Imaginary Locomotives

[Ben Alder]

1 hour ago, Mike 84C said:

Richard, regarding the connecting rods on 70548, I think you have them in the correct place driving the second axle. Long rods and speed would set up high reciprocating stresses with probable flexing. A rough ride is almost certain. But it does look very good and believeable.

Not so sure about the 2-6-2 though could be a bit of a slippery machine!

 

Thanks, and to the others who have let me take the easier option of driving on the second axle. These are going to be layout locos and once they join the fleet all puzzling and fretting about details usually vanishes once away from the scrutiny of the workbench. I have always been a bit intrigued by this wheel arrangement and its minimal UK usage, and have surmised that between Gresleys large build of V4's and Coleman's design making it into production the arrangement became part of the alternative Standard range....

Here is a heavier version - cut down Clan boiler and 5'8" drivers.

 

 

[Ben Alder]

Comparative shots of the Clan and its smaller cousin showing the difference in visual appearance from the smaller drivers.

[rodent279]

On 25/04/2021 at 22:24, 298 said:

The comparatively low dc voltage may be because of nationwide clearance issues, and there's no reason why the GWR couldn't have gone for something higher, either 3000v DC or more likely 11 or 15kv AC at 16 ²/³ Hz.

 

I've not seen the figures quoted before but am fairly certain the larger types would have been based on the twin motored Swiss Crocodiles, the 1-Co-Co-1 (or 1C-C1) types having similar and successively higher horsepower ratings as they were developed through time. 

 

Following contemporary practice, the Bo-Bo type would have probably been more boxy and with individual motors per axle, and the trucks articulated to each other as per the later BR class 76.

Revisiting the GWR electrification plans, the Hungarians and Italians were also pretty well versed in railway electrification by the 1930's. The GWR could have looked to either or both of those countries for motive power-could we have seen something like this on the sharp end of the Cornish Riviera?:-

 

FS class E428, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Class_E.428

 

Stylistically, it's not a million miles from the GWR railcars, is it? And the earlier, non-streamlined version is also reminiscent of Raven's unlucky no. 13.

And it's already painted brown!

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by rodent279

[Northmoor]

25 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Revisiting the GWR electrification plans, the Hungarians and Italians were also pretty well versed in railway electrification by the 1930's. The GWR could have looked to either or both of those countries for motive power-could we have seen something like this on the sharp end of the Cornish Riviera?:-

 

FS class E428, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Class_E.428

 

Stylistically, it's not a million miles from the GWR railcars, is it? And the earlier, non-streamlined version is also reminiscent of Raven's unlucky no. 13.

And it's already painted brown!

 

 

 

It's also built for left-hand running.....

[DavidB-AU]

24 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Revisiting the GWR electrification plans, the Hungarians and Italians were also pretty well versed in railway electrification by the 1930's. The GWR could have looked to either or both of those countries for motive power-could we have seen something like this on the sharp end of the Cornish Riviera?:-

 

GWR was working with Brown Boveri in the 1930s. Swiss prototypes are probably more likely. 

 

Cheers

David

[Anadin Dogwalker]

One of the early SNCF 2D2s -the 5500s?- of swiss design - on expresses and something  like the Emmental/Bodensee Be4/4s for freight and stoppers would have my approval. 

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

GWR was working with Brown Boveri in the 1930s. Swiss prototypes are probably more likely. 

 

Cheers

David

An AE4/7 would have made a nice sight at Paddington.

 

Would a slightly pointy front end like that FS loco have been a GWR thing? They weren't really into streamlining their locos, though given a relatively blank sheet the railcars are a bit pointy. Early British electric locos weren't really especially styled - the Bulleid-Raworth, NER and Woodhead locos are more function over form. Though the NERs do have something of a steeplecab thing going on which I quite like.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Zomboid
Correcting "function over form"

[PhilJ W]

The Metropolitan Bo-Bo's and Southern EMU's had rounded cabs which would have given a small amount of streamlining. The GWR railcar styling was more down to the manufacturer initially but then wartime exigencies resulted in the Kryton appearance of the later ones.

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

An AE4/7 would have made a nice sight at Paddington.

