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 Gold

Have to say Gibbo, your imagination and cut'n'shut skills are wonderfully combined! In a way, they are better in the raw plastic as we can see all the details; I think if they were painted in BR standard black we wouldn't be able to appreciate so much.

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

20 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Have to say Gibbo, your imagination and cut'n'shut skills are wonderfully combined! In a way, they are better in the raw plastic as we can see all the details; I think if they were painted in BR standard black we wouldn't be able to appreciate so much.

Hi Rich,

 

The way I see life, the greatest reality of my own being is my own imagination, all else is the projected illusion of others.

 

That said, many thanks for the compliment !

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Keith,

 

It certainly  does look that way !

 

They are such fun to chop about though and not too expensive, I had thought of a class 4 double Fairlie and then decided against the idea. I might see what I can do with the Schools class and also the city of Truro and Prairie tank amalgamations. There is always a class 4 BR Non Standard 4-4-0 to be considered.

 

Gibbo.

 

I've been wondering for a while if by slightly elongating the  boiler and firebox you could create a Maunsell Atlantic with 8-wheel bogie tender out of two Dapol Schools kits? By chopping the tenders you get the axle-box etc., to go under the cab, second kit would give up boiler insert rings  and then a cut and shut for a longer tender. That Repton has the enlarged tender suggests if the loco' was that bit bigger it would definitely need greater water capacity and/or room for more coal tonnage.

 

As usual with these imaginary pondering exercises the crunch is what advantages would the LSWR/SR have got if it actually had been built? I guess none unless you reverse the timeline, as the shortness of the 4-4-0 layout was why it got built in the first place (rather than more Arthurs etc.) to fit where the 4-6-0s were too long/big. If it was going to have a place in any fictitious evolution of Eastleigh designs it would be as a build before the Nelsons etc., and be seen as the precursor from which the 4-6-0s were evolved. 

 

Why suggest it - no reason other than I like the look of most Atlantic types.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, john new said:

 

I've been wondering for a while if by slightly elongating the  boiler and firebox you could create a Maunsell Atlantic with 8-wheel bogie tender out of two Dapol Schools kits? By chopping the tenders you get the axle-box etc., to go under the cab, second kit would give up boiler insert rings  and then a cut and shut for a longer tender. That Repton has the enlarged tender suggests if the loco' was that bit bigger it would definitely need greater water capacity and/or room for more coal tonnage.

 

As usual with these imaginary pondering exercises the crunch is what advantages would the LSWR/SR have got if it actually had been built? I guess none unless you reverse the timeline, as the shortness of the 4-4-0 layout was why it got built in the first place (rather than more Arthurs etc.) to fit where the 4-6-0s were too long/big. If it was going to have a place in any fictitious evolution of Eastleigh designs it would be as a build before the Nelsons etc., and be seen as the precursor from which the 4-6-0s were evolved. 

 

Why suggest it - no reason other than I like the look of most Atlantic types.

The Schools had an unusually stretched Wheelbase with 8' 0" between the rear bogie wheel centre and the first driving wheel centre and 10' 0" between driver centres.

The bogie itself could also be shortened.

If you cram up the wheel spacings to that of a Marsh H1 Atlantic, it should all fit under a Schools boiler as the difference in length is only about a foot,

Marsh Atlantic 35' 10½" from front of buffer to rear of cab floor, Schools is 34' 9¾". That extra foot saving could be gained by having less distance from the rear driving wheel to back of cab floor.

With an outside bearing trailing truck as on the Marsh Atlantic you could also have a wide firebox

 

 

Edited by melmerby
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 09/09/2019 at 23:00, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Folks,

 

Here are the BR Non Standards for your amusement:

 

DSCF0818.JPG.b36261ddf4f12531d7b57cb0c5eb9313.JPGBR Non Standard class 5 2-6-2 fast goods engine.

 

DSCF0817.JPG.2f56578f4387ca459a159ed62348187a.JPG

BR Non Standard hump shunter/banking engine with articulated booster fitted bunker.

 

DSCF0819.JPG.89043a8d0a26d43f06ad8a2b9fff6104.JPG

BR Non Standard 2-8-2-2-8-2 Garrett heavy goods engine.

 

DSCF0816.JPG.b8c1d7eeab207591957755d7c6cf63ad.JPG

BR Non Standard Paget/Caprotti bogied Leader style cuntraption !

 

The valve gear would be Caprotti to ease valve gear trouble and I envisage six cylinders per bogie, two driving each axle at 120* crank offsets giving a total of six power pulses per revolution of the wheels all connected by Bulleid style Morse hi-vol chains to reduce reciprocating mass. I shall do a drawing of the cylinder layout later this week.

