Imaginary Locomotives

[ian@stenochs]

10 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

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 

 

The G&SWR Baltics were classed  5P by the LMS.

 

Ian.

[PenrithBeacon]

6 minutes ago, ian@stenochs said:

 

The G&SWR Baltics were classed  5P by the LMS.

 

Ian.

See https://wikimili.com/en/G%26SWR_540_Class

[micknich2003]

I recall reading, if not for the grouping, a 4-6-6 version of the GSWRly tanks would have appeared.

[ian@stenochs]

12 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

See https://wikimili.com/en/G%26SWR_540_Class

 

David L Smith was the authority on  G&SWR locomotives.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 26/11/2021 at 12:39, PenrithBeacon said:

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 

 

Baltic tanks suffered from poor timing as well as poor design and failure to liaise with the company engineer. Robert Whitelegg was caught out twice, with the LT&SR engines built in 1912 just as the Midland was taking over and the G&SWR ones in 1922 just as the Midland was taking over again, in the form of the LMS. David Rutherford's big Kitsons on the Furness came out a couple of years before grouping; Hughes' Dreadnought tanks were built after the grouping; of the sixty (!) ordered, ten were built, twenty turned out as Dreadnought 4-6-0s, and thirty cancelled. It's an oddity that these four were all in the LMS group; Lawrence Billinton's examples for the LB&SCR seem to have been more successful.

 

The B&CDR Beyer, Peacock Baltic tanks seem to have been the longest survivors in the British Isles (narrow gauge locomotives apart) but whether that was from adequacy or necessity, I do not know.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Compound2632

[whart57]

And yet the Dutch 4-6-4T and 4-8-4T designs were very successful, as the fact the Germans stole most of them during the Occupation attests.

[rockershovel]

17 hours ago, micknich2003 said:

I recall reading, if not for the grouping, a 4-6-6 version of the GSWRly tanks would have appeared.

They are rather handsome, aren't they? A 4-6-6T along the lines of the rather brutal-looking NYC 4-6-6T would be an interesting beast..

[JimC]

I o start to wonder though, if you imagine a 4-6-6T against a 4-6-0 tender configuration, apart from the throwover on curves how different can they get? And if the 4-6-6T had an advantage riding in reverse, perhaps because of the side control,  could some kind of articulation have been worked out so that a tender would ride well at high speed? These days coaches are safely propelled at speed, surely a tender shouldn't be impossible if it were more articulated with the locomotive?

[tythatguy1312]

43 minutes ago, JimC said:

surely a tender shouldn't be impossible if it were more articulated with the locomotive?

Those actually existed in Mainland Europe, and were known as Engerth locomotives. If I remember correctly, it was quite popular in the Alps, and a few are preserved.

[MikeOxon]

how about 2-6-6T:

 

[Budgie]

1 hour ago, MikeOxon said:

how about 2-6-6T:

 

If you're going to muck about with the original, I'd prefer a 2-10-0T.

 

[MikeOxon]

14 minutes ago, Budgie said:

If you're going to muck about with the original, I'd prefer a 2-10-0T.

 

The bogie version could traverse smaller radius curves -- otherwise, I agree.

[rodent279]

A GWR 2-8-4 might look the business though.

[micknich2003]

A 2-8-4 Berkshire tank, a few designs of tender engines, were any tank engines of this arrangement built?

[rodent279]

There were probably some German or French examples.

[rodent279]

If it could be fitted into the frame length, I was thinking of a 72xx 2-8-2 as a basis, with the 5'8" wheels of the large Prairies, and a bogie under the bunker. What you'd use it for I don't know-fast, heavy, medium distance stoppers perhaps, intensive service that demands a quick run round, and the ability to work in either direction.

Would certainly look impressive, even if there wasn't any work for it.

[Ben Alder]

On 24/11/2021 at 11:34, DenysW said:

I'm still wondering what that nice 2-6-2 was for. If its boiler makes it more powerful than a 4F, but presumably less than an 8F 0-8-0, is it a new need for a 6F with a lighter axle loading than a Black 5 (which are listed as BR Route Availability 7). This would pull heavier secondary freight on secondary lines.

