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.

28XX

Imaginary Locomotives

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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;

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/22150386-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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, runs as required said:

What was this please?

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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 8

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, runs as required said:

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

 

The thing I find so incredible about these contraptions, is that all of them must have been through sufficient technical scrutiny and review to persuade the relevant people to spend quite considerable sums of money building and testing them. 

 

It’s a different case with those American horrors (like the one with multiple driving wheels stacked one above the other) which never existed except in the overheated minds of their promoters - ink and paper are cheap - but most of these are real engineering, which real engineers with real experience expected to work..

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/1731980766_bigbanker.jpg.677177fbf7fac98ec54b7ee1668e020a.jpg

 

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

 

35 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_09/1731980766_bigbanker.jpg.677177fbf7fac98ec54b7ee1668e020a.jpg

 

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

2-8-4 I reckon or you won’t be able to carry enough coal for more than a few  miles off shed, and you need as many wheels as you can to distribute the axle load, the loco’s biggest problem!  Suggest 88xx, 89xx, 98xx, 99xx for mixed traffic number series, but 76xx is possible for a mixed traffic tank engine. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no hand with these photo editing pages, but I'd expect an 0-8-0PT to be along these lines..

 

157246248_ScreenShot2019-09-12at20_05_19.png.d03e8ca38c0b9257190f538d96d638e4.png

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I'm no hand with these photo editing pages, but I'd expect an 0-8-0PT to be along these lines..

I'm had a quick look and had trouble locating the firebox and ashpan relative to the axles. Given a std 10 boiler the front of the firebox must be between wheels. If its between 2nd and 3rd I reckon too much of the weight of the loco is on the first two pairs of wheels, but if its between 3rd and 4th then the back will be heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JimC said:

I'm had a quick look and had trouble locating the firebox and ashpan relative to the axles. Given a std 10 boiler the front of the firebox must be between wheels. If its between 2nd and 3rd I reckon too much of the weight of the loco is on the first two pairs of wheels, but if its between 3rd and 4th then the back will be heavy.

 

Well, yes. There’s usually a reason why these neverwazzers didn’t exist. The GWR knew quite a lot about both eight-wheeled, and eight-coupled locomotives and never built an 0-8-0 of any description. I couldn’t make the boiler layout work, either. 

 

I spent a little while comparing weight and TE figures and came to the conclusion that in British design, there was a step change between six-coupled, and eight-coupled locomotives generally, and that an 0-8-0T wasn’t useful or viable for any likely use, given the size of the boiler required, the tank capacity, the overall weight and minimum radius. 

 

There WERE (rare) 0-8-0T types, the SR Z class was a rather magnificent looking thing and seems to have been successful - but the overall conclusion must be that they had no general application and even for the short-range, brute-power applications where eight-coupled tanks were used, carrying wheels were preferable 9B203B9C-923C-41B7-9D8B-FB5B509CE923.jpeg.e01c5e1bd689342ebb9a84495f2b814f.jpeg

 

 

Edited by rockershovel
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks a bit like my freelance 0-8-0T Baldwin.

DSC_0212.JPG.f497e9cfa79f9df114ff7fc5f1f66436.JPG

I built it for hauling quarry trains. 

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Well, yes. There’s usually a reason why these neverwazzers didn’t exist. The GWR knew quite a lot about both eight-wheeled, and eight-coupled locomotives and never built an 0-8-0 of any description. I couldn’t make the boiler layout work, either.

 

 

The LNWR seems to have come to the same conclusion as they built 0-8-0s, 2-8-0s, 0-8-2Ts & 0-8-4Ts but no 0-8-0Ts

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The LNWR seems to have come to the same conclusion as they built 0-8-0s, 2-8-0s, 0-8-2Ts & 0-8-4Ts but no 0-8-0Ts

 

Though the 2-8-0s were rebuilds of 0-8-0s - Webb's 4-cylinder compounds that were particularly heavy at the front end. Replacing -0 with -2T was a standard Crewe manoeuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GE made do with three driving axles when others had four resulting in the J20. At the time of its introduction the most powerful 0-6-0 built in this country, only surpassed later by the Bulleid Q. (Now there's one that could easily be stretched to 0-8-0).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Though the 2-8-0s were rebuilds of 0-8-0s - Webb's 4-cylinder compounds that were particularly heavy at the front end. Replacing -0 with -2T was a standard Crewe manoeuver.

The 2-8-0 version just doesn't look right IMHO.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2019 at 12:54, runs as required said:

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.

 

That is a dangerous website, I've just wasted an entire HOUR* browsing through a couple of sections!

 

But thanks for drawing it to our attention...

 

* An hour which I could have wasted on RMWeb!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.