful for the traffic on offer, not to mention signalling issues, length of loops etc. The idea that a CME would go so far as to produce such designs and present them to the board but not be serious doesn't bear thinking about. I should think the Civil Engineer and the Signalling Engineer got the vapours when they saw the diagrams. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted October 22, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said: Hughes proposed a Pacific pre WW1 and this was (IIRC) the mineral engine variant of that proposal. Neither was proceeded with because they were deemed to be far too powerful for the traffic on offer, not to mention signalling issues, length of loops etc. The idea that a CME would go so far as to produce such designs and present them to the board but not be serious doesn't bear thinking about. I should think the Civil Engineer and the Signalling Engineer got the vapours when they saw the diagrams. Before retirement I was often asked by management to achieve something which realistically couldn’t be done with what we had available. I can easily see a scenario where a CME was asked something similar, example, more pax/freight with less trains*. That needs more vehicles per train so bigger engine needed. CME’s answer is I can get you one of these bigger engines dear directors but you will need to spend on civil engineering etc, etc., to run them. End of stupidly impractical idea or a morphing to a compromise. An outline diagram presumably wouldn’t waste much drawing office time. The alternative approach, such as with the LNER P1 and LMS Garretts found the in-traffic problems after they had built the locos. * seems to be an efficiency saving until you work it through. Edited October 22, 2020 by john new Typo & Added a footnote Plus some tweaks for clarity. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Robinson on the GCR also proposed a 2-10-0; an ugly looking thing with a huge boiler (bigger than on the O5/B7). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 hours ago, john new said: Before retirement I was often asked by management to achieve something which realistically couldn’t be done Yes indeedy. Always worth remembering that sometimes studies need to be prepared to demonstrate why something will not be practical. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted October 22, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 minute ago, JimC said: Yes indeedy. Always worth remembering that sometimes studies need to be prepared to demonstrate why something will not be practical. And/or to show your superiors it can be done with what we have BUT if the resources, be that staff, equipment or both, is reallocated to this new task what would you like us not to do from what they are currently being used for? Outcome generally some form of compromise. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Many years ago the late Dennis Allenden built a 4mm scale model of the Lanky 2-10-0, it was featured in "Model Railways". He used a Hormby 9F mechanism as the basis, the rest home brewed from nickel silver. 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedGemAlchemist Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, 62613 said: Robinson on the GCR also proposed a 2-10-0; an ugly looking thing with a huge boiler (bigger than on the O5/B7). Someone on YouTube made a model of a GCR Baldwin 2-10-2. Might that be connected to that design, perhaps? Edited October 22, 2020 by RedGemAlchemist 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 3 hours ago, john new said: ... An outline diagram presumably wouldn’t waste much drawing office time. ... I wouldn't underestimate the time involved in creating a weight diagram. It might seem simple to an engineer from a different time and discipline but it would take a section of draughtsmen about a fortnight to three weeks with all calculations being made without the benefit of any modern devices. It's not a trivial exercise. And there is no evidence whatsoever that this wasn't a serious proposal. To suggest otherwise is to fantasise. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted October 22, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2020 9 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said: from what i've read it had a use on the lancashire and yorkshire railway and probably could work but higher ups seemed against it. just now realizing i probably should scan this and a few other things in the book but the printer is currently down. That looks rather under-tendered. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 22, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2020 32 minutes ago, melmerby said: That looks rather under-tendered. Particularly given the appetite for coal of Hughes' 4-6-0s! Probably a good thing these monsters were not built. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Compound2632 said: Particularly given the appetite for coal of Hughes' 4-6-0s! Probably a good thing these monsters were not built. Especially given how shallow the firegrate is, though it does seem to be compensating by making it as big as possible, note the side mounted safety valves! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted October 23, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2020 Previous on the Horwich 2-10-0: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph the L&YR lover Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Compound2632 said: Particularly given the appetite for coal of Hughes' 4-6-0s! Probably a good thing these monsters were not built. from what i remember reading about the 2-10-0 they were suppose to heat better than other locos there for needing less coal than you would think. of course, i'm no engineer so i may be off on that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said: And there is no evidence whatsoever that this wasn't a serious proposal. To suggest otherwise is to fantasise. Can one not turn that argument around and ask whether there is any evidence that a given diagram does represent a serious proposal? And a serious proposal to whom? At Swindon it's recorded that Stanier and Hawksworth put together a proposal for a 'compound Castle' for which a weights diagram exists. But the tale is that they took it to Collett "and a couple of minutes later we were out again" , which implies Collett didn't know anything about the study and certainly suggests it in no way was ever part of GWR policy. Ironic, then, that ten or fifteen years later a similar drawing office study was done on a Pacific which Hawksworth rejected with equal alacrity. But enthusiasts still manage to talk about a Hawksworth Pacific