 

The LMS had proposals for a lighter 4-6-0 for the rural Scottish lines, which was stymied by the success of the Five and civil engineering upgrading, and I presumed that the Four build went ahead and that if the 2-6-2 Coleman worked on became a reality, a smaller MT version would have followed. It was in some aspects a play around with spare parts to see what emerged, and I'm pleased enough with it to have it running around on my layout.

 

Here is the outline for the never built  4-6-0.

 

 

[whart57]

People may choose to make the sign of the cross or chew on a clove of garlic now as we descend into the area of witchcraft and devil's work ......

 

Talk of wheel arrangements like 2-8-2 reminds me that in the early years of electric and diesel locomotives there was uncertainty about the best way to arrange wheels. Presumably many engineers felt uncomfortable about bogie pivots being a major power transfer point. So one arrangement was the 2-8-2, though it was actually called 1-Do-1. An example is the Netherlands Railways 1000 class that was put into service immediately after the war.

 

 

It's not usually known by railway enthusiasts but the early pioneers of diesel traction were Denmark, as in the manufacturer Frichs, and Thailand, or Siam as it was still called then. When British railways were pushing steam to its limits, the Thais put a diesel on the front of their premier express - the Bangkok to Singapore service. Diesels only did a couple of full length runs because the British soon put a Malayan steam engine on the front at the Thai-Malay border, but those diesels ran the Thai end of the service for many years. The first Thai diesel class supplied by Frichs was a 2-Do-2 (4-8-4) arrangement. The next class went all Garratt and was a 2-Do-Do-2 (4-8-8-4). And all on meter gauge.

 

Where is this leading? Well an imaginary loco. What about the British doing similar experiments with wheel arrangements and our imaginary loco having an EM2 body but a 1-Do-1 (2-8-2) wheel arrangement?

[JimC]

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

If it could be fitted into the frame length, I was thinking of a 72xx 2-8-2 as a basis, with the 5'8" wheels of the large Prairies,

5'8 wheels would be a struggle I think.

This is a Manor boiler, a 28 chassis and a standard bogie. Nearly 3 feet longer than a 72. With a larger boiler it ought to be able to tackle faster timings than a 72.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by JimC

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, JimC said:

5'8 wheels would be a struggle I think.

This is a Manor boiler, a 28 chassis and a standard bogie. Nearly 3 feet longer than a 72.

 

Thanks. A little bit more ungainly than I thought! Basically a 47xx in tank engine form.

Maybe, horror of horrors, deviating from the hallowed Swindon standard wheel size to something like 5'3", it could work.

(There. I've said it. Eternal damnation for me!)

[JimC]

Just now, rodent279 said:

Thanks. A little bit more ungainly than I thought! Basically a 47xx in tank engine form.

Maybe, horror of horrors, deviating from the hallowed Swindon standard wheel size to something like 5'3", it could work.

(There. I've said it. Eternal damnation for me!)

Those are 4'7.5 wheels. There were 5'3 wheels on the second 3100 class, so your soul is safe for now - at least in that respect!

My only-lightly-educated guess is that going any bigger than the Manor boiler gets into weight problems unless it goes 8 or better 10 coupled. I can knock up fictionals fairly readily if I use a chassis that I already have drawn, but considering something more radical needs a fair bit of thought about what components could be combined, and is probably more effort than I want to put into a light hearted bit of fun! The 28 chassis/wheel spacing would put 5'3 wheels closer than the first and second drivers on a Saint, so probably too close, and there's also the struggle of finding somewhere to hang the brakes!
 

[Michael Edge]

That looks quite plausible but you've put the bogie on back to front.

[rodent279]

Would a Manor based 2-8-0 have any use? A smaller boilered version of a 47xx, lighter and with higher RA.

[John Besley]

Now if only the GWR had Walschaerts valve gear for two cylinder locos ... but kept everything else the same family style...

[JimC]

25 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

That looks quite plausible but you've put the bogie on back to front.

Hush! I changed it for you. But honestly I think that's the least of the problems in that area with my quick hack!

 

19 minutes ago, John Besley said:

Now if only the GWR had Walschaerts valve gear for two cylinder locos ... but kept everything else the same family style...

But what would have been the advantage in doing that? The GWR implementation of Stephensons arguably had better valve events for a freight locomotive, and preparation was a piece work task.

Edited November 28, 2021 by JimC