Imaginary Locomotives

[RedGemAlchemist]

2 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Not by any means - I just thought I’d go the Russian way with this odd design. Maybe to work at Consett? Or to get up the Lickey without a banker? I wonder if anyone else can find a purpose for any of my monsters.

Moving under-construction planets on Magrathea.

[Gibbo675]

1 minute ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Origin story time!

 

BR STANDARD 12F EXPERIMENT - THE CREATURE OF CONSETT

"This was an experiment I thought would go nowhere. I was both right and wrong. Right in that they didn't build more of 'it' - wrong in that 'it' really was built. In combining two Standard 9Fs with a supersized boiler, Riddles created a monster. However, it was an effective monster."

 

"A 2-10-0+0-10-2, the most monstrous Garratt ever. They carted her off to Consett Iron. The 9F assignments were soon shown their place, as the Creature of Consett, as it became known, would charge up the grade with 2500 tons in tow. She was kept in a dark siding within the works itself, showing her face once a week to take a single massive delivery from overseas. Nobody knew anything of her, other than that Riddles was severely drunk when he designed her."

 

What do you all think? Is it feasible or do you have an alternative fate for the Creature of Consett?

 

Just now, RedGemAlchemist said:

Moving under-construction planets on Magrathea.

Hi Chaps,

 

Actually half built on my bench a couple of years ago before I decided to do something else and not get back to it.

 

 

Other unfinished nonsense is available upon request.

 

Gibbo.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

4 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

Hi Chaps,

 

Actually half built on my bench a couple of years ago before I decided to do something else and not get back to it.

 

 

Other unfinished nonsense is available upon request.

 

Gibbo.

A very fine Creature if I do say so myself!

[RedGemAlchemist]

6 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Other unfinished nonsense is available upon request.

For sale or just to view? 
In honesty, it's always awesome seeing your work Gibbo. Fire away with whatever you feel appropriate. That Garratt is an absolute beast. Certainly dwarfs my own 0-4-0+0-4-0 one.

Edited March 2, 2021 by RedGemAlchemist

[Gibbo675]

1 minute ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

For sale or just to view? 
In honesty, it's always awesome seeing your work Gibbo. Fire away with whatever you feel appropriate. That Garratt is an absolute beast. Certainly dwarfs my own 0-4-0+0-4-0 one.

Just to look at !

 

Thanks for the comments also.

 

Gibbo.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

Here is some more of my unfinished nonsense:

 

BR Std class 11F, 2-6-0 0-6-2 Kitson-Meyer

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-0.

 

BR Std class 4, 0-6-0 0-6-0 Leader.

 

BR STD Class 4, 2-6-2.

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-4-0 articulated with booster unit.

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-8-2 2-8-2 heavy coal Garret.

 

Here is one that I finished:

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-6-8-0 fast freight Mallett with Giesel ejector.

 

Gibbo.

[RedGemAlchemist]

6 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

Here is some more of my unfinished nonsense:

 

BR Std class 11F, 2-6-0 0-6-2 Kitson-Meyer

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-0.

 

BR Std class 4, 0-6-0 0-6-0 Leader.

 

BR STD Class 4, 2-6-2.

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-4-0 articulated with booster unit.

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-8-2 2-8-2 heavy coal Garret.

 

Here is one that I finished:

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-6-8-0 fast freight Mallett with Giesel ejector.

 

Gibbo.

An eclectic collection indeed.
I also seem to remember you (at least I'm pretty sure it was you) messing around with some old Dapol City of Truro kits?

[Gibbo675]

1 minute ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

An eclectic collection indeed.
I also seem to remember you (at least I'm pretty sure it was you) messing around with some old Dapol City of Truro kits?

For old time sake:

 

 

 

 

Gibbo.

[Murican]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

BR STD Class 4, 2-6-2.

Looks like if Riddles was more impressed with the V4.

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

BR Std class 12F, 2-8-2 2-8-2 heavy coal Garret.

 

Looks perfect for the former GWR. Though loading gauge may tell me otherwise.

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Mini-50 anyone?

 

Two thirds of a Class 50 gives a Class 33⅓ and two thirds of 2700hp is 1800hp - both comfortably in the Type 3 range.  I doubt you'd fit stqndard EE Type 3 gubbins in it, so perhaps it's a Mk2 Baby Deltic?  

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

For old time sake:

 

 

 

 

Gibbo.

How about a 4 cyl outside framed Star/Castle/King derived from the Flower/Bulldog family?

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

4 cyl outside framed

 

That would be interesting...

 

Some sort of Old Crewe Type arrangement for the outside cylinders?

