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

[Welly]

That Garratt is the world's fastest Garratt (or articulated steam locomotive) at 82mph! Not bad for something so ugly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt

[DavidB-AU]

The Algerian Garratts may not be attractive but they were a magnificent piece of engineering. Extremely reliable and, as mentioned above, fast. Their main flaw was extremely fine desert dust would stick to anything oily and need daily cleaning. They suffered badly from a lack of maintenance, parts and lubricants during the war and some of them had a working life of only 11 years.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Has the early version of the Vossloh G2000BB diesel with the asymmetric cab been mentioned on here yet? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vossloh_G2000-1BB.jpg#mw-jump-to-license The later versions had a symmetrical cab design, but there's just something not right with the earlier ones imo.

 

(Pic taken from YouTube, credit to the name in bottom right corner)

[ianathompson]

It seems to have been a bit quiet on here of late so i thought I might wake the thread with a picture of my latest unlovely loco.

I did post upthread with a Brotan boilered steam loco.

The photo and caption duplicates that posted elsewhere on RMWeb.

This is obviously a photo of the model under construction as it still awaits buffing gear, amongst other things.

 

 

A hideous new monstrosity joins the cast of CFS locos.

It owes more to the old SG Italian three phase system than anything that ever ran on the narrow gauge.

The antler like bow collectors were a striking characteristic of these machines.

The cabin is also the traditional heptagonal shape (i.e. seven sides).

The body was built before the original chassis developed a fault and had to be discarded.

It was, of course, to a different wheel arrangement.

The body was prised apart and reconfigured.

Needless to say, there are no right angles after this treatment.

It has had a daub of Humbrol paint to reveal areas needing most attention, such as the joint along the front bonnet.

I am not very happy with the qualities of modern Humbrol.

This colour looks like chocolate and might as well have been chocolate for its ease of use.

 

A new water column has taken root in the square, compete with German style lantern.

The beast is availing itself of the facilty to take a drink.

Oh yes!!

These things ran up to water columns and  topped up their liquid rheostats, which evaporated with use.

They often emitted steam from open vents and there is one at the back, although the steam was left out of this photo.

 

Ian T

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, ianathompson said:

It seems to have been a bit quiet on here of late so i thought I might wake the thread with a picture of my latest unlovely loco.

I did post upthread with a Brotan boilered steam loco.

The photo and caption duplicates that posted elsewhere on RMWeb.

This is obviously a photo of the model under construction as it still awaits buffing gear, amongst other things.

 

 

A hideous new monstrosity joins the cast of CFS locos.

It owes more to the old SG Italian three phase system than anything that ever ran on the narrow gauge.

The antler like bow collectors were a striking characteristic of these machines.

The cabin is also the traditional heptagonal shape (i.e. seven sides).

The body was built before the original chassis developed a fault and had to be discarded.

It was, of course, to a different wheel arrangement.

The body was prised apart and reconfigured.

Needless to say, there are no right angles after this treatment.

It has had a daub of Humbrol paint to reveal areas needing most attention, such as the joint along the front bonnet.

I am not very happy with the qualities of modern Humbrol.

This colour looks like chocolate and might as well have been chocolate for its ease of use.

 

A new water column has taken root in the square, compete with German style lantern.

The beast is availing itself of the facilty to take a drink.

Oh yes!!

These things ran up to water columns and  topped up their liquid rheostats, which evaporated with use.

They often emitted steam from open vents and there is one at the back, although the steam was left out of this photo.

 

Ian T

Liquid rheostats? Was that really a thing, or are you having a Turkish?

 

Edit:- evidently not. You learn something new everyday on here!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rheostat

Edited May 21, 2021 by rodent279

[ianathompson]

22 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Liquid rheostats? Was that really a thing, or are you having a Turkish?

 

Edit:- evidently not. You learn something new everyday on here!

 

 No. This was one of the simpler aspects of these things!

They had two motors, with a different number of poles (usually 6 and 8).

These were run alone, or in series or parallel to give the grand total of four fixed speeds.

 

All the catenary wiring had to be duplicated, of course, and needed real life "dead frogs" at points (as on the model).

The third phase was supplied via the bonded rails.

(The model is a standard two rail chassis.

I understand that Roco made some models of the prototypes, although they seem as common as hen's teeth!)

 

That said there seems to have have been no inherent reason in the ugliness of the Italian deesigns other than functionality.

