Imaginary Locomotives

[PhilJ W]

9 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Impressive idea @DenysW! Here’s a side-on edit, with some slight alterations in measurements - I couldn’t be completely accurate to the original I’m afraid.

I wouldn't like to oil the mechanism. I'm not that well up on GWR panniers but didn't some have 'half' pannier tanks with the back half deep as above but the front half the conventional pannier tanks?

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On 30/08/2021 at 16:14, Flying Pig said:

 

Should have gone to Radio Rentals English Electric.

 

General Motors

[ScottishRailFanatic]

I’m sure it’s been done many a time before, but here is a concept for a Class 08 with dual cab operation. 

[DK123GWR]

21 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I’m sure it’s been done many a time before, but here is a concept for a Class 08 with dual cab operation. 

Honest question: would this need to be extended into an 0-8-0 in order to ensure that there's enough space for all of the internal bits?

[DenysW]

If I may look a gift-horse in the mouth, maybe make the cab  on the GWR more spacious? The attached is from an 0-8-0T that ran on La Petite Ceinture, and it does look as if the French wanted enough space for three operatives to more around freely. Plus this enlarged the panniers. The du Bousquet appeared to have enough space on the back for a table and chairs, but he was fitting his rear driving wheels under it.

 

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Impressive idea @DenysW! Here’s a side-on edit, with some slight alterations in measurements - I couldn’t be completely accurate to the original I’m afraid.

Ermm, where's the coal go?

[ScottishRailFanatic]

1 hour ago, DK123GWR said:

Honest question: would this need to be extended into an 0-8-0 in order to ensure that there's enough space for all of the internal bits?

Quite possibly, unless we go for a smaller engine - a new version will be made later.

[JimC]

19 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Ermm, where's the coal go?

A "bunker" inside the side tanks.

 

Is the boiler longer or the chassis shorter? A longer boiler would get you into weight trouble.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

The boiler has been slightly extended to house a larger firebox, but what I had in mind when I witnessed the original photoshop was a banker, where the extra weight (and subsequent adhesive improvements) would be well received.

[JimC]

17 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

The boiler has been slightly extended to house a larger firebox, but what I had in mind when I witnessed the original photoshop was a banker, where the extra weight (and subsequent adhesive improvements) would be well received.

A foot longer firebox would make it a Std 3 boiler!

[DenysW]

" ... Ermm, where's the coal go?"

 

Looking at the rivets (but not counting them) the French seem to have gone for simple rectangular boxes, the front one for water and the rear one for coal - this is particularly pronounced on the du Bousquet where the water tank was fixed to the front driving wheels and thus pivoted independently of the boiler.

 

I'm a bit surprised by this for the non-articulated tanks as I'd have thought a sloping floor, say 1:10, would have helped move the coal down to the shovelling point, and water doesn't care what shape it's stored in.

 

We Brits did rarely do this - to my knowledge on Fairlies, but there must have been others.

[Barclay]

2 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Honest question: would this need to be extended into an 0-8-0 in order to ensure that there's enough space for all of the internal bits?

Or bogies - a class 20 chassis for instance? That would give a bit more room for radiator grilles to replace the one at the end. Something the LMS might have built in conjunction with EE if it hadn't been for that pesky nationalisation. Later tidied up to become the class 20 of course...

[Northmoor]

3 minutes ago, DenysW said:

" ... Ermm, where's the coal go?"

 

Looking at the rivets (but not counting them) the French seem to have gone for simple rectangular boxes, the front one for water and the rear one for coal - this is particularly pronounced on the du Bousquet where the water tank was fixed to the front driving wheels and thus pivoted independently of the boiler.

 

I'm a bit surprised by this for the non-articulated tanks as I'd have thought a sloping floor, say 1:10, would have helped move the coal down to the shovelling point, and water doesn't care what shape it's stored in.

 

We Brits did rarely do this - to my knowledge on Fairlies, but there must have been others.

Perhaps it could be oil fired, with the oil tanks towards the back. 

