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


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Pacifics in the UK were regarded as express passenger engines in the inter-war period, and it had been established by then that express passenger locos needed 3 or 4 cylinders in order to keep the outside cylinders within the loading gauge, reduce loading on the individual big end conrods and associated cranks, and provide a smoother ride for the passengers with less 

‘surge’. 

 

I once read the first few pages of Chapelon's book (in English translation) and I recall that he was unconvinced that more than three cylinders were needed in British conditions.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Gresley and Bullied clearly agreed with him, but the GW maintained the de Glehn 4-cylinder divided drive setup until the final delivery of Castles in 1950, and Ivatt was still building pacifics to this layout in 1947.  The LMS seemed to specialise in 3-cylinder 4-6-0s during the inter-war years, but never build a 3-pot pacific.

 

I suspect the cause of 3-potters on the GW was not helped by being taken up by Prof. Tuplin, who nobody takes seriously...   An issue with 3-cylinder engines is arranging the inside cyldinder valve gear to be driven by the outside valve gear motion, which is why BritCaprotti was used on 71000.  With a 4-potter, it is easy to arrange Walchearts or Stephenson valve gear in pairs, but 3 pots mean that care must be taken in the valve settings in order to provide a reasonably even exhaust beat and smooth power delivery.  The rather groovy noises made by high mileage Gresley locomotives illustrate this very well, conjugated apparently meaning sychopated, it don' mean a thing if it ain' got that swing.

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought (probably repeated somewhere in the last 350 pages.)

 

Would there have been potential in a steam-motor setup?  Could a bank of multiple cylinders, with an overall greater volume than would be possible with two-, three-, or four-cylinder conventional drives, attached to a jackshaft, provide higher potential output inside a given loading gauge?

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
24 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Here's a thought (probably repeated somewhere in the last 350 pages.)

 

Would there have been potential in a steam-motor setup?  Could a bank of multiple cylinders, with an overall greater volume than would be possible with two-, three-, or four-cylinder conventional drives, attached to a jackshaft, provide higher potential output inside a given loading gauge?

Some of the later Sentinel steam railmotors had up to 12 cylinders IIRC.

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

When you consider the extreme sophistication of the complex shaped GWR rockers in order to make for as accurate as possible valve events it seems unlikely they would have been happy with the compromises forced by 3 cylinder implementations. 

 

Cook says in his book "GW locomotives had extreme regularity in their exhaust beats and we certainly could not permit of anything like two beats and a wooffle which was noticeable on some rival lines"

Edited by JimC
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I’m a bit worried about the rear driving axle, which goes through the ashpan or the lower part of the firebox.  The coupled wheels need moving rearwards so that this axle is behind the firebox, which aligns the front driven axle with that of the original single driver’s, and reduces the rear overhang.   Might mean the motor intruding into the cab, though.  

True, but I can assure you about where the motor goes. It fits like a glove and it perfectly fits in fine. Would it help if I shared with you photographs of the chassis on its own?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Not imaginary, but some very stupid and ugly GWR specimens are explored in the GWS Going Loco blog. authored by our @didcot. Always worth a read.

 

Some good stuff in the first blog (haven't had time for more yet), but the largest driving wheels on a British steam loco were not the 10 footers on 'Hurricane' but the 10'6" monsters of the LNWR's Cornwall, which still exist on the loco.  In the loco's original form the boiler was carried beneath the driving axle to enable the loco to feature such large drivers.  The idea was that larger wheels would improve the ride and enable slower piston and bearing speeds at higher running speeds, a major concern in those early days being the effectiveness of the lubricants.

 

Hurricane might have worked a bit better, and it could hardly have been worse, had the water been carried above the 'engine' section of the cavalcade, and there was no reason for it not to have been..  Same goes for Thunderer, but there would have been less room for it with all that clockwork in the way.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Not imaginary, but some very stupid and ugly GWR specimens are explored in the GWS Going Loco blog. authored by our @didcot. Always worth a read.

 

Very good, but I can't help think it's a bit unkind to the Krugers. They were, as stated, experimental, and not anywhere as unsuccessful as the other two. And the Aberdares were directly descended from them, and were very successful engines, lasting for not far off half a century. Not great lookers, I suppose, but there's a certain chunky, no nonsense air about them.

Looking at Hurricane & Thunderer though, they do look a bit like an early attempt at a Garrett. If only IKB had hit on the idea of having drivers at both ends, and the weight of the boiler carried on them........

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It is a bit misleading to blame IKB for Thunderer and Hurricane, which he signed off on but were actually designed by a bloke called Harrison.  He was at least attempting, albeit hoplessly unsuccessfully, to solve a major problem of the time, and criticism should bear this in mind.  Even then, though, it should have been pretty obvious that these locos had no tractive weight and were unlikely to work; I can well believe that they were barely capable of moving their own weight on anything but the driest rail, and the jointed steam pipes must have been a 'mare to deal with.  It is actually quite difficult to make a steam locomotive that doesn't work at all, but these must be close contenders for the title.  And I still think water tanks and ballast on top of the engine part of Hurricane would have made her a potential success, though the jointed steam pipes would have still been a problem.  We'll never know now; she's an unlikely candidate for a replica unless you power the carrying wheels beneath the boiler by diesel or electrickery...

