Imaginary Locomotives

[john new]

15 hours ago, rodent279 said:

What about a Black 5 or Hall built using a B1 boiler? Not being a Belpaire, maybe that would have been cheaper to construct?

Ah, but @cypherman's underlying idea, if I recall, was Swindon using stuff they had. Would they have had the necessary flanging templates etc., to do a B1 style boiler?

[Gilwell Park]

On 16/11/2020 at 02:13, The Johnster said:

More or less, but the County was a 'red' route restricted loco, as was the Hall and BR 5MT, so a loco using an 8F boiler would have not had any particular advantage in terms of route availability even with a Hall chassis.  The GW designed the 4MT Manor for blue routes to improve on the (also 4MT) 43xx moguls.  The Manors, Hawksworth Counties, and 94xx attracted adverse comment from drivers who were happy with the moguls, Halls, and 8750 panniers (respectively) they already had and couldn't see the point, or the improvement, of the new locos.  The Manors did not initially steam well and work had to be done to the draughting and the shape of the chimney to get the work expected from them, and a similar thing happened with the Counties. 

 

The Swindon-built BR standard 4MT 4-6-0 used a domed version of the no.14 Manor boiler, and this loco was also the subject of different chimneys being used to get more work out of them; as well as the original both the WR and SR designed their own versions of double chimneys for these locos.  Black 5s were given double chimnesys as well by Ivatt, so 'Cromulent' could realistically have any one of a number of double chimneys fitted; the LMS Ivatt, County, and 75xxx WR or SR versions.

 

[Gilwell Park]

The standard 4 actually used a modified standard 4 tank boiler, all of  9" longer, not a modified manor boiler.

[Flying Pig]

11 hours ago, john new said:

Ah, but @cypherman's underlying idea, if I recall, was Swindon using stuff they had.

 

Really @cypherman using stuff he had and making a story to explain it, though in this case it's not so far fetched.  If he'd had a B1 body and a Hall chassis, we'd be struggling I think.

 

On 16/11/2020 at 16:44, rodent279 said:

What about a Black 5 or Hall built using a B1 boiler? Not being a Belpaire, maybe that would have been cheaper to construct?

 

That would be an interesting loco - imagine an Austerity 4-6-0 derived from the Black 5 in the same way the 2-8-0 was derived from the 8F.

[JimC]

On 17/11/2020 at 19:31, Flying Pig said:

imagine an Austerity 4-6-0 derived from the Black 5 in the same way the 2-8-0 was derived from the 8F.

Seems a logical enough proposition. Ought to have a substantial number of parts in common with the 2-8-0. 

[Rockalaucher101]

7 hours ago, JimC said:

Seems a logical enough proposition. Ought to have a substantial number of parts in common with the 2-8-0. 

Wouldn't that just be the Ivatt class 4 only running as a 4-6-0 and not a 2-6-0?

High running plate, smaller wheels, larger boiler

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Rockalaucher101
spelling mistake

[Clive Mortimore]

On 17/11/2020 at 19:31, Flying Pig said:

 

Really @cypherman using stuff he had and making a story to explain it, though in this case it's not so far fetched.  If he'd had a B1 body and a Hall chassis, we'd be struggling I think.

 

 

That would be an interesting loco - imagine an Austerity 4-6-0 derived from the Black 5 in the same way the 2-8-0 was derived from the 8F.

I did draw one for this thread about a year ago. Blowed if I can find it on my 'puter, can't recall where I filed it.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I did draw one for this thread about a year ago. Blowed if I can find it on my 'puter, can't recall where I filed it.

 

Hi Clive - so you did. 

 

 

[Gibbo675]

8 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I did draw one for this thread about a year ago. Blowed if I can find it on my 'puter, can't recall where I filed it.

Hi Clive,

 

If it is any help it was in the Imaginary locomotives file:

 

Just to let everyone know I didn't hack Clive's computer I cheekily copied it from his previous post ages ago !!!

 

Gibbo.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Gibbo675

[The Johnster]

I can see in my mind’s eye the crews’ bruises after any attempt to run faster than about 30mph... Looks the part though.  Needs 8 wheel WD type tender. 

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I can see in my mind’s eye the crews’ bruises after any attempt to run faster than about 30mph... Looks the part though.  Needs 8 wheel WD type tender. 

Hi Johnster,

 

WD goods engines were not reciprocally balanced which is why they were rough riders, no reason not to balance the wheels of a 4-6-0 passenger locomotive.

 

Gibbo.

[The Johnster]

Fair enough, objection withdrawn...  To be fair the drawing indicates balancing. 

[tomparryharry]

18 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Clive,

 

If it is any help it was in the Imaginary locomotives file:

 

Just to let everyone know I didn't hack Clive's computer I cheekily copied it from his previous post ages ago !!!

 

Gibbo.

 

'Tis a nice looking locomotive, but might well be unlikely. The LMS were turning out Black 5's and 8F's,as well as places like Swindon, also making 8F's  What we might have seen, is a Black 5 or 8F, with a WD 8-wheel tender. I'd think it would be the first 'go anywhere' locomotive. 

