Imaginary Locomotives

[Ramblin Rich]

Agreed, but I don't like  Big Berta either! I think it's the combination of large cylinders with no pony truck that makes them look  ungainly and unbalanced, just brutish basically. Good at the job they're intended for I'm sure, but 'not one to take home to see your mum'

[Clive Mortimore]

40 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Agreed, but I don't like  Big Berta either! I think it's the combination of large cylinders with no pony truck that makes them look  ungainly and unbalanced, just brutish basically. Good at the job they're intended for I'm sure, but 'not one to take home to see your mum'

WOT?

 

How can anyone not like her....supose each to their own.

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

I clicked on informative as there's no way I could like these brutes. They look like they've been driven into an ugly wall. Fast...!

 

If you REALLY want a misbegotten looking thing, try this, supposedly a rebuild of the GER Decapod (although what survives, other than some of the wheelsets and the outside cylinders, is hard to say). Unsurprisingly, it didn’t last long in service. 

 

[rockershovel]

On 14/05/2020 at 21:07, Budgie said:

 

Why stop there? If the GER could build a 0-10-0T, they why couldn't the GWR have a 0-10-0PT based on a 1661?

 

Presumably for the same reason that the GER didn’t keep theirs long - it had no practical application...

[rockershovel]

7 hours ago, 313201 said:

Hi Ramblin Rich

 

It could be because of the way the locos were designed.

 

We had the 0-10-0 decapod which I think was a tank loco and we also had big bertha another 0-10-0 which because of its inclined cylinders actually gave rise to the design of the 9F locomotives.

 

As far as I know the 2 locos had no daylight between the boiler and chassis.

 

The “Lickey Banker” locomotive had very little in common with the 9F, other than the 10-coupled layout and inclined cylinders (to provide clearance within the loading gauge). It was a four-cylinder design with a unique steam-passage layout, in which good design was sacrificed to accommodate everything within the available space and provide short periods of maximum tractive effort at slow speeds. 

 

The 2-6-0 “Crab” might be regarded as the first forebear of the 9F, in that it was a successful mixed-traffic design incorporating the two-cylinder configuration with outside motion, elevated to fit within the loading gauge, the whole falling within a design philosophy which would inform the BR Standard classes in time. 

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Met's engineer was John Fowler, who is credited with some of the design of the A Class.

He is not the same John Fowler of John Fowler and Sons.

 

It' pretty clear that although John Fowler may have given a specification the Met's locomotives had to meet, the design is pure Beyer Peacock as discussed in this topic:

 

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

 

 

The 2-6-0 “Crab” might be regarded as the first forebear of the 9F, in that it was a successful mixed-traffic design incorporating the two-cylinder configuration with outside motion, elevated to fit within the loading gauge, the whole falling within a design philosophy which would inform the BR Standard classes in time. 

However even when the Crab was introduced it was a bit old fashioned due to the lowish boiler pressure, leading to overlarge cylinders to get the TE, hence the elevated, sloping cylinders

After Stanier had arrived at the LMS he modernised the design for a mogul and ended up with horizontal cylinders, with a loco more along the lines of a GWR 43XX, with the prototype much to Stanier's displeasure, sporting a Swindon style safety valve cover. (quickly removed)

[rockershovel]

21 minutes ago, melmerby said:

However even when the Crab was introduced it was a bit old fashioned due to the lowish boiler pressure, leading to overlarge cylinders to get the TE, hence the elevated, sloping cylinders

After Stanier had arrived at the LMS he modernised the design for a mogul and ended up with horizontal cylinders, with a loco more along the lines of a GWR 43XX, with the prototype much to Stanier's displeasure, sporting a Swindon style safety valve cover. (quickly removed)

 

Indeed, as evidenced by the subsequent 2-6-0 and 2-6-4 designs, or the GWR equivalents. However the Crab DID set the precedent for the elevated, sloping cylinders, it WAS part of the overall Midland/LMS design evolution which materially informed the design of the BR “Standards” as were the LMS 2-8-0 and Austerity 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 designs 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

 However the Crab DID set the precedent for the elevated, sloping cylinders,

Hardly a precedent as they had been around since Rocket

 

Surely the crab was probably the last of the generation of locos with sloping cylinders before the 9F?

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Hardly a precedent as they had been around since Rocket

 

Surely the crab was probably the last of the generation of locos with sloping cylinders before the 9F?

 

... not forgetting that Rocket was rebuilt with near-horizontal cylinders at an early stage in its development, in which form it (mostly) survives today. Horizontal cylinders are definitely better practice in terms of balance, and became usual as boiler design improved and working pressures rose. But they must fit within the loading gauge, hence the elevated cylinders on the BR Standards. 

[Compound2632]

Well, they got the nickname "crab" for a reason. But from what I understand they were otherwise very highly regarded locomotives. I've not read anyone singing the praises of the Stanier moguls - but there were far fewer of them and they were thoroughly eclipsed by the Black Fives.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, they got the nickname "crab" for a reason. But from what I understand they were otherwise very highly regarded locomotives. I've not read anyone singing the praises of the Stanier moguls - but there were far fewer of them and they were thoroughly eclipsed by the Black Fives.