It is this brutal ugliness that I find attractive!

 

Ian T

 

 

[The Johnster]

As a fellow afficionado of stuff that is so ugly it comes out the other side and becomes it's own sort of beauty, perhaps because I identify with it (!), I approve.  This seems a bit like the multi-motor approach of the Fell, another loco that was 'differently elegant'.  I used to think it was just the Belgians and the French that designed mad locomotives, but there are plenty of other contenders for most insane idea apparently, and I will have a soft spot for all of them.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, ianathompson said:

 

 No. This was one of the simpler aspects of these things!

They had two motors, with a different number of poles (usually 6 and 8).

These were run alone, or in series or parallel to give the grand total of four fixed speeds.

 

All the catenary wiring had to be duplicated, of course, and needed real life "dead frogs" at points (as on the model).

The third phase was supplied via the bonded rails.

(The model is a standard two rail chassis.

I understand that Roco made some models of the prototypes, although they seem as common as hen's teeth!)

 

That said there seems to have have been no inherent reason in the ugliness of the Italian deesigns other than functionality.

It is this brutal ugliness that I find attractive!

 

Ian T

 

 

As opposed to boiling frogs!

 

Seriously, I find 3 phase electrics interesting. I've been on the Jungfraubahn, similar setup, with 2 pans on the roof, set at angles.

[rockershovel]

On 21/01/2021 at 22:48, DavidB-AU said:

The Algerian Garratts may not be attractive but they were a magnificent piece of engineering. Extremely reliable and, as mentioned above, fast. Their main flaw was extremely fine desert dust would stick to anything oily and need daily cleaning. They suffered badly from a lack of maintenance, parts and lubricants during the war and some of them had a working life of only 11 years.

 

They are rather Gallic looking, aren't they? But they were very effective designs, which excuses a great deal. 

 

I dont know that the Fell locomotive was ugly, so much as appearing to be made from a random selection of left-overs ... Gronk meets Deltic... if they had worked, they would have become accepted as mainstream. 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

I dont know that the Fell locomotive was ugly, so much as appearing to be made from a random selection of left-overs ... Gronk meets Deltic... if they had worked, they would have become accepted as mainstream. 

 

There's a good description of how the Fell operated here.  It's very cunning and quite elegant in a way, but appears absurdly complicated from a modern point of view, due to the number of engines involved (six in total, two being auxiliaries).  The second article on the linked page suggests that a more conventional arrangement with the engines between the cabs might have worked better in terms of cooling as well as looking less outlandish.

 

Now imagine a railway operated by Fells and Baby Deltics, serving heliports from which Fairey Rotodynes flew regular services, the whole being audible from southern France.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There's a good description of how the Fell operated here.  It's very cunning and quite elegant in a way, but appears absurdly complicated from a modern point of view, due to the number of engines involved (six in total, two being auxiliaries).  The second article on the linked page suggests that a more conventional arrangement with the engines between the cabs might have worked better in terms of cooling as well as looking less outlandish.

 

Now imagine a railway operated by Fells and Baby Deltics, serving heliports from which Fairey Rotodynes flew regular services, the whole being audible from southern France.

 

Both seem to have belonged to quite a popular design field around that time; developing a basically flawed idea to almost work. The Fairy Gyrodyne actually worked fairly well, but it must have been clear by then that the top-mounted, shaft-driven rotor was the way forward. The Vincent motorcycle was another classic of the genre. 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by rockershovel

[Flying Pig]

20 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

Both seem to have belonged to quite a popular design field around that time; developing a basically flawed idea to almost work. The Fairy Gyrodyne actually worked fairly well, but it must have been clear by then that the top-mounted, shaft-driven rotor was the way forward. The Vincent motorcycle was another classic of the genre. 

 

 

Sadly quite a lot of British engineering of the period was pursuing varyingly flawed ideas, some to completion, some to a degree of success, some even outstanding within a fairly restricted field.  Not really relevant to this thread, though, as most of them looked fantastic, even if they weren't 100% right. 

[The Johnster]

On 21/05/2021 at 17:47, rodent279 said:

As opposed to boiling frogs!

 

Seriously, I find 3 phase electrics interesting. I've been on the Jungfraubahn, similar setup, with 2 pans on the roof, set at angles.

2 pans?  So presumably it used Eiger one or the other...