The cab is centrally placed and more akin to a conventional locomotive unlike Bulleid's Leader and so may be a slight more popular with loco crews.

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/paget/paget.htm

 

Gibbo.

Now here's a thought. That last loco, the one with the bogies-how about ditching the Paget style multi-cylinder arrangement, and instead having an underslung turbine between the bogies, driving each bogie though a cardan shaft and reversible final drive? Or even, if there's space, driving through a fluid coupling?

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I've read the Schools described as a 4-6-0 built as a 4-4-0 for operational reasons, though I can't see what those would be as a 4-4-0 would surely have a higher axle-loading.

 

There is much disagreement among authors on this but a shorter frame means much less overhang on tight curves on the Hastings line. It did have higher axle loading but also had a higher tractive effort than a Lord Nelson.

 

EDIT: Maunsell's original plan for the Hastings line was a fast 2-6-4T, but changed his mind after Sevenoaks. It would be interesting to imagine a bigger version of a K1 with 6'7" driving wheels.

 

Cheers

David

Edited by DavidB-AU
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, john new said:

 

I've been wondering for a while if by slightly elongating the  boiler and firebox you could create a Maunsell Atlantic with 8-wheel bogie tender out of two Dapol Schools kits? By chopping the tenders you get the axle-box etc., to go under the cab, second kit would give up boiler insert rings  and then a cut and shut for a longer tender. That Repton has the enlarged tender suggests if the loco' was that bit bigger it would definitely need greater water capacity and/or room for more coal tonnage.

 

As usual with these imaginary pondering exercises the crunch is what advantages would the LSWR/SR have got if it actually had been built? I guess none unless you reverse the timeline, as the shortness of the 4-4-0 layout was why it got built in the first place (rather than more Arthurs etc.) to fit where the 4-6-0s were too long/big. If it was going to have a place in any fictitious evolution of Eastleigh designs it would be as a build before the Nelsons etc., and be seen as the precursor from which the 4-6-0s were evolved. 

 

Why suggest it - no reason other than I like the look of most Atlantic types.

Hi John,

 

The driving wheels might need a reduction in size, the wheels and frame of the Prairie tank might be the way to go with two Schools class on top of it all.

 

Gibbo.

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

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Now here's a thought. That last loco, the one with the bogies-how about ditching the Paget style multi-cylinder arrangement, and instead having an underslung turbine between the bogies, driving each bogie though a cardan shaft and reversible final drive? Or even, if there's space, driving through a fluid coupling?

Hi Rodent,

 

I'm not that bonkers !

 

Why not buy some kits and hack them about  and wee can all then see what such a contraption would look like. The Reid Ramsey locomotive comes to mind.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

There is much disagreement among authors on this but a shorter frame means much less overhang on tight curves on the Hastings line. It did have higher axle loading but also had a higher tractive effort than a Lord Nelson.

 

EDIT: Maunsell's original plan for the Hastings line was a fast 2-6-4T, but changed his mind after Sevenoaks. It would be interesting to imagine a bigger version of a K1 with 6'7" driving wheels.

 

Cheers

David

Higher Tractive Effort?

The Schools had 25,130lbf, a Nelson had 33,510lbf

Even the axle load is almost the same as a Schools had 21 Ton  0 cwt and a Nelson 20 Ton 19 cwt (max)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

I'm not that bonkers !

 

Why not buy some kits and hack them about  and wee can all then see what such a contraption would look like. The Reid Ramsey locomotive comes to mind.

 

Gibbo.

 

these seem more hallucinatory than imaginary..

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/reidmac/reidmac.htm

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/reidrams/reidrams.htm

 

This appears at first glance to be the result of a particularly serious derailment, possibly involving a rotary snow-blower or potato picking rig, but apparently it is SUPPOSED to look like this;

 

22150386-A43C-4B83-8317-12D9C1978292.jpeg.6c6ef3661a2ef46ad15c38bca4967802.jpeg

Edited by rockershovel
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

also the city of Truro and Prairie tank amalgamations.

City of Truro's Std 4 boiler on the Prairie tank chassis/tanks/bunker would give you a 3150 class. Technically there ought to be a fair few other detail changes, but its not a mile away... The cab and bunker are a bit different and the Churchward loco doesn't have the Holcroft radius at the front end.

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

  • RMweb Gold

No, but later rebuilds brought the locos into line with Collett 5101 and it’s variants in terms of appearance.  There was another prairie with a no.4 boiler as well, the Collett (as opposed to Churchward) 31xx.  This had   5’3” driving wheels which made it look even more of a beast. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

Higher Tractive Effort?

The Schools had 25,130lbf, a Nelson had 33,510lbf

Even the axle load is almost the same as a Schools had 21 Ton  0 cwt and a Nelson 20 Ton 19 cwt (max)

 

 

My bad! I meant to say a King Arthur. Yes the Schools was a cut down Lord Nelson.