Edited March 2, 2021 by Compound2632

[PhilJ W]

What about a cab forward 9F? It would have to be an oil burner of course with the tender attached to the smokebox end.

[Flying Pig]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That would be interesting...

 

Some sort of Old Crewe Type arrangement for the outside cylinders?

 

 

Crewe type proper has the driven wheels on inside frames and outside frames for the carrying wheels, so you'd need to make the loco a 2-2-6-0.  It's probably not what @rodent279 was thinking of but would look rather distinctive and work fine on straight track.

 

Plenty of narrow gauge engines had outside frames and quite conventional outside cylinders and motion, but wouldn't that come out too wide on a standard gauge loco?

[92220]

After Gibbo’s excellent BR Standard contribution, I hope it’s appropriate to repost this might-have-been:

 

 

Iain

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

What about a cab forward 9F? It would have to be an oil burner of course with the tender attached to the smokebox end.

 

Nice idea.  However, the usual excuse for outré 9Fs around here is that they hung on in the mining districts pulling MGR trains, so coal burning would be better if it could possibly be arranged.  Perhaps pulverised fuel blown along pipes to burners in the firebox? Or a long archimedian screw delivering small coals to a mechanical stoker (with GPCS of course to reduce losses)?  Either would require some interesting additions to a model (and probably be hideously unreliable in real life but who cares?).

 

[Murican]

Was thinking. How many LNER W2 4-6-4s could we theoretically see being built? Assuming the same number of A4s are built and there are still 6 of the Gresley 4-8-2s.

 

Also, if Peppercorn takes over in 1941 and not Thompson, could we see his proposed 4-8-2s instead of the Peppercorn Pacifics? Or maybe more B17s instead of the Thompson 4-6-0s?

[PhilJ W]

18 minutes ago, Murican said:

Was thinking. How many LNER W2 4-6-4s could we theoretically see being built? Assuming the same number of A4s are built and there are still 6 of the Gresley 4-8-2s.

 

Also, if Peppercorn takes over in 1941 and not Thompson, could we see his proposed 4-8-2s instead of the Peppercorn Pacifics? Or maybe more B17s instead of the Thompson 4-6-0s?

And the P2's remain as 2-8-2's with a few more built.

 

[Murican]

16 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

And the P2's remain as 2-8-2's with a few more built.

 

True, but what about the A3s and A4s thereafter? Would there still be room for them somewhere on the LNER?

[LNWR18901910]

4 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

For old time sake:

 

 

 

 

Gibbo.

So, would this be the GWR Marquess Class?

[33C]

6 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

Here is some more of my unfinished nonsense:

 

BR Std class 11F, 2-6-0 0-6-2 Kitson-Meyer

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-0.

 

BR Std class 4, 0-6-0 0-6-0 Leader.

 

BR STD Class 4, 2-6-2.

 

BR Std class 8F, 2-8-4-0 articulated with booster unit.

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-8-2 2-8-2 heavy coal Garret.

 

Here is one that I finished:

 

BR Std class 12F, 2-6-8-0 fast freight Mallett with Giesel ejector.

 

Gibbo.

These are quality! Finish 'em! Mad liveries and a Steam-punk shed diorama like the Beeching report never happened and Marples got run over!!

[ScottishRailFanatic]

That Mallet sure seems to be taking inspiration from a certain USA type...

I think that would be excellent for long-distance freight - return of the 'CONDOR' service?

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, 92220 said:

After Gibbo’s excellent BR Standard contribution, I hope it’s appropriate to repost this might-have-been:

 

 

Iain

Some might say might-have-been, some might say thankfully-wasn't!

[RLBH]

Since unreasonably large locomotives have come up, the North American loading gauge is approximately a seven-eighths scale version of the British loading gauge. This is demonstrated by the ability of American prototypes in H0 scale to run on British 00 layouts.  So why not scale down American locomotives in the same proportion?

 

Taking the Union Pacific Big Boy for starters. The resulting unreasonably large locomotive has four cylinders, of 21" bore and 28" stroke. We know this fits in the loading gauge, a fair few locomotives have done it. Driving wheels are down to 60", which we know is perfectly fine for fast freight turns. Working pressure drops to 225psi, thanks to the smaller boiler. This is all very reasonable, and gives us a tractive effort of 78,720 pounds. Grate area would be about 88 square feet, with a power stoker and an unreasonably large tender being mandatory to keep it fed. The locomotive ought to weigh in at about 230 tons, with an axle load of 20.5 tons.