Or two tanks each side, with the inner for water, the outer for oil.

Or just add the oil to the water tank, it'll float on the water anyway...........

:-)

[BernardTPM]

5 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I’m sure it’s been done many a time before, but here is a concept for a Class 08 with dual cab operation. 

 

4 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Honest question: would this need to be extended into an 0-8-0 in order to ensure that there's enough space for all of the internal bits?

The biggest problem is going to be the lack of a radiator. Don't run it for too long.

[cypherman]

Hi all,

Well it is finally finished. My latest never was.

N2 chassis and M7 body. Nearest engine I could find that looked a bit like this was the E6. S I thought it could be called an E7T.

1  Replaced the damaged armature in the motor.

2  Moved the engines whistle further back and put in 2 steam valves. Filed off the original ones that were on the steam dome.

3  New coupling hooks front and rear.

4  New steam and vacuum pipes front and rear. lamp irons front and rear.

5  New steps on the back of the bunker.

6  New top guard rail on the bunker.

7  Scratch built the ventilation hatch on the top of the cab.

8  some other bits of brass work and steps on the engine tanks and splashers.

9  fitted a cover over the 2 holes where the original chassis protruded through.

10 Fitted guard rails on the rear windows.

11 The original M7 had an opening smokebox door and an a plastic inside view. this was removed as it got in the way of the new chassis fitting. The door was then reset further in  to the                   front of the smokebox  than the original.

12 fitted new hand rails at various points on the engine.

13 Full repaint in SR black and transfers

14 lamp to indicate branch passenger train.

15 Real coal used in the bunker.

I am in no way a fine scale modeller. personally I think my skills are basic and adequate. But I am happy with the way this has turned out.

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I wouldn't like to oil the mechanism. I'm not that well up on GWR panniers but didn't some have 'half' pannier tanks with the back half deep as above but the front half the conventional pannier tanks?

97xx, condensing version of 8750 for use on 'widened lines' underground LT to Smithfield.  The pannier part of the tanks ended half way along the smokebox like a 94xx (and this neverwazza) so as to allow the condensing pipes to exit the smokebox clear of the tanks.  The rear half of the tanks of these locos was mounted on the running plate, so they were not true panniers.  The reason that pannier tanks were originally used on the GW was to allow the replacement of boilers on saddle tanks with belpaire firebox fitted boilers, while retaining the facility to access oiling points between the frames that was a feature of the saddle tanks.

 

The proposed neverwazza shown here is hence pointless, but great fun nevertheless, as it has pannier tanks that are so close at the bottom to the running plate that access to the oiling points is denied.  If you are going to do this, you need to ensure that all the oiling points are accessible from beneath the loco, and you may as well sit what are now effectively side tanks on top of the running plate.

7 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I’m sure it’s been done many a time before, but here is a concept for a Class 08 with dual cab operation. 

The frame needs to be a good bit longer, either resulting in an 0-8-0 as has been suggested, or a longer wheelbase 0-6-0, which would have been acceptable for most of the duties that 08s were employed on and might have enabled a higher top speed and more ability to keep out of the way on main line transfer freights!  As shown, the front cab occupies some of the space used by the coolant radiator and the exhaust on the real 08, and there would need to be a bulkhead plate in front of this radiator to separate it from the cab, and provide a surface for those controls that are mounted on it in the rear cab, IIRC straight air brake and train air brake handles, and the gauges. 

 

Again, fun, and good for encouraging thinking about what is and isn't possible, practical, and desireable.  In this case, I'd say the extra cab is counterproductive; this is a shunting loco and the poor driver is either going to spend half his shift climbing into or out of the cabs as he repeatedly changes ends, or, if he doesn't, will find his view blocked by the other cab!  This would have been a highly unpopular locomotive, and probably requires double manning with a competent man in the other cab to handsignal the driver, making operation expensive.

[JimC]

51 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

In this case, I'd say the extra cab is counterproductive; this is a shunting loco and the poor driver is either going to spend half his shift climbing into or out of the cabs as he repeatedly changes ends, or, if he doesn't, will find his view blocked by the other cab!  This would have been a highly unpopular locomotive, and probably requires double manning with a competent man in the other cab to handsignal the driver, making operation expensive.

