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

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

Could the Hornby H body be used as a basis for the 0-6-2t?

 

 

I'd say almost certainly. The wheels of an H are bigger so the main change would be to cut down the front splashers. Underneath the footplate the wheelbase is different, not just the wheel arrangement. The H coupled wheelbase is 7'6" with 5'6" wheels, the C, and thus this loco is 8'0" + 8'6" with 5'2" wheels. The H body may need packing up a bit to get buffers at the right height depending on chassis chosen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, whart57 said:

One of the curiosities of 1950s/60s RTR is that the company based in Liverpool chose a small class of tank engines from the deep South for their basic 0-6-0T while the company who were based in the county where those locos actually operated chose something more Northern. OK, Midland, but to Kent that is "northern")

One has to wonder if, in response to Triang's Jinty, common on ex LMS lines everywhere including Liverpool, they deliberately chose a locomotive that would have been seen in around Margate in a sort of retaliation, and perhaps that then Triang responded with their approximation of an S class saddle tank on the Jinty chassis.  Whatever the story, both models proved very popular and presumably turned many an honest wee bobee for their manufacturers.  An 0-6-0 tank loco has a lot going for it in an RTR world primarily focussed on train sets; it is compact and takes up less room on your already limited oval layout, easy to re-rail by small hands. and has a natural TTTE charm.  It has a role on your extended layout when you extend it and buy more locos, and is, like Thomas, a Really Useful Engine.

 

Both models between them were major game changers. the beginning of the RTR trades' watering down of it's obsession with the glamourous big pacifics beloved of the marketing departments, the least suitable prototypes for train sets.  They were followed by larger tank engines and smaller (than pacific) tender engines in RTR and effectively began the spread of biodiversity available in RTR, a process which happily continues.  An early Rovex Triang train set box featured a cover picture of a large layout with overhead section and several passenger and freight trains, all hauled by Black Princesses illustrating a fundamental drawback of their approach, and all HD could offer were 2 pacifics for some time until they introduced their R1.  I believe it was their first plastic bodied model.

 

Both look like very crude toys by current standards, but were not that bad for the 50s, at least attempts had been made to get them as close as feasible within the constraints of the standardised axle spacing of the chassis blocks.  The R1 was a smoother runner, but the Jinty could beat it in terms of slow controllability.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

One has to wonder if, in response to Triang's Jinty, common on ex LMS lines everywhere including Liverpool, they deliberately chose a locomotive that would have been seen in around Margate in a sort of retaliation

 

 

In which case they skimped on their research. The Wainwright R1 - not to be confused with the ex-LCDR 0-4-4T R1 - was rarely if ever seen near Margate. Apart from the London carriage sidings the other two stamping grounds of R1s were the short Folkestone Harbour branch - where Rs and R1s operated double, triple even quadruple headed trains up the slope to the mainline - and the Whitstable Harbour line which had been closed by then and used locos with cut down funnels, cabs and other boiler features in order to squeeze through Tyler Hill tunnel. Now neither Whitstable nor Folkestone is that far from Margate but the point is that these locos were dedicated to those branches and not available to wander round Kent.

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

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The Wainwright R1 - not to be confused with the ex-LCDR 0-4-4T R1 

 

The SECR R1 was only that because it was a reboilering of Stirling's SER R.  The LCDR had no R1, just Kirtley's R, the SECR R1 was an updated version of that. Absolutely no scope for confusion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The SECR R1 was only that because it was a reboilering of Stirling's SER R.  The LCDR had no R1, just Kirtley's R, the SECR R1 was an updated version of that. Absolutely no scope for confusion.

The LCDR did indeed have an R1, distinguished from its R by larger bogie wheels and a larger bunker

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

  • RMweb Premium
9 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said:

The LCDR did indeed have an R1, distinguished from its R by larger bogie wheels and a larger bunker

 

I don't have the relevant Bradley, though I read it long ago.

