Imaginary Locomotives

[Satan's Goldfish]

56 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Needs safety valves though Otherwise very nice.  Would look good pulling 6-wheeled Umbauwagen with Mk1 style bodies as an alternative to those pesky railcars.

 

Here's one I prepared earlier...

[LNWR18901910]

Here's my diesel bash that I did years ago and finally got around to showing!

I know there's a lack of detail on this Bachmann BR Class 20 but chop off the nose-endand stick another cab on it and there you go! The cab came from a Lima 20 body which was then cut off and stuck into its place. It runs well in both directions and turned out alright. I am aware some modellers have done this before but not in BR Green. Its running number will be added on it soon.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

21 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi SRF,

 

Where is its four wheeled tender ?

 

Gibbo.

On the way - just had to figure out how to do it with my editing software. Hopefully will have it done shortly.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

One 4-wheel tender version (including safety valves!).

[ScottishRailFanatic]

Conversation-starter - how about an articulated Class 90-style freight locomotive, akin to many international designs used today? A Class 94 of sorts?

[DavidB-AU]

2 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Conversation-starter - how about an articulated Class 90-style freight locomotive, akin to many international designs used today? A Class 94 of sorts?

 

 

Something in the style of an Indian WAG-12 might work.

 

 

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

Something in the style of an Indian WAG-12 might work.

 

 

Love that brake van.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

4 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

Something in the style of an Indian WAG-12 might work.

 

 

Precisely what I was going for - just using an articulated bogie for size reduction (British loading gauge is far too restrictive sometimes!)

[The Johnster]

Not just the loading gauge.  The length of trains allowed over any given route is determined by the capacity of loops and lay-by sidings, and in the UK is generally 60 standard size wagons, the loops being laid to accommodate this, the brake van, and up to two locomotives.  Signalling overlaps and other features are based on this.  Where lengths were increased, as for 100 wagon coal trains and other workings such as South Wales Main Line transfer freight between Severn Tunnel Jc and Cardiff, there were special signalling instructions in order to work the trains.

 

This is one of the reasons that locos more powerful than 9Fs or the LMS Beyer Garratts were never needed here, as sufficient power could be obtained within the loading gauge  to work the trains.  The massive American articulated Mallet beasts were a response to having  to haul enormous loads in one train on the long single line sections common, especially in the midwest and Rocky Mountains, in  that country, in order to maximise the efficiency of the pathing.  Land is cheap and easily available, especially in the mountains and deserts, so it is easy to build very long loops that can accommodate these mile long trains.

[Northmoor]

36 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Not just the loading gauge.  The length of trains allowed over any given route is determined by the capacity of loops and lay-by sidings, and in the UK is generally 60 standard size wagons, the loops being laid to accommodate this, the brake van, and up to two locomotives.  Signalling overlaps and other features are based on this.  Where lengths were increased, as for 100 wagon coal trains and other workings such as South Wales Main Line transfer freight between Severn Tunnel Jc and Cardiff, there were special signalling instructions in order to work the trains.

 

This is one of the reasons that locos more powerful than 9Fs or the LMS Beyer Garratts were never needed here, as sufficient power could be obtained within the loading gauge  to work the trains.  The massive American articulated Mallet beasts were a response to having  to haul enormous loads in one train on the long single line sections common, especially in the midwest and Rocky Mountains, in  that country, in order to maximise the efficiency of the pathing.  Land is cheap and easily available, especially in the mountains and deserts, so it is easy to build very long loops that can accommodate these mile long trains.

Likewise it was the reason the LNER P1s were not developed; their performance exceeded the available infrastructure.  It would have been interesting though if the UK had moved more quickly away from the RCH standard wagon towards high-capacity bogie designs.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Likewise it was the reason the LNER P1s were not developed; their performance exceeded the available infrastructure.  It would have been interesting though if the UK had moved more quickly away from the RCH standard wagon towards high-capacity bogie designs.

 

Or perhaps one should say, if the railway companies through the RCH wagon superintendents' committee had pushed harder for such things. (Any such large wagon would inevitably have been to an RCH specification.) Several of the major companies flirted with 30 ton+ bogie wagons around the turn of the century but none was able to pursue the concept - the traffic for which they could be used was too limited. The reasons why have been gone through numerous times in this thread already. Whatever advantage high capacity wagons may have offered to the railway companies, resistance from customers at both ends was too much. 