Perhaps this is the trip freight version they never managed to get to work?

 

[AlfaZagato]

How about a steeple-cab DE shunter?   With two of the AEC diesels that seemed to have been successful in the GWR railcars?   

 

Generators could be smaller, as you would be aggregating the work of two.   Transverse mounting of the motors, with opposing transverse mounting of the generators akin to a modern FWD car maximizes the space.   Axle-hung motor under the cab geared to the center axle.   Or, twin motors very low mounted between the axles.

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, DenysW said:

Looking at the rivets (but not counting them) the French seem to have gone for simple rectangular boxes, the front one for water and the rear one for coal - this is particularly pronounced on the du Bousquet where the water tank was fixed to the front driving wheels and thus pivoted independently of the boiler

 

You and I are reading the du Bousquet quite differently.  To return to Douglas Self, the photo of the model clearly shows coal in a bunker behind the cab and both rectangular structures as water tanks.  He also states a couple of times that both pairs of tanks were mounted on the main frame and not on the articulated powered trucks, though he also refers to "the water tanks on the front truck", which is a bit confusing.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

How about a steeple-cab DE shunter?   With two of the AEC diesels that seemed to have been successful in the GWR railcars?   

 

Generators could be smaller, as you would be aggregating the work of two.   Transverse mounting of the motors, with opposing transverse mounting of the generators akin to a modern FWD car maximizes the space.   Axle-hung motor under the cab geared to the center axle.   Or, twin motors very low mounted between the axles.

The AEC engines produced about 150 HP so such a locomotive would be less powerful than an 08. Fitting four engines in the same arrangement as the Fell locomotive would be better and with diesel electric transmission to bogie mounted traction motors far more reliable than the Fell. 

[DenysW]

du Bousquets: location of the coal bunker.

 

Not sure, not sure at all. I was going by the location of the people in the picture I originally posted, particularly the man stood right at the back, bolstered by the similar lack of obvious enough behind-the-driver storage on other French tank engines (as below: an 0-6-6-0 Tank Mallet, and a 1 m gauge 0-6-0T). Unfortunately I've yet to find a drawing of the du Bousquet that specifies where the coal was stored.

 

The douglas-self page gives the du Bousquet coal capacity as 5 tonnes (say 7 m3), and the water capacity as 12.8 m3. If all four are water tanks, then the space over the rearmost driving wheel seems very small (by eye) to contain about the same volume of coal as the side-tank on one side only.  On the other hand, having two bunkers, one on each side of the driver, is not going to be popular when the stoker is shovelling from the same side as the driver when he wants to look for signals.

 

Roughly scaled using the 1.48 m wheels, as below, the space at the back is 1.2m by 1m by (assumed) 2.6 m wide. Comfortably less than 7 m3.

 

I repeat: not sure at all.

 

du Bousquet:

 

 

Other tanks:

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by DenysW
Added extra text

[rockershovel]

SG of coal is around 1.26 so 5 tonnes of coal would be slightly less than 4 m3. From the attached pic (usual disclaimers apply) I'd say the rear area was the coal bunker. 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

SG of coal is around 1.26 so 5 tonnes of coal would be slightly less than 4 m3. From the attached pic (usual disclaimers apply) I'd say the rear area was the coal bunker. 

 

Are those briquettes stacked in the bunker in the photo?

[Michael Edge]

That's what I thought they were, French railways used them a lot.

[DK123GWR]

On the perennial favourite subject of banking locomotives, could an articulated geared steam locomotive have been of use in this or any other role in Britain? They seem to have been more popular in North America, which might indicate that operating conditions or loading gauge prevented their effective use elsewhere, although I believe Avonside built a few narrow gauge examples for export (and Kirklees Light Railway/Whistlestop Valley have a 15inch gauge loco based on the Avonside them).

Edited September 2, 2021 by DK123GWR