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.

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Morning all,

 

After witnessing the Hornby model of the Peckett ‘W4’ Class, I thought to myself “Why didn’t they make a tender for longer work periods?”. The result was this locomotive, dubbed the ‘W4T’ Class. What do you think?

 

SRF.

6F36B037-D604-4B2A-BACB-6BC186F34F94.jpeg

 

Imagine this with cab like a Ffestiniog England.

 

Cheers

David

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I have seen many examples of this myself - mine was merely designed as though there were a higher quality production version, instead of redundant wagon conversions.

 

The “tenders” usually combine the functions of coal storage and general tool store. It’s counter-productive to put more weight on the tender than absolutely necessary. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
16 hours ago, sir douglas said:

just about everything shortened except the cab

r3314.jpg.ff3b423b60bac5cf346736a1e4f7e04f.jpg

 

This is the proposed LMS rebuild of the GSWR Stirling 0-4-0 mineral engines, using the standard G0.5S Belpaire boiler. Drawings were prepared, then someone from Kilmarnock works pointed out that the class had all been withdrawn by about 1900. 

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This is the proposed LMS rebuild of the GSWR Stirling 0-4-0 mineral engines, using the standard G0.5S Belpaire boiler. Drawings were prepared, then someone from Kilmarnock works pointed out that the class had all been withdrawn by about 1900. 


Nice thought. Some of the Fower wheelers lasted until after the Great War, this one didn’t but is seen here in rude good health in 1908!

 

 

DCAF14BC-D4F8-4273-A702-2919AD436E66.jpeg

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:


Nice thought. Some of the Fower wheelers lasted until after the Great War, this one didn’t but is seen here in rude good health in 1908!

 

 

DCAF14BC-D4F8-4273-A702-2919AD436E66.jpeg

 

Brilliant - I've not seen a photo of a live one before - only models. Nice brake van too, shame the tender's in the way!

 

That reminds me of something about @sir douglas' picture that was bugging me - crank axle under the ashpan! It must have been more than lively on the footplate of a fower wheeler.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Actually inside the ashpan and possibly clonking the grate.  It's crying out for a jackshaft drive between the coupled axles.

 Perhaps that's what its got between the frames, with the leading axle being cranked? Or it might be a marine-type boiler, like NER Class K as built.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 Perhaps that's what its got between the frames, with the leading axle being cranked? Or it might be a marine-type boiler, like NER Class K as built.

 

Traction avant is an interesting notion.  Living with London Midland Locomotives describes a scheme to fit an axle hung geared unit to a 3F tank (never fully worked through because diesel shunters).  That might work here, connected to the front axle.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joseph the L&YR lover said:

has anyone metioned the lanky 2-10-0 at all? i got some drawing of the loco and i was thinking about sharing them if anyone wanted to see it.

 

Its been discussed a fair few times before, but by all means share the drawings, I’m a sucker for a good technical diagram. I think the consensus behind the Lanc 2-10-0 is that it wasn’t so much a serious proposal as it was a show room model. Set up to impress would be customers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Didn't those have outside cylinders?  See what you mean, though.

 

Amazingly enough, there are TWO of them on eBay right now; curious things, one painted in LMS colours. The body shells seem to differ in detail, too...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scots region said:

 

Its been discussed a fair few times before, but by all means share the drawings, I’m a sucker for a good technical diagram. I think the consensus behind the Lanc 2-10-0 is that it wasn’t so much a serious proposal as it was a show room model. Set up to impress would be customers.

Hughes proposed a Pacific pre WW1 and this was (IIRC) the mineral engine variant of that proposal. Neither was proceeded with because they were deemed to be far too powerful for the traffic on offer, not to mention signalling issues, length of loops etc.

The idea that a CME would go so far as to produce such designs and present them to the board but not be serious doesn't bear thinking about. I should think the Civil Engineer and the Signalling Engineer got the vapours when they saw the diagrams.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
4 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Hughes proposed a Pacific pre WW1 and this was (IIRC) the mineral engine variant of that proposal. Neither was proceeded with because they were deemed to be far too powerful for the traffic on offer, not to mention signalling issues, length of loops etc.

The idea that a CME would go so far as to produce such designs and present them to the board but not be serious doesn't bear thinking about. I should think the Civil Engineer and the Signalling Engineer got the vapours when they saw the diagrams.

 

 

Before retirement I was often asked by management to achieve something which realistically couldn’t be done with what we had available.  I can easily see a scenario where a CME was asked something similar, example, more pax/freight with less trains*. That needs more vehicles per train so bigger engine needed. CME’s answer is I can get you one of these bigger engines dear directors but you will need to spend on civil engineering etc, etc., to run them. End of stupidly impractical idea or a morphing to a compromise. An outline diagram presumably wouldn’t waste much drawing office time. The alternative approach, such as with the LNER P1 and LMS Garretts found the in-traffic problems after they had built the locos.

 

* seems to be an efficiency saving until you work it through.

 

Edited by john new
Typo & Added a footnote Plus some tweaks for clarity.
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john new said:

Before retirement I was often asked by management to achieve something which realistically couldn’t be done 

Yes indeedy.  Always worth remembering that sometimes studies need to be prepared to demonstrate why something will not be practical. 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, JimC said:

Yes indeedy.  Always worth remembering that sometimes studies need to be prepared to demonstrate why something will not be practical. 

And/or to show your superiors it can be done with what we have BUT if the resources,  be that staff, equipment or both, is reallocated to this new task what would you like us not to do from what they are currently being used for? Outcome generally some form of compromise.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Robinson on the GCR also proposed a 2-10-0; an ugly looking thing with a huge boiler (bigger than on the O5/B7).

 

Someone on YouTube made a model of a GCR Baldwin 2-10-2. Might that be connected to that design, perhaps?

 

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, john new said:

...

An outline diagram presumably wouldn’t waste much drawing office time. ...

 

 

I wouldn't underestimate the time involved in creating a weight diagram. It might seem simple to an engineer from a different time and discipline but it would take a section of draughtsmen about a fortnight to three weeks with all calculations being made without the benefit of any modern devices. It's not a trivial exercise.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that this wasn't a serious proposal. To suggest otherwise is to fantasise.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
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.