 

Would a slightly pointy front end like that FS loco have been a GWR thing? They weren't really into streamlining their locos, though given a relatively blank sheet the railcars are a bit pointy. Early British electric locos weren't really especially styled - the Bulleid-Raworth, NER and Woodhead locos are more form over function. Though the NERs do have something of a steeplecab thing going on which I quite like.

I dunno, the GWR railcars have a definite art deco look about them, and so do the E428's. I'm sure, being the publicity minded beast that it was, the GWR would have gone for an element of streamlining on some, at least. I don't see why an Ae4/7 couldn't be similarly treated.

Yes, I know they paid lipservice to the idea with the "streamlining" applied to 5005 & 6014, after all that didn't stop Swindon building further railcars.

[rodent279]

This is effectively 2 Ae4/7's back to back, in one unit. A streamlined Ae4/7 might have looked similar.

 

 

[Anadin Dogwalker]

At 11,000hp, the third Ae8/14, the "Landilok", was more like three Ae4/7s. The Ae4/6 were the direct descendants technically , albeit a more upright bowed cab front, but weren't that successful either due to design flaws or wartime corner-cutting; aluminium wiring that was prone to overheating and dodgy transformers IIRC. I believe they were all gone by the mid seventies, while the Ae4/7s, in spite of being 15 years older, lasted another 20. I remember shooting them at Olten in 94 and a handful might have been around the next time I visited in 2000.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I dunno, the GWR railcars have a definite art deco look about them, and so do the E428's. I'm sure, being the publicity minded beast that it was, the GWR would have gone for an element of streamlining on some, at least. I don't see why an Ae4/7 couldn't be similarly treated.

Yes, I know they paid lipservice to the idea with the "streamlining" applied to 5005 & 6014, after all that didn't stop Swindon building further railcars.

Swindon didn't build any railcars, they were all outsourced and styled by the manufacturer.  Had Swindon been responisble for the styling, I would have thought something like the auto trailer look, having already been used on steam railmotors, would have been the default, and it is not impossible if we are playing the 'what if' game that the more recent steel bodied trailers might have been given underfloor engines to be come proto-dmus.

 

Nowhere did early electric or diesel locomotives feature streamlining, but the Americans siezed the opportunity with the Burlington Flyers and the F units (which were usually introduced in combination with streamlined aluminium Budd stock) and as it is no more difficult to build the outer shell of a diesel or electric locmotive to look sexy than to build a box, the rest of the world was much impressed with this and the F units in particular had a major influence on early British diesels.  Yard and road switchers were never really styled in this way, and modern traction has reverted to the flat fronted box or gone all 'bullet train', with no real in betweenery, 68s excepted.

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

This is effectively 2 Ae4/7's back to back, in one unit. A streamlined Ae4/7 might have looked similar.

 

 

Not hard to detect it's DNA in the styling of the AL series 25kv electrics!

[The Lurker]

On 08/06/2021 at 15:16, The Johnster said:

While the Yorkshire Pullman was certainly a prestige service in passenger perception terms, it was relatively lightly loaded and easily timed, effectively a secondary service in operational terms and ideal work for the C1s, which could run fast and steam freely if not overloaded and the use of which released A1 and A3, for that matter A4, pacifics for work on heavier trains.  The C1s were also being utilised on outer suburban work at this time.

 

Their cousins, the Marsh atlantics on the Southern, were the normal horse for the Brighton Belle until it was electrified, and this was I would suggest probably a tougher job to a 60mph average timing which had been important to the marketing people since LBSC days, albeit over a shorter route.  They were presumably good for the job, as I am unaware of their ever having been replaced by Arthurs or Nelsons, which were used on the Western and Eastern Sections for Pullman work and other expresses or boat train,

per SREMG, the Arthurs (with six wheel tenders for the shorter turntables) were used on the Southern Belle, as had been the River class 2-6-4Ts (before the Sevenoaks crash) and the Maunsell moguls. The Marsh Atlantics did carry on working the Newhaven boat trains, although I think when the Bulleid-Raworth electrics were introduced, they were used on those.

[AlfaZagato]

I believe, in regards to the modern hot/cold on styling, that it all has to do with economics.   No point in streamlining if the speeds don't warrant the work.

 

That was probably the GWR's reasoning on never joining the 'airsmoothed' trend.   Touching 100 was already good enough to make for some of the best timings.   

