Imaginary Locomotives

[DanInHisDen]

10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Might I respectfully suggest moving the rear radial truck back to make it more symmetrical in side veiw with the front pony, which would allow for a much more useful sized coal bunker with the opportunity for extra water capacity, and a firebox that would not protrude as far back into the cab as the doors, which this one would have to to be big enough to go with the boiler.  This would also give room to move the cab back a little.  Forward visibility from the spectacle windows would be better with a sloping top at the front of the tanks.

 

This would have been a very useful loco for the GCR's short and medium haul heavy mineral work.  Heavy on the axles, though.

Thank You for the suggesions!

I have also made an 0-6-2 Jinty.

[DanInHisDen]

47 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

I think that would look well as a 2-6-2T.

Im not that good at editing but I will attempt it.

[Rockalaucher101]

Recent purchase of mine. Thinking of making some kind of fictional BR Super Tank loco... Any thoughts on the look?

Likely to use a Britannia or 9F body with scratch built tanks, unsure if it'll have deflectors or not, with similar tank design to that of the Standard 4 but larger.

[Corbs]

Bear in mind that a large tender engine boiler is so wide it means the tanks will be super thin and restrict water capacity. I had the same issue with a conversion I did, so try to maximise water capacity. 
You could add a water tank in the bunker area but that of course restricts coal capacity.

[JimC]

2 hours ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

 

Recent purchase of mine. Thinking of making some kind of fictional BR Super Tank loco... Any thoughts on the look?

Likely to use a Britannia or 9F body with scratch built tanks, unsure if it'll have deflectors or not, with similar tank design to that of the Standard 4 but larger.

Hard to think of a large tank engine without water space in the bunker. If you're aiming for a semi practical design the thing to consider is weight. A Brit is already at the weight limit with no water or coal capacity, so a 4-6-2 tank engine necessarily needs a lighter boiler. Then it also needs a shorter boiler to make room for a full cab and bunker. So this suggests that you need a shorter and smaller diameter boiler than the Brit boiler, which makes one think about the Standard 4 4-6-0 boiler.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by JimC

[DenysW]

What if the BR Standard 9F had included a 2-4-0+0-6-2 Kitson Meyer (type) option built by Beyer Peacock under strict  instructions not to make the d**n thing so long it can't be turned easily, and not to have two water points. This is just a cut/paste of an LMS Garratt - it did need the boiler extended despite losing that annoying water tank at the front. The size of the cylinders has not been reduced at the front, despite the need. I hope the number is fictional.

 

Duty: as a 9F where minimum radius is an issue, or a tank-style locomotive is needed to give push-pull operation.

 

[Andy Kirkham]

1 hour ago, Corbs said:

Bear in mind that a large tender engine boiler is so wide it means the tanks will be super thin and restrict water capacity. I had the same issue with a conversion I did, so try to maximise water capacity. 
You could add a water tank in the bunker area but that of course restricts coal capacity.

While looking for examples of big tank locomotives, I came across a novel means of rendering imagnary designs - Minecraft..

https://www.planetminecraft.com/project/sd-477-043-papou-ek/

This is a Czech 4-8-4T nicknamed Papoušek (Parrot)

[Rockalaucher101]

I suppose the tanks could always extend below the running board of the brit or 9f so it'd need splashers... Coal capacity is another thing and I'm tempted to fuse a BR1F tender to the back of the cab, cut down of course. I'll just have to get myself a donor and start cutting, see what sticks, but I know I'm going to shorten the boiler and firebox

[BernardTPM]

Given the valve gear is outside on BR Standards, well tanks in the frames could be used.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

Posted before but to the mention of Kitson-Meyer types, here is my one:

 

 

Gibbo.

[PhilJ W]

3 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Given the valve gear is outside on BR Standards, well tanks in the frames could be used.

More than enough space on a 9F.

[LNWR18901910]

Here I am back again a week after my visit to the Bluebell Railway! After seeing the sole-surviving H Class No. 263, I was inspired to design a short wheelbase 4-4-0 tender locomotive as I hoped to make a freelance model.

This is the locomotive I just came up with. The tender would be a whole piece with attachments for spoked metal wheels and couplings for the drawbar and the modern Hornby coupling. I hope everyone likes it as much as I did in designing it. In addition, I would make rolling stock using an SR Queen Mary bogie brake van chassis to make a short rake of mini coaches inspired by the old Metropolitan Railway coaching stock (which I also rode aboard - twice!).

[Corbs]

18 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

Posted before but to the mention of Kitson-Meyer types, here is my one:

 

 

Gibbo.

