Imaginary Locomotives

[Gibbo675]

8 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

Now isn't that something. Not sure I could pull it off but I'll add it my list of things to try out. Right after I finish my overhead electric A4

Hi Rockalauncher,

 

There is a model in the NRM at York that looks just like that and I built the model from memory, so it may not be quite correct but near enough for fun.

 

Gibbo.

[Rockalaucher101]

Just now, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rockalauncher,

 

There is a model in the NRM at York that looks just like that and I built the model from memory, so it may not be quite correct but near enough for fun.

 

Gibbo.

I just did a quick google search about this loco and it turns out Matt Wickham 3D printed one for the Hornby chassis.

Might see if he's willing to print me one.

[Gibbo675]

42 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

I just did a quick google search about this loco and it turns out Matt Wickham 3D printed one for the Hornby chassis.

Might see if he's willing to print me one.

I think my version is actually less ugly than Bullied's, just !!!

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Gibbo675
Adding Link

[Gilwell Park]

1 hour ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

So one of the light pacifics then.

Don't suppose you know where I could check if they ever thought of using caprotti?

The RCTS in Locos of the SR & Sean Day-Lewis in "Bulleid, last giant of steam" both state that Bulleid wanted to drive the valve crankshaft by  a propeller shaft & gears as in rotary cam motion, instead of chains,  but the necessary gears could not be obtained in wartime. He also had Caprotti Valve Gears Ltd draw up an arrangement to use Caprotti valves instead of piston valves but this was not followed up.

 

Roger

Edited January 4, 2021 by Gilwell Park
spelling

[Rockalaucher101]

8 minutes ago, Gilwell Park said:

The RCTS in Locos of the SR & Sean Day-Lewis in "Bulleid, last giant of steam" both state that Bulleid wanted to drive the valve crankshaft by  a propeller shaft & gears as in rotary cam motion, instead of chains,  but the necessary gears could not be obtained in wartime. He also had Caprotti Valve Gears Ltd draw up an arrangement to use Caprotti valves instead of piston valves but this was not followed up.

 

Roger

That's all the motivation I need. No I just need to go looking for some worthy candidates to hack up

[Steamport Southport]

On 03/01/2021 at 09:59, rockershovel said:

 

I can’t imagine that a locomotive was simply built, as an amusing diversion for bored drawing office staff and/or megalomaniac CMEs. That isn’t how things get done, in the real world. Somewhere behind such a build, there will be a whole scenario of how many were intended, for what duties and at what anticipated cost.

 

That’s how the GWR operated its occasional policy of “heavy rebuilds” based upon the reversing handle and one drivers cufflink. The CME’s job is to provide tractive effort, by the hour, at acceptable cost. If he can convince the bean-counters, they will not care in the slightest exactly how it is achieved. 

 

 

I don't know why that is aimed at my post. 

 

My post was about the official list of names which had been decided by the BRB or whatever they were called at the time. There was about 200 named locomotives on it. It was a photograph of an official document, not hearsay or speculation. I think it pre dated Duke Of Gloucester being built. More 1951 or so rather than 1955.

 

Printed in one of the more reliable magazines such as Railway Magazine or Railway World about thirty or forty years ago.

 

It included all the Britannias and Clans that weren't built. Many were Scottish names. Rivers were a theme such as River Tay, River Dee, etc.

 

BR Class 8Ps (no mention of which type of 8P). 

 

It also included the comments made in the meetings such as stopping naming them after local themes as they might be moved to other regions.

 

More Manors and Granges were also in the article. To total up to 100 each, but that was just a continuation of the GWR policy. Only 10 more Manors were completed. But I think they are common knowledge anyway.

 

ISTR the article also included the unbuilt Duchess names and LNER Pacifics,  as well as the names allocated, but not used for the Patriots such as Sir Henry Fowler.

 

I wish I could remember which magazine it was in.