 

As I understand it, in Kirtley's time there was a series of 0-4-4Ts, classes A, A1, and A2, followed by Class R built by Sharp, Stewart in 1891, LCDR Nos. 199-216, SECR Nos. 658-675. A further batch of engines to a modified design was built by Sharp, Stewart in 1900, SECR Nos. 696-710; these were designated Class R1. They were never LCDR locomotives, being ordered after the formation of the Joint Management Committee.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Sophia NSE said:

The LCDR did indeed have an R1, distinguished from its R by larger bogie wheels and a larger bunker

 The SER and LCDR had two different philosophies for locomotives. The SER was far more standardised, with limited numbers of loco classes. This started with Cudworth, at the end of his time two thirds of locos were in just two classes, and continued with Stirling.

 

On the LCDR under Kirtley the philosophy was more continuous improvement, so you had variants such as M1, M2, M3 for different batches of 4-4-0 express loco. Kirtley's predecessor Martley was not in the fortunate position of ever considering standard classes, he had to have a policy of bargain buying just to get any locos.

 

What this meant was that in 1899 it was the LCDR that had the more modern engines, albeit only in small numbers. So the SECR C was an improved LCDR B2, the D was basically an M3 carried out more artistically and when passenger tanks were urgently needed before the new locomotive department could get to work it was the LCDR R1 and not the SER Q chosen to have a few more built.

 

Conversely, it was the standardised SER locos that lasted longest in the joint company

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

  • RMweb Gold

All very interesting; as a GW man and a South Wales one at that it is most illuminating.  If Cudworth had got two thirds of his locos down to two classes as far back as that it is a very considerable achievement!

 

I've always thought the S was an odd choice for Triang, a one off rebuild of a previous tender loco, and not very well represented by the model, which was disproportionately tall and out of loading gauge.  In BR livery as 748, 784, whatever it was (I had one, because my dad was a skinflint, I wanted a Jinty for xmas 'cos my mates had them, and the S was 5 bob cheaper), I reckoned for many years until I was better ejumated that it was intended to be a South Wales loco, and there were some Newport (Alexandra Dock and Railway) Co. saddles that looked not too far off to my young and inexperienced eye.  My main source of information from about age 7 was H.C.Casserley's very good and informative 'Observer's Book of Locomotives'. and the South Wales engines were in there while of course the solitary S had been scrapped years before, and I wotted not what it was.

 

Triang did reflect their Margate location to a certain extent with early Southern Region models, while the rest of the trade rather ignored it all.  Apart from the S, there was the L1, and SR liveried coaches were avaialble quite early, even the 8 inch Staniers were available in malachite green, and they were the first in the game with an emu in malachite with a pretty good representation of the Maunsell era bow-ended dome roof cab, though the sides were clearly derived from the generic 'suburbans', which had far too generous a compartment spacing (inevitable as the coaches would have been very fragile had the window pillars been anything like scale even in first class).  This was all in the stamped coulping era, which I think ended in 1958.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 24/11/2021 at 22:42, JimC said:

As for need, well an intensive suburban service perhaps. That enthusiastic Swindon trained imaginer of large locomotives, Dusty Durrant, worked up a study of a 2-10-2T to match Southern electric schedules  on 10 coach suburban trains, but it was well over the standard red route limit at 21T on the driving wheels.

 

I've often wondered: did Durrant produce these flghts of fancy in his own time, or was he allowed to develop them in the drawing office as part of his job?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I've always thought the S was an odd choice for Triang, a one off rebuild of a previous tender loco, and not very well represented by the model, which was disproportionately tall and out of loading gauge.  .................

 

Triang did reflect their Margate location to a certain extent with early Southern Region models, while the rest of the trade rather ignored it all.  Apart from the S, there was the L1, and SR liveried coaches were available quite early

 

I may be wrong but didn't Triang produce the S initially as a clockwork loco. We forget these days that there were still parts of the country on DC mains electricity in the 1950s which meant transformers couldn't be used. Even in AC areas there wasn't necessarily a socket in every room and of course electricity was considered to be very dangerous. Battery controllers were produced for the same reason. An overscale saddle tank would have been the only way to accommodate the clockwork mechanism in OO gauge.

 

The L1 was a lovely model, one of the best of its time but it didn't sell well. That's where Triang went wrong with their marketing. Had they done a Midland 4-4-0 instead they would have flown out of the door.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

The L1 was a lovely model, one of the best of its time but it didn't sell well. That's where Triang went wrong with their marketing. Had they done a Midland 4-4-0 instead they would have flown out of the door.

