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
17 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

There were about 27 standard boiler types in all, but not all were numbered. Of course that's still way fewer than any other line. Of the numbered types several were domed and not tapered. Six more were, I fear only used on a single class, and indeed only one Standard 6 boiler was ever built. But the vast majority of GWR locomotives used only a few boiler types. The problems came firstly with the myriad of absorbed locos and secondly when they had to build to weight limits. Most of the single class 'standards' came about because of weight restrictions.

 

Much the same could be said of LMS boilers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The 2221 Class "County Tanks" were distinct from the 3800 Class County 4-4-0s, being built contemporaneously with the latter. They had different boilers, No. 2 rather than the Counties' No. 4. They were withdraw in the early thirties, outlasting the Counties by a year or three.

 

You don't have to be a Great Western enthusiast to find out this sort of stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The 2221 Class "County Tanks" were distinct from the 3800 Class County 4-4-0s, being built contemporaneously with the latter. They had different boilers, No. 2 rather than the Counties' No. 4. They were withdraw in the early thirties, outlasting the Counties by a year or three.

 

You don't have to be a Great Western enthusiast to find out this sort of stuff.

The also had a reputation of rockin'n'rollin from side to side at speed due to the high centre of gravity

The 5101/61XX 2-6-2Ts proved to be just as capable and much better riders. hence they were built in large numbers, the County Tanks just faded away.

There was also a one off "Small County" tank (4600) with 5'8" wheels but this was proved to be no better than the 2-6-2 type and remained a one off.

No doubt when they were dismantled useful parts went into the pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, JimC said:

No, but you do need to be very careful with Wikipedia. Sometimes its about who can shout the loudest, not who's right. 

 

Somehow I doubt that locomotive history articles are among the more contentious on Wikipedia. In general, where I have more authoritative sources of information, the Wikipedia article is in agreement - usually because it is citing the same sources! Besides, I also checked out gwr.org.uk.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hmm.  Wikipedia is generally ok but I've made one or two corrections and clarifications myself on one or two railway matters.  gwr.org.uk is also a bit vague on occasion, and is not reliable on the matter of 'transition period' late GW/Early BR liveries.  There is probably no perfectly accurate and complete source for anything, and all sources ideally need to be corroborated.  Even when we have definitive photographic evidence of something we have to accept the reliability of the provided date.

 

Standardisation of boilers meant that, because locos took less time to overhaul than boilers, boilers from stock that had come from other locos would be fitted to return the loco to traffic where it can earn income, and release the bay in the erecting shop.  So, when you are for instance trying to establish if a particular 57xx pannier carried a boiler with a top feed cover and the associated plumbing visible around the tanks in, say, 1950 (I had to investigate this recently and could not ascertain the correct answer, so removed the top feed under the authority of Rule 1 until better information becomes available; it probably never will), the matter becomes far too complex to be accurate about.  There may be records of which 57xx/8750/2721 boilers had top feeds and when they were fitted to individual locos, but I don't know how to access them anyway!  

 

Photographic evidence with a known provenance and reliable corroborated date is best, but is not always available.  Liveries can be assumed from the date a loco or vehicle was released to traffic, but that is not always easy to find out except for brand new stock.  Some variations, for example early BR red backed number plates, and smokebox door number and shedcode plates, were applied locally at sheds to locos in traffic, another minefield.  Mistakes have been made with locos in preservation, so these are not a reliable source either unless you are modelling them in the correct incorrect 'as preserved' condition, like City of Truro.

 

My policy is to do the best I can, even if this is sometimes uncorroborated guestimation.  I will correct mistakes when I find them to be confirmed to be mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

Quote

The RCTS series is probably the best source, but for individual locomotives you're probably reduced to examining photos of the engine.

Cheers

Edited by PenrithBeacon
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Yes, sure, for detail one needs to look at a variety of sources. But for basic information - build date ranges, withdrawal date ranges, key dimensions - Wikipedia is reliable enough. Sufficiently reliable to confirm that the County Tanks weren't rebuilds of the Counties, at least.

 

For LNER and constituent locomotives, an area where my detailed knowledge is patchy (good on the North Eastern, weak on the Great Northern), I usually go first to LNER Encyclopedia. I find the Wikipedia page Locomotives of the Southern Railway to be a handy reference guide - again, my detailed knowledge is patchy. The earlier one goes, the less likely one is to find articles on specific classes; the Southern constituent articles basically report Bradley, I believe generally regarded as an authoritative source.

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

  • 1 month later...