 

The boiler is going to be immense - 19'3" long with a 7'9" diameter - which will cause major loading gauge issues. Directly scaling from the American locomotive winds up at 14'3" tall. By reducing the clearance between the boiler and running gear, it should be possible to get down to 13'8", which is at least within the realms of possibility on some British lines. Making it a Garratt would probably remove the objection altogether, but we'll quietly ignore that point...

 

As far as tender capacity goes, scaling down from the Big Boy gets us 16.75 tons of coal, which seems reasonable for the size of the grate. It would also give us 15,000 gallons of water, which is disproportionate by UK standards. Scaling off the 9F's coal capacity, anything between 9,300 and 13,700 gallons seems reasonable. Go for 11,500 gallons. Using the Big Boy tender's load-to-weight ratio, that's a 118.7 ton tender; scaling from a BR.1, could be anywhere from 120 to 130 tons. Call it 120 tons on 6 axles, probably a bogie tender as well, though if it's at the higher end of the range a 7-axle 'centipede' tender might be needed. Might even be worth a Vanderbilt tender to save on weight.

Obviously, this is a big machine. Realistically, the Big Boy is designed to haul long freights up big hills at reasonable speeds, and this will be similar.  Shap and Beattock don't cut it, in my book, to give the 4-8-8-4 a chance to stretch its legs. They're reasonably steep, true - but they're not long enough. They can be tackled by building up a good head of steam, charging the hill, and mortgaging the boiler to get over the top. Ais Gill is long, but not steep enough - trains will hit a length limit before the tonnage limit (1).

 

There's only one place in Britain that I can think of with a big enough hill to truly compare to the duties the Big Boy was meant for. And fortunately, the company that built it was a 'big locomotive' railway with a history of doing new things - it built, for instance, the first British 4-6-0s. 

 

I am talking, of course, of the Highland Railway's main line from Perth to Inverness. Operating conditions on the Highland Main Line are generally more similar to American railroads than they are on other British lines, with long, steep hills where the boiler will need to work at equilibrium and long sections of single line which dictate running longer trains in preference to more frequent trains. If you're going to try and fit an American-style locomotive, it's the place to do it. Southbound from Inverness, it's 22 miles of climbing, mostly at 1 in 60, from a dead stop at sea level to 1,315 feet. Northbound, Drumochter isn't quite as steep but is longer. This is comparable to the grades that Union Pacific had to deal with in the Rockies. 

 

On a first approximation, it should be able to handle a 1,145 ton freight southbound from Inverness over Slochd - ruling gradient 1 in 60 - and 1,415 tons northbound from Perth over Drumochter at 1 in 70. That's actually relatively sensible, working out at about a 55 wagon train - which could and did run further south. So there shouldn't be too much of a problem with coupling strength.

 

A British-sized 4-8-8-4 actually makes some sense in the Highlands.  'Big Boy' is an unlikely name for such a machine. I call it 'Domhnall Beag' - or, translated from Gaelic, 'Little Donald'. It seemed fitting. We'll need to bore out or skylight the tunnels at Killiecrankie and Dunkeld, but more challenging civil engineering has been done.

 

The only problem is that there isn't enough traffic to justify it. The modern Oxwellmains to Inverness cement working today is about right - it's a 1,400 ton train, usually entrusted to a Type 5 diesel-electric and running as a Class 6 fully-fitted freight, permitted up to 60mph. The ideal size and class of train for Domhnall Beag to haul. Unfortunately it only runs a couple of times a week, and that's with today's traffic requirements. Justifying it would need a lot more freight running to (or from) Inverness during the steam age, and a railway willing to spend the money on a specialised locomotive to handle it.

 

That might make Ais Gill a better bet. Just lengthen the loops to handle 80 to 100 wagons. Can't be that difficult, right? Alternatively, it's not too far off of being a pair of 9F engines with a common boiler, so would be appropriate for any turn of duty that routinely needed double-headed 9Fs. The Ebbw Vale and Consett ore trains, for example. Axle load is higher than the 9F, but any line seeing that kind of regular heavy freight traffic ought to be able to handle it.

 

A similarly scaled Challenger 4-6-6-4 is well within the realms of sanity - it's pretty comparable to Powells proposed 4-6-2+2-6-4 for Preston to Glasgow and Perth. The passenger equivalent, a 7/8ths scale Union Pacific FEF-3, is actually slightly smaller and appreciably less powerful than the proposed LMS fast mixed traffic 4-8-4.

 

(1) Tonnage limit on Ais Gill would be about 2,150 tons, requiring 85 16-ton coal wagons or an equivalent.

[Gibbo675]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

Some might say might-have-been, some might say thankfully-wasn't!

Cheers mate !!!