 

It would still be interesting to see a design for a 2-6-4T with the same 6'7" drivers.

 

Cheers

David

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

16 hours ago, The Johnster said:

No, but later rebuilds brought the locos into line with Collett 5101 and it’s variants in terms of appearance.  There was another prairie with a no.4 boiler as well, the Collett (as opposed to Churchward) 31xx.  This had   5’3” driving wheels which made it look even more of a beast. 

 

 

We'll be here all day if we discuss large prairie permutations in too much detail! Yes, with outside steampipes and new curved front ends the later 3100s looked more like 5101s, but the man might want his kitbash to look slightly different [grin]. I see all sorts of variations in the rearward bunker overhangs of the 10 wheel tanks, its definitely photo territory. The 3100s were of course 3150 renewals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, rockershovel said:

This appears at first glance to be the result of a particularly serious derailment, possibly involving a rotary snow-blower or potato picking rig, but apparently it is SUPPOSED to look like this;

 

22150386-A43C-4B83-8317-12D9C1978292.jpeg.6c6ef3661a2ef46ad15c38bca4967802.jpeg

What was this please? The cab has a FS look about it - Might it be it a Turbine contemporary to the Crosti being tested? 

If so is the front structure a shelter for the test engineers - and is the Whyte designation  still  a  2-8-2 ?

dh

Link to post
Share on other sites

What GWR number range would an imaginary mixed traffic locomotive be in if it used the standard 12 boiler (as fitted to Kings) with a widened fire grate area, on a 2-8-2 chassis using 5'3" drivers? (2 cylinders!) Kind of an alternative to the 4700 class... just a little something I'm playing with, be nice to add a realistic number to the cab side.

 

Related to this, I'm rashly assuming that as the weight is spread over 6 axles rather 5 as on a King, the axle loading would be much kinder, even though there is a slightly larger firebox area.

Edited by Satan's Goldfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

See here, as previously linked re the little four-wheeler.

Having been introduced to the Museum of Retro-Technology  I think I'm now more than ever, as a Time Waster, unlikely to do anything else remotely useful in life.

dh

Edited by runs as required
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

What GWR number range would an imaginary mixed traffic locomotive be in if it used the standard 12 boiler (as fitted to Kings) with a widened fire grate area, on a 2-8-2 chassis using 5'3" drivers? (2 cylinders!) Kind of an alternative to the 4700 class... just a little something I'm playing with, be nice to add a realistic number to the cab side.

 

Related to this, I'm rashly assuming that as the weight is spread over 6 axles rather 5 as on a King, the axle loading would be much kinder, even though there is a slightly larger firebox area.

 

 

Nevermind, took a punt at the 6100 range.

 

485329523_GWR2-8-2.jpg.798bd759f9d407966f93d7f8cd1d0f2f.jpg

 

Technically I've used 5' drivers instead of 5'3", but that's just 1mm off in OO gauge, which is less than the gauge discrepancy! 

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

What GWR number range would an imaginary mixed traffic locomotive be in if it used the standard 12 boiler (as fitted to Kings) with a widened fire grate area, on a 2-8-2 chassis using 5'3" drivers? (2 cylinders!) Kind of an alternative to the 4700 class... just a little something I'm playing with, be nice to add a realistic number to the cab side.

 

Related to this, I'm rashly assuming that as the weight is spread over 6 axles rather 5 as on a King, the axle loading would be much kinder, even though there is a slightly larger firebox area.

 

There aren't many left... New wheel arrangements seem to have got the next available hundred that wasn't likely to be used for another class.  75 or 82 would be my guess.
 

I fear the King boiler and the trailing wheels would be interfering in your photo. You'd probably need to go all Stanier Pacific and have a combustion chamber and a full on wide firebox.

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

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

No. 12 bashes are some of my favorites.   I could see a heavy, high-speed banker tank with 8 drivers using the boiler.

 

big banker.jpg

 

It possibly might even need to be a 2-8-4. King boiler, basically 4700 chassis, bits from 42 and 72.

Edited by JimC
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

How about an eight-coupled pannier?

There was a real proposal for that in 1905.  I think it was abandoned at a fairly early stage, but there's an outline drawing surviving and reproduced in RCTS. 45xx boiler. My interpretation goes like this.

080PTChurchwardproposal.jpg

My imagination pictures a Hawksworth era 0-8-0 pannier in the 15xx style, but looking at my 15xx drawing it would be a difficult thing to do well or even at all. Maybe with even closer spaced 4'1in wheels than the above and drive to the third pair, but then I think it might be too heavy at the back.

Edited by JimC
  • Like 4
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...