 

I think you have answered your own question .. the mixed traffic 4-6-0 would be the dominant type in the last generation of steam. 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I think you have answered your own question .. the mixed traffic 4-6-0 would be the dominant type in the last generation of steam. 

 

Indeed, but despite the general success of the 5s, the Horwich moguls remained in high esteem.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Chaps,

 

The Horwich Crabs really were the forerunner of the BR standards their features are as below.

• Conceived as a mixed traffic design as were the BR standards.
• Simple, outside two cylinder with external valve gear.
• High running plate allowing easy access to the  valve gear.
• High degree super heat.
• Good steam distribution via long lead and long lap dimensions.
• Free exhaust system due to large valve port area.
• Multiple ring valve heads for reduced internal leakage.
• Mechanical lubrication to the driving axle boxes and also to the cylinders via fully atomised steam feeds actuated by the drain cocks.
• High steam rate boilers due to large crown sheet and well proportioned flue and tube areas promoting good gas flow.
• Cab design and layout of controls that was carried forward with Stanier period designs and later adapted via Ivatt period into the BR standards. The cab was one of the earliest designs where the locomotive was to be driven sat down.
• Horwich horse-shoe hornguides, horn ties and pin jointed cross braces for increased strength and resistance to frame fracture, also used in the later improved Stanier designs and all of the BR standards. Gresley used this design also but then he was trained at Horwich.
• Heavily cross braced frames that were resistant to twist due to piston thrust.
• Generous axle boxes of Horwich proportions, similar to GWR but before Stanier arrived at the LMS.
• Cylindrical smoke boxes thus reducing leakage for improved vacuum and reduced risk of damage through scorching.
• Horwich chimney well before the BR standards were even thought of !!!!

The only features that the Crabs missed were self cleaning screens in the smoke box and rocking grates.

 

Here is one with a proper tender instead of the outdated rubbish they actually trailed:

 

Gibbo.

[PhilJ W]

Yes, the Midland Mafia had to spoil it by putting their own ill matched tender behind it. 

[rodent279]

11 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Chaps,

 

The Horwich Crabs really were the forerunner of the BR standards their features are as below.

• Conceived as a mixed traffic design as were the BR standards.
• Simple, outside two cylinder with external valve gear.
• High running plate allowing easy access to the  valve gear.
• High degree super heat.
• Good steam distribution via long lead and long lap dimensions.
• Free exhaust system due to large valve port area.
• Multiple ring valve heads for reduced internal leakage.
• Mechanical lubrication to the driving axle boxes and also to the cylinders via fully atomised steam feeds actuated by the drain cocks.
• High steam rate boilers due to large crown sheet and well proportioned flue and tube areas promoting good gas flow.
• Cab design and layout of controls that was carried forward with Stanier period designs and later adapted via Ivatt period into the BR standards. The cab was one of the earliest designs where the locomotive was to be driven sat down.
• Horwich horse-shoe hornguides, horn ties and pin jointed cross braces for increased strength and resistance to frame fracture, also used in the later improved Stanier designs and all of the BR standards. Gresley used this design also but then he was trained at Horwich.
• Heavily cross braced frames that were resistant to twist due to piston thrust.
• Generous axle boxes of Horwich proportions, similar to GWR but before Stanier arrived at the LMS.
• Cylindrical smoke boxes thus reducing leakage for improved vacuum and reduced risk of damage through scorching.
• Horwich chimney well before the BR standards were even thought of !!!!

The only features that the Crabs missed were self cleaning screens in the smoke box and rocking grates.

 

Here is one with a proper tender instead of the outdated rubbish they actually trailed:

 

Gibbo.

My Dad was also Horwich trained, and he fired Crabs, Black 5's, 8F's & 5X's as well. Between them, there wasn't much traffic the railway could throw at them that couldn't be handled. 

[PenrithBeacon]

30 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Chaps,

 

The Horwich Crabs really were the forerunner of the BR standards 

...

Here is one with a proper tender instead of the outdated rubbish they actually trailed:

 

Gibbo.

Don't disagree with much of this post, but the assertion that they were the 'forerunner of the BR standards' is overstating it. In fact there were a lot of these forerunners but the concept came to fruition in the Stanier Black Five. The Horwich Crab was very much an LYR development of a Caledonian design which was in development by that railway.

In general terms, the concept of a mixed traffic six wheeler is very much a Scottish idea further developed by English railways and that is true right back to the Jones Goods which, notwithstanding its nickname, was very much a mixed traffic design.

I would take issue with that tender too, it is not a tender that Horwich would designed in the 1920s.

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Don't disagree with much of this post, but the assertion that they were the 'forerunner of the BR standards' is overstating it. In fact there were a lot of these forerunners but the concept came to fruition in the Stanier Black Five. The Horwich Crab was very much an LYR development of a Caledonian design which was in development by that railway.

