Worst looking locomotive topic. Antidote to Best Looking Locomotive topic.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

It seems like a similar arrangement to warships from the recent past which had multiple gas turbine engines (often of different power output) which could be run in different combinations depending on how much power they needed. This suggests that the theory wasn't completely bonkers.  

 

There's an extensive genre of engineering designs, usually referred to as "ahead of their time" consisting of ideas which are actually quite sound in principle, but can't be made to work satisfactorily within the limits of then-current technology. Sometimes they reappear as technology progresses; sometimes they are overtaken by other advances. 

 

The Fell locomotive sounds like one of those. 

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

It seems like a similar arrangement to warships from the recent past which had multiple gas turbine engines (often of different power output) which could be run in different combinations depending on how much power they needed. This suggests that the theory wasn't completely bonkers.  

The Fell was not completely bonkers, it just looked a bit bonkers, and potentially highly fuel efficient as you don't need to fire up all the engines unless the loco is accellerating or climbing under load.  The idea was to have variable amounts of power 'on tap' to deal with the constantly changing load on the engine(s) that is a feature of railway operation to a greater extend that it is in industrial or marine applications,  It was unduly complex, but it worked reasonably well; whether it could ever have been made to be cost efficient in service would have been another question, one I don't think they got as far as answering.  From a modelling pov it is a wonderful shape and the jackshaft drive makes it almost an honorary steam loco.

[rodent279]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The Fell was not completely bonkers, it just looked a bit bonkers, and potentially highly fuel efficient as you don't need to fire up all the engines unless the loco is accellerating or climbing under load.  The idea was to have variable amounts of power 'on tap' to deal with the constantly changing load on the engine(s) that is a feature of railway operation to a greater extend that it is in industrial or marine applications,  It was unduly complex, but it worked reasonably well; whether it could ever have been made to be cost efficient in service would have been another question, one I don't think they got as far as answering.  From a modelling pov it is a wonderful shape and the jackshaft drive makes it almost an honorary steam loco.

From what I've read in books, it was by no means unsuccessful-mechanically, I think it worked well, and proved the point. The main faults seem to have been an inadequate boiler, and poor brakes.

[Zomboid]

Fundamentally it's the same as the Genset locos used quite widely in the US, which have a few diesel engines and fire them up/ shut them down according to load requirements. They have electric transmission with the benefit of maximum TE available regardless of the number of engines.

[John M]

On 26/05/2021 at 02:20, Artless Bodger said:

Just catching up with this thread, it's certainly a very subjective subject and would be interesting to hear from a, say, central European viewpoint. Klien - Lindner, Douglas Self has a page on this; http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/klienlindner/klienlindner.htm , which has photos of the Saxon XV class, and has the outside frames for the leading and trailing axles only. It's a 4 cylinder compound as well. There are models of it by Trix which actually look a bit nicer in original green than the b&w photos suggest; https://www.modellbahn-seyfried.de/trix_tenderlok_saechs__xv_htv_(br_79)_gruen%2Cpid%2C690772%2Crid%2C716%2Cproduktdetailks.html

 

Bachmann used a variant to the Klien-Linder principal with its 1:20.3 scale DRGW K27 Class loco or "Mudhen"

 

The driving wheels were fitted to hollow axles that were free to move sideways on an inner axle to allow the loco to run round curves. The outside cranks remained in a constant position to avoid problems with the coupling rods and outside valve gear and the driving axles were self centering to avoid problems with hunting.

 

The only problem was ensuring all 8 driving wheels and the trailing truck axle are on the track when re-railing the loco after a de-railment usually splitting a set of points.

 

 

Driving wheels normal position for running on straight track.

2,3,4 wheelsets offset with packers to illustrate sliding effect.

 

The low slung DRGW Mudhens may look odd to British eyes but don't quite fit into the Worst Looking Loco category

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Fundamentally it's the same as the Genset locos used quite widely in the US, which have a few diesel engines and fire them up/ shut them down according to load requirements. They have electric transmission with the benefit of maximum TE available regardless of the number of engines.

 

..... which appears to be the crucial point - that mechanical transmission is not best suited to the overall requirements. I found a more detailed description here https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm , note also the discussion of supercharging requirements being effectively dictated by required starting torque characteristics. I would also imagine that electric transmission is better suited to automated, or semi-automated transmission systems, plus providing the superior running characteristics of bogies. 

 

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, John M said:

 

Bachmann used a variant to the Klien-Linder principal with its 1:20.3 scale DRGW K27 Class loco or "Mudhen"

 

The driving wheels were fitted to hollow axles that were free to move sideways on an inner axle to allow the loco to run round curves. The outside cranks remained in a constant position to avoid problems with the coupling rods and outside valve gear and the driving axles were self centering to avoid problems with hunting.

 

The only problem was ensuring all 8 driving wheels and the trailing truck axle are on the track when re-railing the loco after a de-railment usually splitting a set of points.

 

 

Driving wheels normal position for running on straight track.

2,3,4 wheelsets offset with packers to illustrate sliding effect.