There were plenty of conversion articles in the model press in the '60s/early '70s and in the end (1973) they did rework it as a Midland 2P.

 

Yes, the height of the S helped accomodate the clockwork spring. The same clockwork chassis was also used under the 350hp DE shunter, though there the bonnet was prototypically* high.

 

*Not that it was that accurate overall, of course.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

The L1 was a lovely model, one of the best of its time but it didn't sell well

Aside from the wheels it would do the job for me now. Would be useful pulling the 3 coach plus van "express" on my imaginary Minories. I'm very much not not a finescaler though...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Aside from the wheels it would do the job for me now. Would be useful pulling the 3 coach plus van "express" on my imaginary Minories. I'm very much not not a finescaler though...

 

There are a couple on eBay for what looks like a reasonable (i.e. not silly) price

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, whart57 said:

The L1 was a lovely model, one of the best of its time but it didn't sell well. That's where Triang went wrong with their marketing. Had they done a Midland 4-4-0 instead they would have flown out of the door.

 

I know this isn't a model railway marketing pundit thread (there's a whole section of RMweb devoted to those), but that rather surprises me.  It's a truth universally acknowledged these days that Southern stuff sells and the money hasn't moved much since the 1960s. 

 

The L1 was a better L1 than 2P and though I did my best with the Roche drawing,  plastic and fuse wire (running plate steps, brake ejector and pipe, coal rails and tender vents), I could see the proportions weren't right.  The Mairfipolby model was much better in that respect but came too late for me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I know this isn't a model railway marketing pundit thread (there's a whole section of RMweb devoted to those), but that rather surprises me.  It's a truth universally acknowledged these days that Southern stuff sells and the money hasn't moved much since the 1960s.

 

Triang described the L1 as a "maid of all work" in their booklet The First 10 Years. That's an interesting pitch and it does reflect the changing state of railway modelling in the late fifties, early sixties period. We started this mini-thread discussing the Hornby R1 and how it signalled a move away from the express passenger bias of the model train market. Triang had Princesses, Britannias, BofB Pacifics, Hornby added the A4 and Castle. In the modelling magazines though the West Country branch line terminus was starting to become the favourite. Was there a plan at Triang to provide the sort of medium sized loco that was more typical of passenger trains than the top link Pacifics? At the time the Kent Coast trains from Margate and Ramsgate (just before electrification in 1959) would have been hauled by U1s mostly, but the locals to Dover via Deal and Ashford via Canterbury West would very likely have had an L1 or the visually similar D1 and E1 in front.

 

Anyway, to get back to "Imaginary Locomotives" how about a Wainwright Atlantic in full SECR livery? Again, the story and a weight diagram are in Bradley's book.

Edited by whart57
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 24/11/2021 at 19:26, DK123GWR said:

Another thought, entirely unrelated. The largest passenger tanks that I am aware of were class 4s such as the GWR Large Praries, BR's Standard 4MT and its LMS ancestors. What conditions might have made a larger passenger or mixed traffic tank loco useful? If there were a world where they were useful, could they be practically built?

 

To get back to this, if you search for "2-8-4T" within this thread you'll find the topic has come up a few times before, with LM locos based on both class 5 and 8F boilers as I recall.  They make very handsome machines and could probably have been built within loading gauge and weight constraints if the will had been there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2021 at 19:26, DK123GWR said:

...

 

Another thought, entirely unrelated. The largest passenger tanks that I am aware of were class 4s such as the GWR Large Praries, BR's Standard 4MT and its LMS ancestors. What conditions might have made a larger passenger or mixed traffic tank loco useful? If there were a world where they were useful, could they be practically built?

The LMS put the LYR designed 4-6-4T into service in 1923. It was rated 5P.

At the time it was roundly criticised in The Engineer as being too big for a tank engine as it had a small bunker and small tanks. Anything larger would have been more than the Engineer would have allowed. 

The small tanks weren't an issue on the LYR because it was well provided with troughs but coal capacity was always an issue with them. 