 

100mph?  Highly unlikely, but something fairly fast by the standards of the time might have been possible in favourable conditions, by which I mean experienced driver (rare as rhs in those days, but apparently he was a Stockton & Darlington man), dry rail, light or no load, strong  following wind.  He must have had nerves of steel; a loco that difficult to get moving is next to impossible to stop for the same reasons.  Speed assessment was pretty subjective back then, few people had accurate watches that could withstand the shaking and rattling, and the firm baulk road would have created a fairly strong impression at 70+.

 

Wind forward to the Gauge Commission, a very revealing read concerning actual operation and the attitudes of the big name engineers giving evidence, and we have McConnel from the LNW's Southern Section, he of 'Bloomer' fame, stating that he could easily provide a locomotive that could reach 100mph if it was required, and that speeds close to that had already been reached on his railway.  He was, of course, giving evidence to show that the broad gauge had no speed advantage in particular over the standard, but one assumes that he was being truthful to the best of his knowledge.  100mph on the rougher permanent way of the day, with unbraked vehicles and on cast iron leaf springs, would have been highly dangerous and the ride would have dissuaded most drivers from trying it, notwithstanding that they were a pretty tough and fearless breed!

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'd like to see some replicas of some of the earlier locos, not that early, but maybe from the 1860-80 period. A working replica of a Dean single, an LNWR Jumbo etc. I guess mainline work would be very limited, due to the loads and speeds they could reach.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

You might be surprised at some of the speeds.  The GW were running services timed for 70mph top speeds with the Iron Duke class as far back as 1850, and 60mph average point to point timings were common by your period.  Loads were light, and passenger locos were free-running singles with small (by our standards) boilers, low centres of gravity that rode well enugh to encourage fast running.  Much of what is claimed for the era is subjective and often exaggerated, whether consciously or not, but the quaint looking little engines do not necessarily indicate the bucolic pace of life we associate with their later use on branch line ambles.  

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It is a bit misleading to blame IKB for Thunderer and Hurricane, which he signed off on but were actually designed by a bloke called Harrison.  He was at least attempting, albeit hoplessly unsuccessfully, to solve a major problem of the time, and criticism should bear this in mind. 

A good point. There's nothing particularly unusual in a client putting forward a specification that looks impossible in the hopes that the supplier will know more than they do. I recall in my brief industrial chemistry days my employers were asked for a chemical stripper that would remove nylon coating from aluminium zip fasteners so that those that failed QA could be recoated. I wasn't allowed to send out my proposal to dissolve out the aluminium and recover it from solution... Mind you who knows, 40 years later maybe that's possible.

  • Like 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I'd like to see some replicas of some of the earlier locos, not that early, but maybe from the 1860-80 period. A working replica of a Dean single, an LNWR Jumbo etc. I guess mainline work would be very limited, due to the loads and speeds they could reach.

 

No need for a replica Jumbo:

 

6722391755_bd21f457fc_b.jpg

 

[Embedded link.]

 

Neither the Improved Precedent nor the Dean Single is from the period you mention, both being products of the 1890s. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to reject anyone's enthusiasms for some really good historic locos, shouldn't this start with a specification of what the present need is for new steam engines? At present I'd say most heritage railways need to haul up to 8 (30-ton?) coaches at no more than 25 mph on branchlines that vary in ruling gradient from 1:100 to 1:50 (yes, the West Highland Extension has a short stretch that's even more severe). That's about a 300 ton load (including the loco), requiring 450 hp for 1:100 and 900 hp for 1:50 just to overcome gravity. Stephenson's approximation was that 75% of power was used by gravity for a 1:100 rising grade, with the rest on rolling resistance and acceleration, so the gravity-only isn't too bad a starting point for loco power.

 

I fear the older locomotives just don't have the power, beautiful and intriguing as they are.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Without wishing to reject anyone's enthusiasms for some really good historic locos, shouldn't this start with a specification of what the present need is for new steam engines? At present I'd say most heritage railways need to haul up to 8 (30-ton?) coaches at no more than 25 mph on branchlines that vary in ruling gradient from 1:100 to 1:50 (yes, the West Highland Extension has a short stretch that's even more severe). That's about a 300 ton load (including the loco), requiring 450 hp for 1:100 and 900 hp for 1:50 just to overcome gravity. Stephenson's approximation was that 75% of power was used by gravity for a 1:100 rising grade, with the rest on rolling resistance and acceleration, so the gravity-only isn't too bad a starting point for loco power.

 

I fear the older locomotives just don't have the power, beautiful and intriguing as they are.

 

Well, that's true for a certain idea of what a heritage railway should be. For myself, a far more interesting day out than a large locomotive on eight Mk 1s or Mk 2s would be a ride in some reproduction 42 ft radials behind a reproduction Precedent (or equivalent for some other pre-grouping company) - at least trying to give the experience of 19th century travel. I guess that's why I prefer narrow gauge lines such as the Lynton & Barnstaple or Talyllyn to many of the standard gauge lines.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, that's true for a certain idea of what a heritage railway should be. For myself, a far more interesting day out than a large locomotive on eight Mk 1s or Mk 2s would be a ride in some reproduction 42 ft radials behind a reproduction Precedent (or equivalent for some other pre-grouping company) - at least trying to give the experience of 19th century travel. I guess that's why I prefer narrow gauge lines such as the Lynton & Barnstaple or Talyllyn to many of the standard gauge lines.