when the only thing Hawksworth had to do with it was order it to be halted. It seems evident that, at Swindon at least, the drawing office 'manager' had the authority to start off studies that had no relation to anything the running side had requested or the CME authorised. Moving yet further into flights of fancy 'Dusty' Durrant, whilst working in the Swindon drawing office, produced in his own time drawings of the vast locomotives he felt the GWR/BR should have been designing, which got as far as initial weight studies. I suggest, then, that unless there is actual contemporary evidence, we enthusiasts need to be *extremely* wary about treating the existence of a drawing as evidence that serious consideration was ever given to building the subject . Edited October 23, 2020 by JimC 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Could it have been work given to a section of the D.O. who would have had nothing to otherwise? There were several occasions when I was given seemingly pointless work, but the D.O. manager didn't want to let me and others go, because there was something 'proper' in the pipeline. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted October 23, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said: from what i remember reading about the 2-10-0 they were suppose to heat better than other locos there for needing less coal than you would think. of course, i'm no engineer so i may be off on that I think this is just a case of including a standard tender but length might have been a consideration for turntables. The Horwich Mallet proposal referred to above did include a bigger than standard tender but a leading pony truck was omitted to enable it to fit on 60ft turntables. The 2-10-0 was based on a Belgian boiler design and seems to have ben an exercise to see if it could be squeezed into the L&Y loading gauge. The latter was very generous in height but the the safety valves still had to be moved off the boiler top - I'm not sure about forward visibility round that huge firebox either. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted October 23, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 23, 2020 4 hours ago, 62613 said: Could it have been work given to a section of the D.O. who would have had nothing to otherwise? There were several occasions when I was given seemingly pointless work, but the D.O. manager didn't want to let me and others go, because there was something 'proper' in the pipeline. I guess it could have been given to a trainee/apprentice, as an exercise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted October 23, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Michael Edge said: I think this is just a case of including a standard tender but length might have been a consideration for turntables. The Horwich Mallet proposal referred to above did include a bigger than standard tender but a leading pony truck was omitted to enable it to fit on 60ft turntables. The 2-10-0 was based on a Belgian boiler design and seems to have ben an exercise to see if it could be squeezed into the L&Y loading gauge. The latter was very generous in height* but the the safety valves still had to be moved off the boiler top - I'm not sure about forward visibility round that huge firebox either. *Still only 13' 6" like several other railways The "small engine" Midland was actually 13' 9", same as the Hull & Barnsley and Great Northern. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph the L&YR lover Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Michael Edge said: I'm not sure about forward visibility round that huge firebox either. just lean out the side and jump back in before something hits you 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alder Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 14 hours ago, JimC said: I suggest, then, that unless there is actual contemporary evidence, we enthusiasts need to be *extremely* wary about treating the existence of a drawing as evidence that serious consideration was ever given to building the subject. True, but enough to give a what if modeller things to plan and do... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold rodent279 Posted October 23, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) On 23/10/2020 at 08:27, JimC said: Can one not turn that argument around and ask whether there is any evidence that a given diagram does represent a serious proposal? And a serious proposal to whom? At Swindon it's recorded that Stanier and Hawksworth put together a proposal for a 'compound Castle' for which a weights diagram exists. But the tale is that they took it to Collett "and a couple of minutes later we were out again" , which implies Collett didn't know anything about the study and certainly suggests it in no way was ever part of GWR policy. Ironic, then, that ten or fifteen years later a similar drawing office study was done on a Pacific which Hawksworth rejected with equal alacrity. But enthusiasts still manage to talk about a Hawksworth Pacific when the only thing Hawksworth had to do with it was order it to be halted. It seems evident that, at Swindon at least, the drawing office 'manager' had the authority to start off studies that had no relation to anything the running side had requested or the CME authorised. Moving yet further into flights of fancy 'Dusty' Durrant, whilst working in the Swindon drawing office, produced in his own time drawings of the vast locomotives he felt the GWR/BR should have been designing, which got as far as initial weight studies. I suggest, then, that unless there is actual contemporary evidence, we enthusiasts need to be *extremely* wary about treating the existence of a drawing as evidence that serious consideration was ever given to building the subject . Have any plans or outline drawings for the compound Castle ever emerged? Would be interesting to see if it was like the de Glehn layout, with HP cyls on the outside, and LP cyls on the inside. Would a weights diagram show that sort of detail? Edited October 24, 2020 by rodent279 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 6 hours ago, melmerby said: *Still only 13' 6" like several other railways The "small engine" Midland was actually 13' 9", same as the Hull & Barnsley and Great Northern. If those railways built stock to their maximum height would they not be oversize when running on "Foreign" railways? That would suggest that Midland, H&B and GN stock would be built to other raiways' smaller height gauge in order to fit onto their tracks. There was a large amount of running on on other people's lines even in pre-grouping days. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now