Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives

28XX
 Share

Recommended Posts

ScottishRailFanatic

ScottishRailFanatic

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JimC said:

How about a 3 coach unit with a driving cab at one end and a locomotive portion at the other, and a corridor connection on the locomotive portion? Then two units could be coupled locomotive portions together, and a single fireman tend both through the corridor connection.

Eureka, that's it! To Photoshop!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JimC

JimC

Posted
Posted

OK, coming along well. Now consider the need to separate locomotive portion and coach for servicing. Can we think of a way of articulating a locomotive with a carriage so they can be readily separated? Maybe a little hinge down pair of wheels under the carriage that could be used to raise the carriage off the locomotive unit and act as an accomodation unit? Perhaps a steam lance connection could be used to power the lift. And perhaps corridor connections on the main unit and footboards alongside the locomotive portion so the driver can change ends without having to climb down onto the ballast?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Compound2632

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted
9 minutes ago, JimC said:

OK, coming along well. Now consider the need to separate locomotive portion and coach for servicing. Can we think of a way of articulating a locomotive with a carriage so they can be readily separated? Maybe a little hinge down pair of wheels under the carriage that could be used to raise the carriage off the locomotive unit and act as an accomodation unit? Perhaps a steam lance connection could be used to power the lift. And perhaps corridor connections on the main unit and footboards alongside the locomotive portion so the driver can change ends without having to climb down onto the ballast?

 

One quite rapidly comes to appreciate why a conventional separate locomotive with auto-control gear came to be preferred!

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottishRailFanatic

ScottishRailFanatic

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, scots region said:

A little off topic, but is there anyway the Class 17 'Claytons' could've been a success? 

I think the 17s could have been excellent if they weren’t given those god-awful Clayton engines. The single survivor has been re-engined and apparently runs like a dream compared to its original form. A Class 20-esque approach could have been taken, raising the height of the engine blocks to allow for a bigger engine. Maybe a smaller pair of EE power units? Or an extension to a Co-Co configuration to allow for yet more power, maybe just edging into the Type 2 category? 
 

Either way, I’m quite convinced that Harry Needle Railroad Company - who are re-engineering a whole fleet of former industrials - could find use for the Clayton design.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AlfaZagato

AlfaZagato

Posted
Posted

If I remember correctly, the twin Claytons were the issue.   The Rolls-Royce motored example(s?) did much better. 

 

On that line of thought, could re-motoring have saved the 28?  The Irish seemed to have luck replacing the Crossley with an EMD.   A 28/1, possibly turbo'd under 28/2?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Northmoor

Northmoor

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted
32 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

If I remember correctly, the twin Claytons were the issue.   The Rolls-Royce motored example(s?) did much better. 

 

On that line of thought, could re-motoring have saved the 28?  The Irish seemed to have luck replacing the Crossley with an EMD.   A 28/1, possibly turbo'd under 28/2?  

It wasn't just appalling reliability that killed off the Co-Bos though, there was a glut of Type 2 power and a number of small classes (why the 29s, vastly better than the 21s they were re-engined from, didn't survive either).

 

30 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I’m still convinced that given a bit of work and some new engines, the 17s could be wonderful engines.

It is a shame they weren't sorted earlier because they were operationally a great improvement for drivers' visibility over the single-cabbed 20s.  However, twin engines were never popular on BR (two of everything to maintain outweighs the benefits of duplication) and like the Type 2s, the traffic for such low power locomotives was disappearing.  

 

For both these imaginary classes, you'd also need to imagine a lot of minor line closures in the late 60s didn't take place.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottishRailFanatic

ScottishRailFanatic

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

It wasn't just appalling reliability that killed off the Co-Bos though, there was a glut of Type 2 power and a number of small classes (why the 29s, vastly better than the 21s they were re-engined from, didn't survive either).

 

It is a shame they weren't sorted earlier because they were operationally a great improvement for drivers' visibility over the single-cabbed 20s.  However, twin engines were never popular on BR (two of everything to maintain outweighs the benefits of duplication) and like the Type 2s, the traffic for such low power locomotives was disappearing.  

 

For both these imaginary classes, you'd also need to imagine a lot of minor line closures in the late 60s didn't take place.

Excellent point Northmoor - that’s why I made the suggestion of a ‘Co-Co Clayton’ that would juuuuuuust edge into the Type 2/3 border.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
92220

92220

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, rodent279 said:

No I meant the Crosti-Caprotti class 5! Though it does look a bit neater than the Crosti 9F, and who knows, maybe would have worked better.

One of the things I liked about it was that it was planned and drawn at some stage but not built, a bit like the Standard 2-8-2.

So I didn’t have to make too much up in my mind to build it as drawings existed.

 

Powell 2-8-2 still half built.

 

One day.

 

Iain

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
scots region

scots region

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

For both these imaginary classes, you'd also need to imagine a lot of minor line closures in the late 60s didn't take place.

 

Waverley and the C&O stay open then. Not that I imagine anyone would complain. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
AY Mod

AY Mod

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted
1 hour ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Nothing wrong with that! 

 

Your subsequent post has been removed as totally off topic. Please keep to the pavement and off the grass. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
figworthy

figworthy

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Going back to the various steam locos based (however loosely) on BR standards, I have a recollection that in the late 70s there was a suggestion (not sure how serious) that a new set of steam locos were built specifically for the pithead - power station traffic.  Does anyone else remember that, and did anything appear on the sketch pads (prior to the drawing board) ?

 

Adrian

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RLBH

RLBH

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

If I remember correctly, the twin Claytons were the issue.   The Rolls-Royce motored example(s?) did much better. 

AIUI, not only were the two Rolls-Royce engined locomotives more satisfactory, but the Beyer-Peacock built examples (with Crompton-Parkinson traction motors, rather than Clayton's GEC motors) also did better. The ideal Class 17 would probably be built by Beyer-Peacock with Rolls-Royce engines and Crompton-Parkinson electrics. And still be mostly useless because the traffic disappeared, but you can't win 'em all.

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottishRailFanatic

ScottishRailFanatic

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, RLBH said:

AIUI, not only were the two Rolls-Royce engined locomotives more satisfactory, but the Beyer-Peacock built examples (with Crompton-Parkinson traction motors, rather than Clayton's GEC motors) also did better. The ideal Class 17 would probably be built by Beyer-Peacock with Rolls-Royce engines and Crompton-Parkinson electrics. And still be mostly useless because the traffic disappeared, but you can't win 'em all.

A pair of 17s on merry-go-round workings, similar to the 20s, could work. Of course, make them Royce-engined versions!

Edited by ScottishRailFanatic
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Michael Edge

Michael Edge

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

I've never seen any reliable information on the performance of the two Claytons with RR DV8 engines but bearing in mind that the same configuration worked perfectly well for many years in the Scunthorpe fleet (Hunslet Bo-Bos) at a higher horsepower rating I would be amazed if they weren't much better. Unfortunately odd modifications like this tend not to fare very well, the better ones get lumped in with the rest and suffer the same bad reputation, whether deserved or not.

Going back to steam days there is a reliable story of one WD 2-8-0 which had its wheels properly balanced and ran much better (the original WD wheels had the balance weights cast in and all the same) - but it seems to have got "lost" or its number wrongly reported and nothing more was done.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...