Class 4 tanks were about the limit in Britain. There was never a need for anything larger for suburban and inter-urban services. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The LMS put the LYR designed 4-6-4T into service in 1923. It was rated 5P.

At the time it was roundly criticised in The Engineer as being too big for a tank engine as it had a small bunker and small tanks. Anything larger would have been more than the Engineer would have allowed. 

The small tanks weren't an issue on the LYR because it was well provided with troughs but coal capacity was always an issue with them. 

Class 4 tanks were about the limit in Britain. There was never a need for anything larger for suburban and inter-urban services. 

The LT&S also had a 4-6-4T locomotive. But the GER who owned the Fenchurch Street terminus banned them from it due they claimed to the weight.

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

43 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The LT&S also had a 4-6-4T locomotive. But the GER who owned the Fenchurch Street terminus banned them from it due they claimed to the weight.

The LT&S 4-6-4T were 4P I think. IIRC the FR and G&SW 4-6-4T designs were 3P but not sure. Non of them were much good, the FR one being particularly poor. All were replaced by Fowler's 2-6-4T 4P.

The only 5P tank engine in UK railways was the LYR design 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The LT&S also had a 4-6-4T locomotive. But the GER who owned the Fenchurch Street terminus banned them from it due they claimed to the weight.

 

I've just had a read in Waldorp, the "Bible" for Dutch railway steam, to see if he says why Netherlands Railways built big heavy tank engines. Or more accurately got Henschel, Hohenzollern and Beyer Peacock to do it for them. The Dutch had their "Grouping" in 1921 when the Holland Railway and the State Railway came together. I mention this because each had their own reasons for having big tank engines.

 

The Holland Railway operated busy commuter lines from Amsterdam to the Gooi (i.e. Hilversum, Bussum etc, a sort of Dutch NW Surrey). They needed powerful engines for the heavy trains as the stops were frequent and so were the services. These lines would be among the first to be electrified but in pre-WW1 days that wasn't an option. The distance was not great, about 40km, so water capacity was not an issue and thus tenders more of a nuisance than a necessity

 

The State Railway (actually the privately operating company (SS) of the railways built by the state, franchising is not that new) was responsible for the coal traffic from Limburg. Limburg is where all the Netherlands' hills are so gradients were stiff. The SS liked the extra weight of tank engines for the extra adhesion offered and that's why they built these monsters.

 

The NS 4-8-4T I referred to earlier was a post fusion design continuing the SS tradition. It was also the last steam locomotive to be built for Dutch railways, not counting the post 1945 emergency acquisitions.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

I've just had a read in Waldorp, the "Bible" for Dutch railway steam, to see if he says why Netherlands Railways built big heavy tank engines. Or more accurately got Henschel, Hohenzollern and Beyer Peacock to do it for them. The Dutch had their "Grouping" in 1921 when the Holland Railway and the State Railway came together. I mention this because each had their own reasons for having big tank engines.

 

The Holland Railway operated busy commuter lines from Amsterdam to the Gooi (i.e. Hilversum, Bussum etc, a sort of Dutch NW Surrey). They needed powerful engines for the heavy trains as the stops were frequent and so were the services. These lines would be among the first to be electrified but in pre-WW1 days that wasn't an option. The distance was not great, about 40km, so water capacity was not an issue and thus tenders more of a nuisance than a necessity

 

The State Railway (actually the privately operating company (SS) of the railways built by the state, franchising is not that new) was responsible for the coal traffic from Limburg. Limburg is where all the Netherlands' hills are so gradients were stiff. The SS liked the extra weight of tank engines for the extra adhesion offered and that's why they built these monsters.

 

The NS 4-8-4T I referred to earlier was a post fusion design continuing the SS tradition. It was also the last steam locomotive to be built for Dutch railways, not counting the post 1945 emergency acquisitions.

Fourteen of the Beyer Peacock 4-6-4T's built for the Dutch State Railways were commandeered by the ROD in 1915. They never did get to their original purchasers as after the war they were acquired by the French railways and used for heavy commuter trains around Paris. The last one was scrapped in 1954. 

  • Informative/Useful 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...