 

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

The Fairy Gyrodyne actually worked fairly well,

Fairy Rotodyne, IIRC from my Airfix kit building days.  It was a brilliant idea that, as you say, almost worked, except for shaking it's passengers, crew, and presumably after a short time, itself, to bits.  It had, AFAIK, a shaft driven main rotor but in order to generate sufficient lift the blades were jet propelled by small jet engines in the tips, and the forward propulsion was from the wing mounted propellers which were shaft driven from the main engine in the fuselage top housing.  It was not strictly speaking a gyrocopeter type of aircraft as the main rotor was driven by the main drive shaft through a gearbox, as were the wing propellers, and assisted by the tip jets, not a free spinning device to generate lift, and was set at a plane horizontal to the fuselage.

 

Had the vibration problems been overcome, which they were partly before the thing actually flew and was demonstrated, the operating problem would probably have been fuel costs, the engine having to be far more powerful than for a conventional aircraft of similar size, say a DH Heron turboprop, and the conventional aircraft was a lot faster.  The intention was to institute a sevice from Heathrow or Gatwick to Central London, but one doubts that the seating capacity would have been sufficient to meet demand, and the transfer of passengers to a helipad at the Heathrow perimeter where it could fly safely away from other traffic after processing them through immigration and customs at the central terminals would have taken almost as much time as bussing them in direct from the terminals, which was the go to at the time.

[rodent279]

10 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

2 pans?  So presumably it used Eiger one or the other...

 

Fairy Rotodyne, IIRC from my Airfix kit building days.  It was a brilliant idea that, as you say, almost worked, except for shaking it's passengers, crew, and presumably after a short time, itself, to bits.  It had, AFAIK, a shaft driven main rotor but in order to generate sufficient lift the blades were jet propelled by small jet engines in the tips, and the forward propulsion was from the wing mounted propellers which were shaft driven from the main engine in the fuselage top housing.  It was not strictly speaking a gyrocopeter type of aircraft as the main rotor was driven by the main drive shaft through a gearbox, as were the wing propellers, and assisted by the tip jets, not a free spinning device to generate lift, and was set at a plane horizontal to the fuselage.

 

Had the vibration problems been overcome, which they were partly before the thing actually flew and was demonstrated, the operating problem would probably have been fuel costs, the engine having to be far more powerful than for a conventional aircraft of similar size, say a DH Heron turboprop, and the conventional aircraft was a lot faster.  The intention was to institute a sevice from Heathrow or Gatwick to Central London, but one doubts that the seating capacity would have been sufficient to meet demand, and the transfer of passengers to a helipad at the Heathrow perimeter where it could fly safely away from other traffic after processing them through immigration and customs at the central terminals would have taken almost as much time as bussing them in direct from the terminals, which was the go to at the time.

Very good!

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

2 pans?  So presumably it used Eiger one or the other...

 

Fairy Rotodyne, IIRC from my Airfix kit building days.  It was a brilliant idea that, as you say, almost worked, except for shaking it's passengers, crew, and presumably after a short time, itself, to bits.  It had, AFAIK, a shaft driven main rotor but in order to generate sufficient lift the blades were jet propelled by small jet engines in the tips, and the forward propulsion was from the wing mounted propellers which were shaft driven from the main engine in the fuselage top housing.  It was not strictly speaking a gyrocopeter type of aircraft as the main rotor was driven by the main drive shaft through a gearbox, as were the wing propellers, and assisted by the tip jets, not a free spinning device to generate lift, and was set at a plane horizontal to the fuselage.

 

Had the vibration problems been overcome, which they were partly before the thing actually flew and was demonstrated, the operating problem would probably have been fuel costs, the engine having to be far more powerful than for a conventional aircraft of similar size, say a DH Heron turboprop, and the conventional aircraft was a lot faster.  The intention was to institute a sevice from Heathrow or Gatwick to Central London, but one doubts that the seating capacity would have been sufficient to meet demand, and the transfer of passengers to a helipad at the Heathrow perimeter where it could fly safely away from other traffic after processing them through immigration and customs at the central terminals would have taken almost as much time as bussing them in direct from the terminals, which was the go to at the time.