I tend to agree; a recent ride on the Bluebell gave me the opportunity to ride on multiple sets of carriages which didn't include a Mark 1 (and I like Mark 1s).  @DenysW's analysis of the requirement is right, except that only a small proportion of standard gauge preserved railways normally operate eight coach trains.  Even lines such as the KWVR and Mid-Hants, which might be considered two of the Big League and certainly run big locos, normally run 5/6 coach sets.  There is plenty of demand for smaller locos, which is why 82045 is being built.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A dude in a Discord I’m in was gonna model this engine from the RWS, and said it was an N7. I pointed out it had extended side tanks, and he was disgusted at the thought.

 

Then I made an edit, and even he had to admit it looks good. Thoughts?

09DA1CE6-B0E8-474B-8CD9-28E09AF4FC28.jpeg

102D7435-7F51-4110-92CB-CB493DE96746.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I tend to agree; a recent ride on the Bluebell gave me the opportunity to ride on multiple sets of carriages which didn't include a Mark 1 (and I like Mark 1s).  @DenysW's analysis of the requirement is right, except that only a small proportion of standard gauge preserved railways normally operate eight coach trains.  Even lines such as the KWVR and Mid-Hants, which might be considered two of the Big League and certainly run big locos, normally run 5/6 coach sets.  There is plenty of demand for smaller locos, which is why 82045 is being built.

When I was a volunteer there, the longest trains which a loco could run round on the Mid Hants was 7 mk1 length vehicles. Any more than that needed top & tailing or shunt release.

 

On normal operating days outside summer weekends the service was more like 4 carriages, and the Ivatt tank was quite capable of doing that without making a mockery of the timetable. And there are some pretty big hills on that route. I think the railway may even have bought it, but if that happened it was after I left.

 

They do need more power at times though, hence the big steam locos and type 4 diesels.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
23 hours ago, DenysW said:

Without wishing to reject anyone's enthusiasms for some really good historic locos, shouldn't this start with a specification of what the present need is for new steam engines? At present I'd say most heritage railways need to haul up to 8 (30-ton?) coaches at no more than 25 mph on branchlines that vary in ruling gradient from 1:100 to 1:50 (yes, the West Highland Extension has a short stretch that's even more severe). That's about a 300 ton load (including the loco), requiring 450 hp for 1:100 and 900 hp for 1:50 just to overcome gravity. Stephenson's approximation was that 75% of power was used by gravity for a 1:100 rising grade, with the rest on rolling resistance and acceleration, so the gravity-only isn't too bad a starting point for loco power.

 

I fear the older locomotives just don't have the power, beautiful and intriguing as they are.

Interesting comment 

 

Back in 1997 the basic need then was for a good 2-6-2, easy to prep and dispose capable of everyday use to take the burden off locos built in the 30's such as 45xx etc. Now bear in mind I was a fireman on the SDR and could see what was going to work.

 

45xx while great little engines their weakness was the front of the frames - in fact you now have the WSR 45xx being rebuilt with new frames and cylinders.

 

It was out of this thought that why not design a new loco for the heritage market... looking into it further it became clear that to do so would be almost impossible to get type approval from the powers that be, the answer was blindingly obvious - build a 82xxx as its spec covered our needs and thus was born the 82045 project...

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

A dude in a Discord I’m in was gonna model this engine from the RWS, and said it was an N7. I pointed out it had extended side tanks, and he was disgusted at the thought.

 

Then I made an edit, and even he had to admit it looks good. Thoughts?

09DA1CE6-B0E8-474B-8CD9-28E09AF4FC28.jpeg

102D7435-7F51-4110-92CB-CB493DE96746.jpeg

I doubt the work an N7 did would ever require an extended range, particularly as the larger water tanks and condensing equipment of the N2's allowed them to exceed the N7's in that regard. Whilst a nice looking locomotive aesthetically, I doubt such a niche existed for it.

As for if that particular locomotive even is an N7, I suspect it to instead be a freelance locomotive as there's no reason to believe the pre-NWR Railways wouldn't design their own rolling stock for their own needs. If you ask me it looks more like a 2-4-2T, a believable lighter locomotive for Sodor.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Watkin was a man of grand (grandiose?) ideas and a Director of CF du Nord and the South Eastern Railway, what would the impact of SER/Nord going for a roll-on/roll-off train ferry in the 1880s? Mostly for freight, maybe one sailing a day in each direction with passengers? The train ferry across the Forth was an example, but a small one - 30-34 wagons only, and a short crossing. I also couldn't find out how often it was cancelled due to bad weather.

 

I'm thinking he might have upgraded (some of) SER's loading gauge from small to compatible with Nord's. We might then have seen Nord locomotives turning around at Kings Cross-York Road!

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
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

×
×
  • Create New...