 

Sorry, I forgot Eastleigh, and Doncaster, and Brighton,  

[RLBH]

18 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

'Tis a nice looking locomotive, but might well be unlikely. The LMS were turning out Black 5's and 8F's,as well as places like Swindon, also making 8F's  What we might have seen, is a Black 5 or 8F, with a WD 8-wheel tender. I'd think it would be the first 'go anywhere' locomotive. 

 

Yes, the main driver for the Austerities was overseas service with the War Department rather than domestic service. What domestic service they did see during the war was mostly for running-in and training. It's hard to see why the War Department would want a 4-6-0 version of the 2-8-0.

 

What might be justifiable is a War Department Austerity 2-8-2. The US Army Transportation Corps had the S100, S160 and S200 for military use - the S100 is pretty close to the Hunslet 4F, and the S160 to the Austerity 2-8-0. The S200 was designed to a British requirement for use in the Middle East, and I believe was compatible with the British loading gauge, but there was no direct British equivalent. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine Riddles having a crack at designing one.

 

Actually modelling one might be a challenge, though.

[Corbs]

On 18/03/2014 at 13:06, sir douglas said:

could this be one the longest running threads, its now been going for 3 years, or are there any older on-going threads?, or should this be a topic for its own thread?

6 years later Sam, I think it may well be!

[Flying Pig]

On 20/11/2020 at 11:40, RLBH said:

What might be justifiable is a War Department Austerity 2-8-2. The US Army Transportation Corps had the S100, S160 and S200 for military use - the S100 is pretty close to the Hunslet 4F, and the S160 to the Austerity 2-8-0. The S200 was designed to a British requirement for use in the Middle East, and I believe was compatible with the British loading gauge, but there was no direct British equivalent. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine Riddles having a crack at designing one.

 

 

An interesting feature of the S200 from what I can glean online is the equalisation of the rear axle - see for example this diagram.  If correct it appears the truck itself carried no weight which was instead transferred directly to the frames behind and an equalising beam shared with the rear drivers ahead.  I assume this wasn't unusual in the US and it's clearly visible on the German 03 Pacific as well, but no UK designer* seems to have bothered to try and tame Pacific slipping this way. 

 

*edit - I'm talking about the home railways here, not the likes of NBL and Vulcan Foundry building for overseas who were often more forward-looking.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Flying Pig

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

no UK designer* seems to have bothered to try and tame Pacific slipping this way. 

Churchward did. The Bear had equalisation on all driving wheels and the trailing truck.

[The Johnster]

Which may be why the loco held a record for the heaviest train ever hauled by a single locomotive, a 120 wagon Stoke Gifford-Acton coal train, for many years.  A pacific, especially one which did not cover itself in glory apart from this feat, is not the first sort of loco one might associate with such a working, but the loco apparently managed the train easily, even on the climb to Badminton. 

[rockershovel]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Which may be why the loco held a record for the heaviest train ever hauled by a single locomotive, a 120 wagon Stoke Gifford-Acton coal train, for many years.  A pacific, especially one which did not cover itself in glory apart from this feat, is not the first sort of loco one might associate with such a working, but the loco apparently managed the train easily, even on the climb to Badminton. 

 

It would be instructive to know what locomotive actually held this title? From what I can see the P2 probably holds the title for work in revenue service, but a preserved 9F (92203 Black Prince) seems to hold the record outright, starting a 2,178 tonne train as late as 1982. 

[JimC]

On 20/12/2020 at 11:29, rockershovel said:

 

It would be instructive to know what locomotive actually held this title? 

A number of locomotives have held that title in succession. 

[JimC]

On 19/12/2020 at 19:50, The Johnster said:

A pacific, especially one which did not cover itself in glory apart from this feat, is not the first sort of loco one might associate with such a working, but the loco apparently managed the train easily, even on the climb to Badminton. 

I suppose at the time she must have been the most powerful locomotive in the country with a long travel valve gear, and one may speculate that the steaming deficiencies of the boiler wouldn't have been an issue at low speed, whereas its immense capacity would have been a virtue on long climbs. By various accounts, too, Churchward's regulator design gave better control than those on other locomotives. 

It's claimed that the capabilities of the Bear on heavy fast freight led to the 47s. So perhaps it was a task that played to her strengths. As Churchward said, " The modern Locomotive Question is principally a matter of boiler" so we can speculate that a duty that played to the strengths of the boiler and not its weaknesses would show the Bear in the best light.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

A number of locomotives have held that title in succession. 

 

undoubtedly; but as revenue steam service is long gone, there must have been a "last one"?

[john new]

The 9F, a demonstration load out of Merehead IIRC and there is some (poor quality) video of it on YouTube.

 

[ScottishRailFanatic]

One thing I often wonder is what the current railway powers would come up with if revenue-earning steam were to return. I think they would be based on the most effective former locomotives from the days of the Big Four and British Railways, with modern alterations (much like what was done to the A1 plans to create the legendary Tornado). Any ideas?

[DK123GWR]

1 hour ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

One thing I often wonder is what the current railway powers would come up with if revenue-earning steam were to return. I think they would be based on the most effective former locomotives from the days of the Big Four and British Railways, with modern alterations (much like what was done to the A1 plans to create the legendary Tornado). Any ideas?

They certainly wouldn't run on coal. The only reason that this would happen if if they found that a steam based transmission was more efficient than any current system fitted to a diesel or electric loco.