 

 

[DenysW]

Yes, but it's so much better ( and so much more 3D-real) than my photoshop 2-4-0+0-6-2 9F that I can accept virtually anything but don't have to. I particularly like the attention to detail that does the side water-tanks to replace the Garratt front tank.

 

Also: apologies for not referencing this gem when I posted my more modest effort.

[Gibbo675]

6 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

 

Hi Corbs,

 

You know its present condition is termed as: "Nearly Started".

 

Anyway, how is your Metro-Camm coach getting along ? I haven't seen it since I posted it.

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

According to Roger Bradley's "GWR 2 Cylinder 4-6-0s & 2-6-0s", there was a Swindon proposal late in the GWR era to put a Bulleid Merchant Navy style boiler on  King running gear. I can't envisage how this would work without a trailing axle-can anyone Photoshop it?

[JimC]

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

According to Roger Bradley's "GWR 2 Cylinder 4-6-0s & 2-6-0s", there was a Swindon proposal late in the GWR era to put a Bulleid Merchant Navy style boiler on  King running gear. I can't envisage how this would work without a trailing axle-can anyone Photoshop it?

Its mentioned in RCTS as well. Given a scale drawing of a Merchant Navy boiler I could offer it up to my scale King drawings, but I agree I cannot see how an unaltered Merchant  Navy boiler could be fitted to an unaltered King chassis. 

[Gibbo675]

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

According to Roger Bradley's "GWR 2 Cylinder 4-6-0s & 2-6-0s", there was a Swindon proposal late in the GWR era to put a Bulleid Merchant Navy style boiler on  King running gear. I can't envisage how this would work without a trailing axle-can anyone Photoshop it?

Hi Rodent,

 

The amalgamation of styles of streamlined casings of both the Merchant Navy's and the King class is even more mindboggling than the boiler and mechanicals parts !!!

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

Interesting proposition, though I'd imagine a merchant navy boiler would be somewhat wasted on a King chassis.

 

21 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

The amalgamation of styles of streamlined casings of both the Merchant Navy's and the King class is even more mindboggling than the boiler and mechanicals parts !!!

 

Gibbo.

 

I've got a worrying mental picture of the b@st@rd offspring of an unholy union between 6014 & a MN......

[JimC]

I found a dimensioned drawing of a MN boiler. The two boilers, the King and the MN, aren't a vastly different length, and the two will work together - provided you convert the King to a 4-4-2!!

[LNWR18901910]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

I found a dimensioned drawing of a MN boiler. The two boilers, the King and the MN, aren't a vastly different length, and the two will work together - provided you convert the King to a 4-4-2!!

An Atlantic version of a GWR King - that's something!

[Gibbo675]

3 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said:

An Atlantic version of a GWR King - that's something!

Hi LNWR,

 

I would suggest that it would be somewhat more slippery than a Merchant Navy, especially as the boiler would be able to supply plenty of steam to keep such a slip going !!!

 

Gibbo.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Gibbo675
Poor syntax

[AlfaZagato]

Looks like you could bring the boiler forward a few inches, and lower it at the same time.  

 

What sort of clearance does a plain axle need from the firebox?  Superimposed drawing implies maybe an inch as-is.   

 

What benefit does the MN boiler bring to the table over the King's boiler?  Some manner of alternative (possibly superior) performance?

[JimC]

Here's a shot at the 4-4-2 version! The axle loading on the driving wheels would be truly spectacular! Not a culvert left intact! The taper on the boiler achieves nothing of course so its not a useful concept.

What it would achieve to put a MN boiler on a King chassis? Well, even though its little longer, it is a much bigger boiler overall, with a bigger grate and much more heating surface, both in the firebox and in a longer barrel with consequently longer tubes. As nothing comes for free, what that would do to the axle loading, already I believe somewhat optimistically calculated for the Kings... 
It would be interesting to see the drawing. I  cannot see that there would be the slightest chance of fitting a wide firebox boiler to a King chassis, my guess it is that the drawing was for comparison purposes not a design study. As for axle clearance in my sketch, that's not really the issue - the wheels themselves passing through the firebox would be more of a design challenge!

 

[DenysW]

I think this has comprehensively answered the question of whether a Merchant Navy boiler, put on a King's engine would work without articulation extending the drivers to under the tender. No it won't.

 

With articulation you then get to chose between a 4-4-0+0-2-4 (weird but might work), a 4-4-0+0-4-2 (more symmetrical, mixed traffic, some issues at speed in reverse), and a 4-4-0+0-4-4 (fully symmetrical, but repeatedly rejected when suggested by Beyer Peacock in Garratt configuration). It's my non-expert view that none of these would get past the Locomotive Committee as offering a visible improvement over existing types. Sigh.