 

The low slung DRGW Mudhens may look odd to British eyes but don't quite fit into the Worst Looking Loco category

 

The DRGW locos probably look more conventional to British eyes, than to US eyes. Large, outside framed NG locos are nothing unusual over here, whereas outside framed locos are not common in the US

 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

..... which appears to be the crucial point - that mechanical transmission is not best suited to the overall requirements. I found a more detailed description here https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm , note also the discussion of supercharging requirements being effectively dictated by required starting torque characteristics. I would also imagine that electric transmission is better suited to automated, or semi-automated transmission systems, plus providing the superior running characteristics of bogies. 

 

 

Yes, that's the link I posted earlier

 

The point explained on that page which people seem to be missing, is that the engines were not switched in and out according to load, but according to road speed.  The result was relatively constant TE over the speed range, with increasing total power as the individual engines ran up in sequence. This is quite unlike normal locomotive transmissions which match a fixed power to road speed, with TE consequently falling off as speed rises.

 

I'm not sure whether that was a design goal, or just a side effect of a clutchless mechanical transmission. The claimed advantage that the loco could still work any train on one engine that it could work on four, albeit at reduced speed, seems like a circular argument to me. 

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Yes, that's the link I posted earlier

 

The point explained on that page which people seem to be missing, is that the engines were not switched in and out according to load, but according to road speed.  The result was relatively constant TE over the speed range, with increasing total power as the individual engines ran up in sequence. This is quite unlike normal locomotive transmissions which match a fixed power to road speed, with TE consequently falling off as speed rises.

 

I'm not sure whether that was a design goal, or just a side effect of a clutchless mechanical transmission. The claimed advantage that the loco could still work any train on one engine that it could work on four, albeit at reduced speed, seems like a circular argument to me. 

 

I didn't understand that point, until you expressed it in that form. I suppose that anyone without a sufficient technical background to understand that torque, power output and Tractive effort are not the same thing, wouldn't see it at all. Perhaps that's the point of the "claimed advantage" - to express that point, in non-technical language? 

 

I would guess, then that constant TE over the whole range of road speeds, was a design goal; it seems like a worthwhile thing to have. It also makes sense of the emphasis on the supercharging system providing high starting torque, because you need that to start the train (as opposed to keeping it moving). I do note that like the aforementioned Rotodyne, noise (particularly from the auxiliary engines driving the super chargers) is described as "hideous", which can't have been a selling point. 

 

I also note that the Mk 1 suffered a major transmission failure at quite low mileage, which can't have favourably impressed potential providers of development funds, let alone purchasers. 

 

The Americans demonstrated conclusively that it was possible to build steam engines which could exert such starting torque, that the train simply couldn't be worked without breaking the couplers. It WASN'T possible to build steam locos which could sustain the necessary TE to work such huge trains over useful distances, or at useful speeds. 

 

Having electric transmission solves several problems at once, not least that it is possible to exert central control over a series of locomotives distributed through the length of the train. It also provides a system by which a relatively simple feedback system controls the individual engines in any locomotive, by monitoring their output relative to the required total. It further means that the power and torque characteristics of the traction motors need not be the same as the generator motors. 

 

I still find it very difficult to envisage how the Fell locomotive was driven and controlled. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by rockershovel

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

I didn't understand that point, until you expressed it in that form. I suppose that anyone without a sufficient technical background to understand that torque, power output and Tractive effort are not the same thing, wouldn't see it at all. Perhaps that's the point of the "claimed advantage" - to express that point, in non-technical language? 

 

I would guess, then that constant TE over the whole range of road speeds, was a design goal; it seems like a worthwhile thing to have. It also makes sense of the emphasis on the supercharging system providing high starting torque, because you need that to start the train (as opposed to keeping it moving). I do note that like the aforementioned Rotodyne, noise (particularly from the auxiliary engines driving the super chargers) is described as "hideous", which can't have been a selling point. 

 

I also note that the Mk 1 suffered a major transmission failure at quite low mileage, which can't have favourably impressed potential providers of development funds, let alone purchasers. 

 

The Americans demonstrated conclusively that it was possible to build steam engines which could exert such starting torque, that the train simply couldn't be worked without breaking the couplers. It WASN'T possible to build steam locos which could sustain the necessary TE to work such huge trains over useful distances, or at useful speeds. 

 

Having electric transmission solves several problems at once, not least that it is possible to exert central control over a series of locomotives distributed through the length of the train. It also provides a system by which a relatively simple feedback system controls the individual engines in any locomotive, by monitoring their output relative to the required total. It further means that the power and torque characteristics of the traction motors need not be the same as the generator motors. 

 

I still find it very difficult to envisage how the Fell locomotive was driven and controlled. 

It's like the back axle of a Morris Minor in reverse. In a car, the engine is driving a cardan shaft, which drives a differential that splits the drive in two, allowing one wheel to turn slower than the other on a corner, but still driving. Now imagine two engines, each driving one half-shaft, which drives the diff, combining the two drives into one output.