[The Johnster]

The infrastructure, in the form of transhipment handling facilities, coal cells/drops, hoists, tipplers, hopper bins, goods depot platforms and what-have-you, had developed over the 19th century to deal with short wheelbase wagons, and to have addressed the issue would have needed the co-operation of all those customers, some of whom were large concerns such as docks or steelworks that had a bit of clout behind them.  Even in the 60s there was resistance at collieries to MGR wagons.

 

In contrast, the US had developed bogie goods wagons very early, before most of their railroads were built, in order to cope with indifferent track, but to prove a major advantage over time.  By the turn of the century most of these bogie wagons were 40 footers, and the infrastructure had naturally developed to handle these.  The pressures on land usage, even on the populous East Coast, are much less than they are here, where every square inch has been fought over and accounted for. 

[Gilwell Park]

Some time ago I was watching my granddaughter driving James, very fast, round my layout. I realised that James is a very unusual locomotive, apart from his ability to speak that is. He is an inside cylinder 2-6-0. I have only found 2 such classes in the UK, One on the Caledonian & one on the Glasgow & South Western plus one in Ireland. I thought that it could be regarded as the goods equivalent of the 4-4-0. I read somewhere that James Holder of the GER considered a small wheeled Claud Hamilton for mixed traffic work, supplementing the E4 2-4-0 but never went ahead. I therefor present the LNER K10 class. An A. J. Hill development of the B12. A better loco for MT work than his heavy freight J20. It is built on a Hornby 0-6-0 chassis with a 3F footplate & original B12 cab, boiler & smokebox with front footplate attached . I have assumed that LNER rebuilt them with a round topped boiler as they did the B12/1 & the J20. 21mm Romford driving wheels are fitted. It is numbered in the unused 640xx series between the 2-8-0 & the 0-6-0. With a very old X04 motor it is a very useful engine.  Roger.

[The Johnster]

Took me a few minutes to work out what was bothering me about this.  Perfectly cromulent neverwazza, no reason it wouldn’t have worked, and the GER built inside cylinder locos without exception AFAIK.  
 

It’s the hilly backscene in the photo; I associate the GE with the bleak windswept levels of East Anglia and this is what was troubling me!  Funny how your preconceptions affect things.  I assume you’ve called it a K10 because K9 would have been a bit of a dog...

[PhilJ W]

Quite a few GE locomotives were dispatched to Scotland by the LNER where they proved popular.

[Gilwell Park]

It is a common misconception that East Anglia is flat. The fens of Cambridgeshire might be but Essex even close to London is quite hilly, especially if you cycle around it. In fact the main line out of Liverpool St to Norwich is hillier than the main line out of Paddington. Brentwood bank in particular.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Gilwell Park said:

Some time ago I was watching my granddaughter driving James, very fast, round my layout. I realised that James is a very unusual locomotive, apart from his ability to speak that is. He is an inside cylinder 2-6-0. I have only found 2 such classes in the UK, One on the Caledonian & one on the Glasgow & South Western plus one in Ireland. I thought that it could be regarded as the goods equivalent of the 4-4-0. I read somewhere that James Holder of the GER considered a small wheeled Claud Hamilton for mixed traffic work, supplementing the E4 2-4-0 but never went ahead. I therefor present the LNER K10 class. An A. J. Hill development of the B12. A better loco for MT work than his heavy freight J20. It is built on a Hornby 0-6-0 chassis with a 3F footplate & original B12 cab, boiler & smokebox with front footplate attached . I have assumed that LNER rebuilt them with a round topped boiler as they did the B12/1 & the J20. 21mm Romford driving wheels are fitted. It is numbered in the unused 640xx series between the 2-8-0 & the 0-6-0. With a very old X04 motor it is a very useful engine.  Roger.

Well done Roger

 

Your model looks very good and one that could well have been made.

[JimC]

17 hours ago, Gilwell Park said:

inside cylinder 2-6-0. I have only found 2 such classes in the UK, One on the Caledonian & one on the Glasgow & South Western 

Nice job, and yes, a very feasible type. You've missed the GWR Aberdares, which were indeed very much a freight version of the mixed traffic Bulldogs, albeit soon upboilered, and were in service up until the 40s (and we won't mention the Krugers).