[DK123GWR]

8 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

I believe, in regards to the modern hot/cold on styling, that it all has to do with economics.   No point in streamlining if the speeds don't warrant the work.

Also, if streamlining isn't necessary it is advantageous (for MUs at least) not to have it, as this facilitates end gangways which allow passengers and staff to move between units when coupled together.

[PenrithBeacon]

19 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

I believe, in regards to the modern hot/cold on styling, that it all has to do with economics.   No point in streamlining if the speeds don't warrant the work.

 

That was probably the GWR's reasoning on never joining the 'airsmoothed' trend.   Touching 100 was already good enough to make for some of the best timings.   

True but the cruising speeds of many d/emu trains are well up to the speeds where there is an advantage in streamlining. Having said that, many of today's d/emus look more like aircraft fuselages than railway vehicles.

[Zomboid]

I heard that streamlining (if done effectively) really starts to have an impact at about 80mph. I guess that rolling resistance is much more dominant at lower speeds.

[Gibbo675]

28 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I heard that streamlining (if done effectively) really starts to have an impact at about 80mph. I guess that rolling resistance is much more dominant at lower speeds.

Hello Mr Zomboid,

 

Cross winds at about 30* to head on are the most trouble to train resistance. Pointy fronts mostly just look sleek and don't do a right lot to off set those trick cross winds.

 

Gibbo.

[Ben Alder]

Last of the other Standards now - a Class Four 2-6-0  - a late addition after finding a Hornby Stanier tank chassis in a box and digging out a Mainline 75xxx body from the late seventies that had at least two chassis under it during its earlier working life.

 

[Ben Alder]

And finally, a don't look too closely, LMS Class Four 4-6-0 as proposed for the Highland lines in 1933/4. I have done one already based around the Railroad Black Five with smaller drivers and a Fowler tender, but this one is  shakings from the leftovers - a Standard Four chassis and boiler camouflaged as a Stanier one, GBL footplate and cab and Ivatt tender. I have decided that Ivatt had a go at this class after the war and fitted it with his tender and altered the access to the cab, which gives quite a different outline to it. By laziness I've numbered it in one of the post war Black Five sequences, presuming that the original build adopted these,then spare, numbers, and the tender actually fits a bit closer than in the picture, not being coupled up in it.

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Ben Alder
Meant tender fits closer, not cab.

[Clive Mortimore]

5 hours ago, Ben Alder said:

And finally, a don't look too closely, LMS Class Four 4-6-0 as proposed for the Highland lines in 1933/4. I have done one already based around the Railroad Black Five with smaller drivers and a Fowler tender, but this one is  shakings from the leftovers - a Standard Four chassis and boiler camouflaged as a Stanier one, GBL footplate and cab and Ivatt tender. I have decided that Ivatt had a go at this class after the war and fitted it with his tender and altered the access to the cab, which gives quite a different outline to it. By laziness I've numbered it in one of the post war Black Five sequences, presuming that the original build adopted these,then spare, numbers, and the cab actually fits a bit closer than in the picture, not being coupled up in it.

 

Hi Ben

 

I am really enjoying the images of your models of imaginary locomotives.

[Ben Alder]

Thanks, Clive. That's them all for now although I have bits for a BR 8F, an unnecessary beast, with the plethora of freight engines BR inherited, but what the....and perhaps another 2-8-2 with either 5' or 5'3" drivers, but this involves a lot of hacking away at the P2 chassis and I have several other projects screaming for attention, not least getting the last fixture and fittings on this lot and weathering them for the layout. However, I have enjoyed this ramble through a different standarisation, and it has given use to  a lot of loco parts and fittings that have lain unused for two decades plus now.

 

[Suzie]

Has  no one done a BR standard 4-10-2 express freight tank yet?

[rodent279]

54 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Has  no one done a BR standard 4-10-2 express freight tank yet?

Do you mean something like this?

A 2-10-2 rather than 4-10-2. If you prefer something larger, then there's this:-

"Mama Bear", a Bulgarian 2-12-4. Imagine that banking up Shap!

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Has  no one done a BR standard 4-10-2 express freight tank yet?

I think that ASLEF banned them on the grounds that they were too hard work for the fireman. But oil-fired might work.