Stumbled across a note of this one somewhere online and decided to take the plunge, so glad I did: something for the lads, lasses and otherwise to enjoy on here hopefully! Always considered what a Stanier 4-4-0 would look like myself, even if it isn't strictly as such as the text theorises. Now all we need is a (rational) Bulleid light tank for those pesky un-electrified branches to replace those oh so pretty pre-grouping 0-4-4t's in deepest darkest Kent and across the solent!

 

Railway World - March 1985...

 

Stanier_4-4-0_scan_pt_1.png

Stanier_4-4-0_scan_pt_2.png

Stanier_4-4-0_scan_pt_3.png

Edited by SteamedLyons
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a plan for a Class 4 4-6-0 which would have had the same frames as the Black 5 but the boiler of the Class 4 tank engine. This would replace the many Class 3 & 4 4-4-0s then in service. In the event many of the 4-4-0 lasted into the fifties anyway.

 

I have often wondered if the very thin frames of the Black 5 was because of the need to keep the weight of the Class 4 project down while maintaining standardisation with the 5. But I doubt if I'll ever know.

 

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

There was a plan for a Class 4 4-6-0 which would have had the same frames as the Black 5 but the boiler of the Class 4 tank engine. This would replace the many Class 3 & 4 4-4-0s then in service. In the event many of the 4-4-0 lasted into the fifties anyway.

 

I have often wondered if the very thin frames of the Black 5 was because of the need to keep the weight of the Class 4 project down while maintaining standardisation with the 5. But I doubt if I'll ever know.

 

Cheers

 

I believe that's the one Robin Barnes did? Very pretty little thing! I've personally mused on a later Ivatt version that's eerily similar to the later Standard 4 4-6-0, but that's more an asthetic thing since it's just said 4MT in Ivatt dress!

 

One frustrating part of the above proposal in my opinion though are the 6ft, 6' drivers. Other than that it's a relatively easy modeling job (all you'd have to do is construct a chassis and new valve gear) but where else on a LMR loco can you see that size? Seriously where, I want to birth a pretty pair of these in N! If not I'd probably just compromise on 6ft, 9' because the difference is probably near invisible in N! Granted there's not much advantage over a normal 5, but when did that ever stop us! 

 

Just imagine: the duo pounding up Camden in the crisp autumnal air, LMS postwar passenger black still prestigious and gleaming as they take the strain of the Merseysider, covering for a failed Princess Royal perhaps? The long, sweeping strokes of the valve gear may look elegant, but it'll be a rough journey for the poor crew! Maybe they'll pass one of those strange 'bo-bo' suburban thingies that the driver heard tales of being tested on the branch to Harrow, or maybe one of the mammoth 4-6-4's also adjusting to life on the Royal Scot that the fireman frets over in his darkest nightmares (they say the mechanical stokers are prone to failing!) A lowly 3P wheezes past, rushing empty stock to Euston, subsequently covering the last of our vision of the train as it pounds out of sight, but the loud barks echo from into the foggy distance long after they graced our eyes.

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

i dont think i ever posted my FFestiniog made-ups apart from the mallet many years ago

 

the Englands suffered from a lack of tractive effort on the heavier trains which resulted in extra weight being added with cast iron blocks, extra wheels would give more as well, but would greatly increase the radius of curve they are able to traverse. the large Englands have just enough room in the wheelbase for an extra wheelset but the small ones dont

 

made using a drawing in the industrial and narrow gauge modelling review

1127712034_s.holland1867plan.JPG.9535560836aa186c02ea330e77aca974.JPG

 

works drawing of Little Giant. named after Samuel Holland one of the earlier quarry owners in Blaenau, his slates were the main traffic in the early years

672611644_s.holland1867.jpg.cb0082fd89bbef44bd2f2d91470b243c.jpg

 

Little giant at Portmadoc in 1897

1628912814_s.holland1897.jpg.fd26b633386ed572d6c6f84191840886.jpg

 

all the same pros and cons of the above but x2

202569531_w.a.madocks1887.JPG.466613329c98321b97f086bdf355a310.JPG

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often mulled over a layout based on the idea that the NCB standardised on larger hopper wagons and had longer runs between mines and washeries, docks, etc.  They might then have had a need for a heavy standard shunter, and a decent sized trip loco. 

 

Here's the shunter.

 

1234008744_NCB2-8-0.jpg.e6ce9823c47eae9b879e7f4867c31a4f.jpg

Edited by Dr Gerbil-Fritters
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎05‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 23:58, SteamedLyons said:

...one of the mammoth 4-6-4's...