In general terms, the concept of a mixed traffic six wheeler is very much a Scottish idea further developed by English railways and that is true right back to the Jones Goods which, notwithstanding its nickname, was very much a mixed traffic design.

I would take issue with that tender too, it is not a tender that Horwich would designed in the 1920s.

Hi David,

 

The points made are in the main engineering and ergonomic in nature and not necessarily with regard the root concept of design which I do not dispute, however the Scottish 2-6-0's mentioned were technically quite different to the crab in terms of engineering.

 

Having driven, fired (including man line work) and worked upon all but two of the extant Stanier/Ivatt designs, the majority of BR standard designs and also 42765 I can tell you that by way of mechanical similarity the Crab is more akin to a BR standard than any other LMS locomotive I have experienced.

 

The black fives in original condition had a poor frame design that was steadily altered and by the late 1940's was mechanically similar in concept to those as built for the Crabs and later developed for the BR Standard types. Having personally carried out the weld repairs to 45407 where triangular sections of frame plate were let into the area each side of the horn guides I know too well the trouble caused by poor frame design. Originally the boilers did not have similar super heater proportions to the crabs which seriously impaired performance originally. Fortunately though, the cylinder and valve gear design was from the same school of thought which unfortunately may not be said for the missed opportunity that were the three cylinder 5X locomotives.

 

It is my firm knowledge that the Stanier designs were to some regard retrograde by not following on from all the direct engineering that made the Crabs excellent locomotives for their time.

 

With regard taper boilers their main advantage is to save weight at the front end of the locomotive by reducing the mass of plate and volume of water carried. Bulleid boilers are tapered on the under side both saving weight and allowing for maximum steam space thus getting the best advantage yet.

 

As for the tender, the photograph is to both shew that the design sits well with the locomotive's then modern cab and also to amuse those that have a sense of humour !

 

Gibbo.

[PenrithBeacon]

Interesting! Two things about the Black 5, one is that they are getting very old now and they are quite often employed on duties that are beyond their capacity when out on the main line. To put it bluntly, they are thrashed.

The second point is that the frame design was intended to be shared with the unbuilt Class 4 4-6-0 and this is probably why the frames are on the light side.

The Horwich mogul should be seen, I think, as the culmination of a lifetime's work by Hughes and, as far as locomotive design was concerned, it wasn't a particularly distinguished one. His express 4-6-0 was pretty poor, not at all up to the best of it's age. Much the same can be said for the 0-8-0s.

I have thought for a good many years now that Stanier wasn't the best choice for the LMS. The issues with superheating show that he didn't know enough about the details of superheating design but he was very much a workshop man, a production engineer, not, by experience, a locomotive designer. He spent very little of his time at the GWR in the drawing office. The man the LMS needed was Hawksworth not Stanier. The LMS did get, eventually, a loco designer, their own Terry Coleman and the Duchess is very much his locomotive.

[rockershovel]

.... which (sort of) brings us to a design type which had a long and successful career on British metals, produced two highly successful Austerity designs (one of which, is a mainstay of the preservation movement) but did not form part of that swan song for steam, the BR Standards. 

 

I refer, of course, the the inside cylinder 0-6-0... along with its close cousin, the 0-6-2T, it comprised a core element of the railways for pretty much the whole steam era, survives in preservation in some numbers; yet never captured the public imagination, and still hasn’t. 

 

I can’t call to mind, a single example in this thread. Any 0-6-0 which carried a name in revenue service, probably had two tenders and rocking beams above the boiler. 

 

 

[brack]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

Any 0-6-0 which carried a name in revenue service, probably had two tenders and rocking beams above the boiler. 

Maude.

 

And the other 24 named J36s

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, brack said:

Maude.

 

And the other 24 named J36s

 

A most interesting class! https://www.lner.info/locos/J/j37.php

 

- they must be one of the very few classes to have been introduced without names, and subsequently named

- 65311 “Haig” must be the only example of a pre-grouping loco, named for the first time by BR

- along with their J37 cousins, these pre-grouping survivors survived to the very end of steam, to become the last steam locomotives in revenue service in Scotland 

[PenrithBeacon]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

...

 

I can’t call to mind, a single example in this thread. Any 0-6-0 which carried a name in revenue service, probably had two tenders and rocking beams above the boiler. 

 

 

I think 'rockershovel' is being provocative here. Until the mid-late 1850s it was very common for goods engines to carry a name and not a number. Until, that is, when the names ran out and everything was numbered, sometimes with a name, mostly without.

[rockershovel]

13 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I think 'rockershovel' is being provocative here. Until the mid-late 1850s it was very common for goods engines to carry a name and not a number. Until, that is, when the names ran out and everything was numbered, sometimes with a name, mostly without.

 

Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge of early locomotives would care to re-phrase the point? “Double frames and spectacle plates”, perhaps? 

Edited May 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[melmerby]

The GWR's Early Broad gauge engines were named, not numbered.

Their first Narrow (Standard) Gauge engines were numbered, not named