 

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Technically, BR standards are no better than what the GWR were building in 1905 except for improved super heat that had more to do with available cylinder lubricants than metallurgy and some had roller bearings.

 

I suspect that shed staff would consider that the outside Walschaerts motion of a BR standard was a technical improvement over the inside motion of a Saint.

 

Anyway, I'm enjoying this as the most tendentious statement I've read this year!

[Gibbo675]

22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I suspect that shed staff would consider that the outside Walschaerts motion of a BR standard was a technical improvement over the inside motion of a Saint.

 

Anyway, I'm enjoying this as the most tendentious statement I've read this year!

Hi Stephen,

 

From the point of view of construction techniques and thermal efficiency there is not much difference between Churchward's locomotives and BR Standards. All built with riveted plate frames, Cylinders attached with fitted bolts, riveted boilers with copper boxes, white metal axle boxes and rod bushes. Remember, most but certainly not all Britannias had roller bearings throughout.

 

Oil lubrication was done daily by drivers and grease by shed staff upon mileage accrued, different maintenance schedules.

 

It is quite easy enough to fit rocking grates, hopper ash pans, self cleaning smokeboxes, grease lubrication to valve gear joints, fit GWR locomotives with decent cabs, and perhaps even fill in the gap between engine and tender where other railways fitted cab doors, however the above listed are staff comforts not improved motive power.

 

Gibbo.

[Budgie]

4 hours ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

I'm actually looking into the idea of creating a caprotti bulleid now.  So much for my new years resolution.

 

What are we thinking though? What springs to mind?

Air smoothed or rebuilt, west country or merchant navy...

 

Decisions decisions.

While you are making those decisions, 4-6-2 or 2-8-2? Or how about making both?

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

self cleaning smokeboxes,

I find it hard to see station polluting smokeboxes as anything other than a major own goal, penny wise and pound foolish making the railway a far more unpleasant environment to work in and even more importantly travel on.

[Rockalaucher101]

15 hours ago, Budgie said:

While you are making those decisions, 4-6-2 or 2-8-2? Or how about making both?

Oh don't tempt me. Could easily drop some bulleid wheels into a Hornby p2 chassis

[Ben Alder]

Stumbled across this similar  subject matter on FB recently - some familiar names there and far too many thoughts and temptations....

 

https://m.facebook.com/groups/440600569678234?group_view_referrer=search

 

 

[ScottishRailFanatic]

Harking back to the ‘Modern Steam’ conversation from a few pages ago, the whole idea of one-off engines as electric assistants is limited by cost of the engine is a one-off. However, this could be done on multiple lines, and most likely multiple engines would be needed for even small lines when the juice is off. Maybe going back to a tried-and-trusted design like the Standard 2? That would need no extra cost for drawing new plans, unless oil/gas firing is taken, but it would only be small. Built in bulk, manufacturers would probably charge less for mass part fabrication, especially if some of the templates already still exist.

[Grizz]

Two more conversions, 1 x class 21 and 1 x class 29. Both have now received Heljan Clayton chassis, which is a very straight forward job. These are experimental locos. BR left with a load of fairly unsuccessful Class 17 Claytons and fairly unsuccessful Class 21s and Class 29s, sent a load over to Derby for them to play around with. A few phone calls and meetings 
 

The results were fitted with new Sulzer power units and generators, with Compton Parkinson traction motors. Redundant grills were mostly left in place and experimental push pull equipment was installed. The ‘re-engineered’ locos are seen with the Clayton bogies installed and replacement tanks and under frame details, with body work details still to do. Glazing is a total pain, getting flush glazing for these might prove to be a challenge. Designated BR Class 34. 
 

[Ramblin Rich]

2 hours ago, Grizz said:

Two more conversions, 1 x class 21 and 1 x class 29. Both have now received Heljan Clayton chassis, which is a very straight forward job. These are experimental locos. BR left with a load of fairly unsuccessful Class 17 Claytons and fairly unsuccessful Class 21s and Class 29s, sent a load over to Derby for them to play around with.... fitted with new Sulzer power units
..... Designated BR Class 34.