 

[ian@stenochs]

On 02/04/2021 at 17:27, Gilwell Park said:

Some time ago I was watching my granddaughter driving James, very fast, round my layout. I realised that James is a very unusual locomotive, apart from his ability to speak that is. He is an inside cylinder 2-6-0. I have only found 2 such classes in the UK, One on the Caledonian & one on the Glasgow & South Western plus one in Ireland. I thought that it could be regarded as the goods equivalent of the 4-4-0. I read somewhere that James Holder of the GER considered a small wheeled Claud Hamilton for mixed traffic work, supplementing the E4 2-4-0 but never went ahead. I therefor present the LNER K10 class. An A. J. Hill development of the B12. A better loco for MT work than his heavy freight J20. It is built on a Hornby 0-6-0 chassis with a 3F footplate & original B12 cab, boiler & smokebox with front footplate attached . I have assumed that LNER rebuilt them with a round topped boiler as they did the B12/1 & the J20. 21mm Romford driving wheels are fitted. It is numbered in the unused 640xx series between the 2-8-0 & the 0-6-0. With a very old X04 motor it is a very useful engine.  Roger.

Rev Audrey was friendly with David L Smith, author of a number of books on the G&SWR, so it’s very likely that James was based on the Austrian Goods as the 2-6-0s were called on the Sou’ West.  They were a superheated development of Peter Drummonds big 0-6-0, the poney wheel added to take the weight of the superheater header and enlarged smokebox.

The twins, Donald & Douglas, were also based on a working in G&SW area though in BR days.  Most of the original stories were based on facts and railway practice.

 

Ian.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, ian@stenochs said:

Rev Audrey was friendly with David L Smith

 

Well that's a thing. I'm shelving that away with S.W. Johnson's son James marrying Dugald Drummond's daughter Christine.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

Based on the discussions about moving on to RCT hoppers, what if, in BR days, articulated sets were built? Each could be a 30T hopper using articulated bogies to make a set of 5, capable of transferring 150T per set. While the infrastructure needed would be rather expensive it could work well in areas like Immingham where coal traffic was prosperous.

[62613]

On 02/04/2021 at 17:27, Gilwell Park said:

Some time ago I was watching my granddaughter driving James, very fast, round my layout. I realised that James is a very unusual locomotive, apart from his ability to speak that is. He is an inside cylinder 2-6-0. I have only found 2 such classes in the UK, One on the Caledonian & one on the Glasgow & South Western plus one in Ireland. I thought that it could be regarded as the goods equivalent of the 4-4-0. I read somewhere that James Holder of the GER considered a small wheeled Claud Hamilton for mixed traffic work, supplementing the E4 2-4-0 but never went ahead. I therefor present the LNER K10 class. An A. J. Hill development of the B12. A better loco for MT work than his heavy freight J20. It is built on a Hornby 0-6-0 chassis with a 3F footplate & original B12 cab, boiler & smokebox with front footplate attached . I have assumed that LNER rebuilt them with a round topped boiler as they did the B12/1 & the J20. 21mm Romford driving wheels are fitted. It is numbered in the unused 640xx series between the 2-8-0 & the 0-6-0. With a very old X04 motor it is a very useful engine.  Roger.

Congratulations on a very plausible design, but surely it would have been a K4, or K5; the only other builder of 2-6-0s had only reached 3 by the time of the grouping. I remember seeing a side elevation of the MT 4-4-0, in Backtrack; the number of which I can't remember, but in the early 2000s,  think.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

Based on my earlier point, here’s an articulated set of ‘Seacow’ hoppers to showcase the basic idea.

[The Johnster]

On 04/04/2021 at 12:11, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Based on the discussions about moving on to RCT hoppers, what if, in BR days, articulated sets were built? Each could be a 30T hopper using articulated bogies to make a set of 5, capable of transferring 150T per set. While the infrastructure needed would be rather expensive it could work well in areas like Immingham where coal traffic was prosperous.

I think part of the reason collieries were reluctant to spend money on infrastructure for loading wagons, even where coal traffic was prosperous, is that mining is by nature speculative and a high risk investment.  You don’t know what geological problems you will encounter until you dig your way to them, and this goes for exhausting profitably winnable mineral as well.  Hence, mine owners are unwilling to borrow capital for improving their surface infrastructure, as they cannot guarantee continued profitability to repay the loan. 
 

In South Wales, where a large proportion of the traffic was steam coal to the ports for export, the hoists at the ports were by and large end tippers and most, not all, could only handle 9’ wheelbase wagons, though some could manage 21tonners. 

[RLBH]

On 02/04/2021 at 10:18, The Johnster said:

This is one of the reasons that locos more powerful than 9Fs or the LMS Beyer Garratts were never needed here, as sufficient power could be obtained within the loading gauge  to work the trains.

Which is indeed why my 'Domhnall Beag' scaled-down Big Boy is intended to work 60-wagon trains over a steeply graded route with lengthy sections of single track... unfortunately, I believe there's only one such line in the UK, and it only saw that level of traffic when there was a war on!