Now that the dry side is getting a RTR model of the 4-6-4 that really ran, our imagination can take over. Of course it was developed, 300psi, thermal siphons, US design of power stoker, roller bearings, good for a new 2 Hour KX - Leeds business service. No corridor in the tender, all the volume available required for enough coal and water to deliver the standard 120mph running demanded by the schedule.

 

Although the name Pegasus was never applied to 60700, I think we can find a few more of like mythical character for this class:

60701 Unicorn

60702 Arion

60703 Sleipnir

etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Pity the NCB or LT didn't buy more of the Western's 1960s cast offs, there might be few more preserved tanks.

The LT one's were the least worn out ones only purchased as a stop gap measure. As soon as the boiler certificate ran out they were replaced. Railway bangernomics in other words.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

the Englands suffered from a lack of tractive effort on the heavier trains which resulted in extra weight being added with cast iron blocks, extra wheels would give more as well, but would greatly increase the radius of curve they are able to traverse. the large Englands have just enough room in the wheelbase for an extra wheelset but the small ones dont

 

Oh, I wish I hadn't seen that... I'm thinking Minitrains Porter chassis, and the GEM England body I have in bits in a toolbox somewhere... just as I think I don't need any more projects :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Now that the dry side is getting a RTR model of the 4-6-4 that really ran, our imagination can take over. Of course it was developed, 300psi, thermal siphons, US design of power stoker, roller bearings, good for a new 2 Hour KX - Leeds business service. No corridor in the tender, all the volume available required for enough coal and water to deliver the standard 120mph running demanded by the schedule.

 

Although the name Pegasus was never applied to 60700, I think we can find a few more of like mythical character for this class:

60701 Unicorn

60702 Arion

60703 Sleipnir

etc.

 

Why use imagination, when the real thing looked like this? I’m sure someone whose photoshop skills are greater than mine, can add the smoke deflectors and livery..

 

2A8AC837-593F-4066-A8AF-83228D367F40.jpeg.401acbed3fed96b916585ce7a37d4719.jpeg

 

60704 Bucephalus

60705 Copenhagen

60706 Eclipse

60707 Genitor 

60708 Llamrei

and a class designed for fast running out of London to the North would surely include 60709 Black Bess? 

 

For South Coast services ..

60710 Hengist and 60711 his wife (?or horse), Horsa 

 

 

 

Edited by rockershovel
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

...Why use imagination, when the real thing looked like this?...

You read my mind; it was a scaled down US loco I had in mind (just as the A1 took the Pennsy K4 as inspiration), though handsome and capable as NYC family of Hudsons were, it was the fastest of them all, the Milwaukee Road's F7 I had in mind. I still feel the most startling thing about the Hiawatha operation is that at the halfway point of the 400 mile run an over track coaler was installed to refill the bunkers of the locos. Twenty seven tons in the case of the F7.

 

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

...a class designed for fast running out of London to the North would surely include 60709 Black Bess? 

Why no sir, he were a villain sir; we want to appeal to honest and upstanding business folk. (He and his kind are commemorated en route: as you wing across the viaduct that spans 'Robbery Bottom Lane'. Just off the old Great North Road, where the going was slow on the difficult climb out of the Mimram valley. Considering how flat Hertfordshire is the gradients on the Great North Road were really difficult, and in the wet with chalk beneath and a good coating of slippery clag on top, it was slow going. I live about a mile from the location of the prototype of the 'slough of despond' outside Welwyn; where the sunken road filled one winter to the extent that an entire haulage team slid in, bogged down and were drownded dead - so the story goes.)

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

The Hiawatha F7s were something else altogether; do we get the illuminated drivers and motion? 

 

0DFF6CC7-73FD-428F-BDB9-9CF9B174E8E6.jpeg.784d266a05ac33461576f6c8d84456be.jpeg

 

The longest tenders on the NYC Hudsons were over 40’ , bringing the total length to 96’ plus...

 

I seem  to recall a thread somewhere earlier, discussing the issue of fireboxes and trailing trucks, concluding that much study (particularly by LMS) had concluded that it was simply not feasible to make effective use of 4-6-4 and 2-8-4 types in the U.K. because the fireboxes they supported, could not be accommodated within the loading gauge. 

 

I rather think that the big 4-6-2 of the later Big Four era, represented the functional limit of steam locomotive size in the U.K. American operators had great success with 2-8-4, 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 types in the last years of steam, but (although LNER would produce the P1 and P2) fast eight-coupled locos never really made a success here and were notably absent from the BR Standard range. 

 

  • Like 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...