Edited May 30, 2021 by rodent279

[The Johnster]

I can see why Fell went for mechanical drive, all the same; at the time, generators that were able to handle the power output of the motors and were at the same time small enough to fit inside the British loading gauge were about as common as rocking horse doo doo an the Fell was pretty packed with equipment already, and axle loading had to be considered.  Would there have been one generator or one for each main drive engine? 

 

The Fell may have been ahead of it's time, or put another way concieved before suitable generating or control equipment was available.  I am sure it would have benefited from electronic control and automation of the use of the 4 main drive engines according to speed and load feedback sensors, allowing the driver to concentrate on driving rather than managing the power plant.  As has been said, it was a success in the sense that it pulled trains fairly reliably, and was tested over what was not the easiest of routes.  It certainly did better than the Leader, for example, a comparable experiment in that it trialled new configurations of drive and layout.  I would say it was a successful trial of concept experiment but that it did not perhpas overcome the view held at the time that simplicity equalled reliability (less things to go wrong), nor prove any economic or service advantage that would have led to the concept being developed into a large class. 

 

Which is a shame from our point of view; all those countereweights and rods whirling around must have looked magnificent at speed, and it's ugly enough to be beautiful.

 

 

[rockershovel]

The Fell also suffered from the maximum allowable length of locomotives of that type, consisted with track layouts and loading gauge. Bogie locos can be longer. 

 

I don't really find it ugly. Its body styling is quite conventional and the running gear, no different from Edwardian steam locos and later diesel shunters. It's a bit odd, and the proportions are a bit compressed, but thats all

[The Johnster]

The big square boxes that form the noses ain't pretty, but they certainly give the loco 'presence'.  That apart, as you say, she's pretty much conventional for those days, 3-window cabs and a more or less normal body profile not unlike the Ivatt Twins or a 40.

[Artless Bodger]

On 29/05/2021 at 08:17, rockershovel said:

 

Having had a fair amount of experience of flying in commercial helicopters, I don't think I'd care to go anywhere near either type while it was operating. Given the American experience of using choppers in a military role, disembarking rapidly without stopping the rotors, the vertical turboprops look absolutely lethal in service. 

 

Plus, helicopters often operate from conventional airfields, where they are required to taxi around. This doesn't look like a strong point with either type. 

 

It's interesting to note that the Germans, who actually built a light helicopter and put it into limited production, realised from the outset that twin, contra-rotating rotors solve the torque reaction problem, long before the Chinook came along. On the subject of Central European aesthetics, it actually looks quite graceful, unlike the wonky-looking Gyrodyne. 

Was this the Focke - Achgellis? Demonstrated by Hannah Reitsch in the Deutschland Halle just before the war? 'Winkle' Brown mentions it in his memoirs. There was a post war UK type with 3 rotors, the Cierva Air Horse - one engine three rotors, crashed when the drive to one rotor broke and mangled the other two rotors.

[rockershovel]

I usually expect LNWR locos to have a certain Edwardian gravitas, but there's always one..

[97406]

OK, a multiple unit rather than a loco, but these monstrosities from New Zealand… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dm_27_and_D_163_"Red_Robin"_Electric_Multiple_Unit_at_Ferrymead_Station_on_the_Ferrymead_Railway.jpg

 

The sort of look that gives small children nightmares! 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by 97406

[The Johnster]

Actually, I rather like that!  But then, I am a bit wierd...

[Hroth]

On 12/07/2021 at 20:41, rockershovel said:

I usually expect LNWR locos to have a certain Edwardian gravitas, but there's always one..

 

The Box Tank!  Such a utilitarian shape, bet thats were Bulleid got the idea for the Q1 from....

 

On 13/07/2021 at 08:43, 97406 said:

OK, a multiple unit rather than a loco, but these monstrosities from New Zealand… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dm_27_and_D_163_"Red_Robin"_Electric_Multiple_Unit_at_Ferrymead_Station_on_the_Ferrymead_Railway.jpg

 

The sort of look that gives small children nightmares! 

 

 

Eat your greens or it'll gobble YOU up!

[Steamport Southport]

Victorian surely?

 

Built 1896.

 

Nowt wrong with the Bissell Tanks. Lasted until the mid 1950s ISTR.

 

 

Jason

[Ramblin Rich]

On 13/07/2021 at 08:43, 97406 said:

OK, a multiple unit rather than a loco, but these monstrosities from New Zealand… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dm_27_and_D_163_"Red_Robin"_Electric_Multiple_Unit_at_Ferrymead_Station_on_the_Ferrymead_Railway.jpg

 

The sort of look that gives small children nightmares! 

 

Kind of looks like a Budd RDC with a few too many extras hung on it ....

[rockershovel]

Apologies if these have already been posted...

 

[Welly]

^^^

I don't remember seeing these pictures before - nice ugly ones!

[whart57]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Apologies if these have already been posted...

 

 

That top one is begging to be modelled isn't it?

 

 

[Ramblin Rich]

7 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Apologies if these have already been posted...

 

 

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

That top one is begging to be modelled isn't it?

 

 

That doesn't look like it's got enough 'enjin' to move itself, let alone anything else! 

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

That top one is begging to be modelled isn't it?

 

 

It's certainly asking for something ...