Interesting idea, are you thinking of 8 cylinder Sulzer as per class 33 to become a type 3? Or just run out of class numbers in the 20-29 range...?

[Clive Mortimore]

48 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Interesting idea, are you thinking of 8 cylinder Sulzer as per class 33 to become a type 3? Or just run out of class numbers in the 20-29 range...?

I started a Derby built one, for the SR. No headcode box, 2 digit headcode in the center window. Cant rail grilles etc. I should finish my might have beens. I could give it EPB jumper cables that would make even more SR.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by Clive Mortimore

[BernardTPM]

10 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Interesting idea, are you thinking of 8 cylinder Sulzer as per class 33 to become a type 3? Or just run out of class numbers in the 20-29 range...?

Good point. Given the Class 29 was a rebuild of the 21, maybe the Paxman 29 would never have happened and this alternative rebuild would be the Class 29. The next lowest unused number would be 32.

[LNWR18901910]

On 04/01/2021 at 15:43, Gibbo675 said:

I think my version is actually less ugly than Bullied's, just !!!

 

 

Say, I remember seeing that model and it's nice! It deserves to be built and given in a sweet suitable livery!

[Grizz]

On 14/01/2021 at 23:35, Ramblin Rich said:

Interesting idea, are you thinking of 8 cylinder Sulzer as per class 33 to become a type 3? Or just run out of class numbers in the 20-29 range...?

Ah now that is the exact issue that I have been pondering Rich. I liked the idea of power, but then who doesn’t 

Just checked the length, width and height of a class 33/0 , 33/1 v class 21/29. A class 33 is narrower and shorter than 21/29 so  the 8 cylinder Sulzer lump and generator would dimensional fit, plus ETH etc. Maybe an uprated lump? Also duel braked is a nice to have. Purpose would be mixed traffic. 
 

Things got a bit out of hand with the donor Class 29 last night after a few medicinal single malts. Pleased with the roof panels so far, but following some drastic surgery, the body will require new body side panels, a single radiator grill and a single door to be fitted. The green Class 21 might be a different approach depending on how the Class 34 prototype turns out, mostly because I like the idea of a direct comparison, similar to the differences between 73/9s. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Grizz
Auto correct

[Grizz]

20 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

 The next lowest unused number would be 32.

Mmmmmm it would have been except for this. Class 32      32001. A re-engineered Clayton. Really quite a modern looking loco when compared with the ‘sad eyed’ dated look of the class 21/29. The colour scheme probably helps.

 

 

[BernardTPM]

Or that could be a 17/something. If the power rating hasn't significantly altered it could just be regarded as a sub-class, much like when they fitted new engines into a few Class 37s to create the  37/9s.

[Traintresta]

On 15/11/2020 at 18:09, Sophia NSE said:

My effort in this category is probably the most mundane; an R1 extended into an 0-6-2

 

Sometimes these are the best types and I have to say that I for one really like it.

[Ben Alder]

Extremes of the imagination. Triggered off by two photoshops on the FB page, the first being a sub class of the 9F for presumably banking duties or perhaps short distance suburban passenger traffic. This was done as a static model using the GBL range as a source. It was a bit of a whim, and I had no need of it as a runner, so was a sort of a concept model and is not really finished beyond a back of the shed model.

The second is a sort of squashed up Radial... I had a spare dismantled Oxford lying around as part of a 4-4-0 building programme so  a bit of a cut and shunt later I ended up with this..It could have been motorised but runs smoothly and is going to get a powered coach or van to help it on its way. It is a sort of mix of a Duke of Suthereland's private loco and Peter Drummond's take on his brothers Bug and rather cute, I think.

 

[AlfaZagato]

I really dig the 9F tank.   Shame you haven't made it run.   The world needs more Texas-types.

[PhilJ W]

Make a great banker locomotive.