 

The Gyrodyne was a sort-of-but-not-really first cousin to the Rotodyne. Essentially, it was a pseudo-helicopter with the vertical propellor (providing traction and counter-torque) on a stub wing on the right side of the fuselage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_FB-1_Gyrodyne. It was intended to fulfill the role of a military helicopter, without resolving the technical problem of controlling rotor pitch and inclination, by which helicopters derive both lift and propulsion from the same rotor (which were known by then, but Fairey didn't have access to the necessary patents) 

 

It was offered to the Army for use in the Malaya Emergency (essentially in the same role for which the USA used helicopters in Vietnam). The Army ordered six, but the prototype crashed and  killed both its crew and the Army took the opportunity to cancel the order and buy proper helicopters instead. 

 

The key feature of true helicopters, their key advantage over gyrocopters of all descriptions, is that they can move in any direction at will, or simply remain stationary under power. The Fairey designs couldn't do this, and I rather suspect that they would have been highly dangerous in general service. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by rockershovel

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Fairy Rotodyne, IIRC from my Airfix kit building days.  It was a brilliant idea that, as you say, almost worked, except for shaking it's passengers, crew, and presumably after a short time, itself, to bits.  It had, AFAIK, a shaft driven main rotor but in order to generate sufficient lift the blades were jet propelled by small jet engines in the tips,

 

Nope - the rotor was driven entirely by the tip jets when taking off or landing and autorotated in forward flight.  The chief technical problem was the appalling racket of the tip jets. 

 

But it looked great. Perhaps it will return with electrostatically powered rotors... 

[Artless Bodger]

On 05/06/2020 at 16:38, ianathompson said:

In simple terms the point of the Klein Lindner driving system used under the Feldbahn tanks was that the wheels rotated around the drive axles on a hollow axle. 

They were engaged by a ball and pin mechanism allowing the wheels to adapt to the curve.

The wheels could adapt to the curve whilst the valve gear remained in a parallel position.

This was achieved by having the valve gear arranged around an outside frame.

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

[Artless Bodger]

On 30/11/2020 at 11:37, HonestTom said:

The engine is just fine, but the paint job...

BR blood and custard livery as applied to locos?

[Artless Bodger]

On 21/05/2021 at 17:47, rodent279 said:

Seriously, I find 3 phase electrics interesting. I've been on the Jungfraubahn, similar setup, with 2 pans on the roof, set at angles.

Three phase with fixed speeds seems to be common for rack lines, the Gornergrat Bahn and the Rhune line use it. The Rhune has locomotives that resemble wooden garden sheds with the bow collectors on the roof sticking out front and back like old pram handles.

[Flying Pig]

25 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

Three phase with fixed speeds seems to be common for rack lines, the Gornergrat Bahn and the Rhune line use it. The Rhune has locomotives that resemble wooden garden sheds with the bow collectors on the roof sticking out front and back like old pram handles.

 

Started by an Igor-like figure operating a large knife switch, accompanied by sparks, rolls of thunder and maniacal laughter?  Makes a change from ding-ding and away.

[rodent279]

Well, the last few posts about rotary winged flying contraptions certainly taught me a few things I didn't know. I thought helicopters were....well,....helicopters. But no.

And I now know what retreating blade stalls are, and what autorotation is. All good stuff.

[rodent279]

11 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Started by an Igor-like figure operating a large knife switch, accompanied by sparks, rolls of thunder and maniacal laughter?  Makes a change from ding-ding and away.

Why do I have a mental image of a tall bloke wearing dungarees, with a bad haircut and stainless steel teeth?

[Ramblin Rich]

On 25/05/2021 at 22:49, Flying Pig said:

 

Started by an Igor-like figure operating a large knife switch, accompanied by sparks, rolls of thunder and maniacal laughter?  Makes a change from ding-ding and away.

Anyone who's read Terry Pratchett knows the Igors have a bit of a lisp. So the phrase  goes: "How many volts thould we uthe today, marthter?"

[rockershovel]

On 23/05/2021 at 22:40, Flying Pig said:

 

Nope - the rotor was driven entirely by the tip jets when taking off or landing and autorotated in forward flight.  The chief technical problem was the appalling racket of the tip jets. 

 

But it looked great. Perhaps it will return with electrostatically powered rotors... 

 

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. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by rockershovel

[pete_mcfarlane]

On 23/05/2021 at 12:39, Flying Pig said:

 

There's a good description of how the Fell operated here.  It's very cunning and quite elegant in a way, but appears absurdly complicated from a modern point of view, due to the number of engines involved (six in total, two being auxiliaries). 

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.