cypherman Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 (edited) Hi all, I was routing through my parts bins and came across a few bits and I started to think Is this what William Stannier would have designed if he wanted a heavy goods tank engine. So I thought I would have a go. So this is what I came up with. It was not too difficult to build. The steps were the worst part. It is currently a couple of mm to tall but I will correct this shortly. I would be interested In what you all think. Edited August 10, 2020 by cypherman 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 There was a plan to produce a 2-8-4T but it didn't happen because of WW2. Imagine a tank version of the 2-8-0 with equally spaced coupled wheels and a trailing 4 wheeled bogie. Then take the tanks, cab & bunker off the 2-6-4T. The boiler is the same as the 2-8-0. 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 Thanks for the info. I will take a look to see if it would be possible to fit a Wrenn 2-8-0 chassis onto the Tank body. But due to the position of the motor it may not proove viable. We shall see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 2 hours ago, cypherman said: Hi all, I was routing through my parts bins and came across a few bits and I started to think Is this what William Stannier would have designed if he wanted a heavy goods tank engine. So I thought I would have a go. So this is what I came up with. It was not too difficult to build. The steps were the worst part. It is currently a couple of mm to tall but I will correct this shortly. I would be interested In what you all think. Please ignore the 3mt as for some reason I cannot get rid of the picture. It just keeps reappearing. Not bad, but maybe an 8F Chassis as well as a spare trailing truck might help? Also, it needs the LMS top-feed and the curled running-board at the front, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Where is the ashpan in relation to the axles? My gut feel is that the Stanier Team's response to a big goods engine brief would have looked a fair bit like a GWR 72xx, possibly with a rear bogie, rather than pony truck. Another way to look at it would be an 8F, with a bit stuck on the back, plus side-tanks. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TheQ Posted August 10, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 10, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 There seem to be an awful lot of important bits still on the drawing board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 3 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said: There was a plan to produce a 2-8-4T but it didn't happen because of WW2. Imagine a tank version of the 2-8-0 with equally spaced coupled wheels and a trailing 4 wheeled bogie. Then take the tanks, cab & bunker off the 2-6-4T. The boiler is the same as the 2-8-0. Seen it done on a no more sophisticated basis than RTR Hornby parts, and the essential 'rightness' is present, such that many would accept it as a model of a loco that had really existed. (How about the Fowler 2-6-4T body and trailing bogie, with the mechanism from an SD&JR 7F? Not seen that done.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherman Posted August 10, 2020 Author Share Posted August 10, 2020 Hi all, The chassis is a heavily modified 9F. Hence the 2-10-0 wheel arrangement. It was never meant to be anything more than a what if. Hence the lack of some of the more smaller parts such as the LMS top feeds as have been mentioned earlier. Also I took one of my Wrenn 8F's and 2-6-4 tanks and found that the chassis is far too big to fit into the current body. The coal bunker would have to be substantially extended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alder Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 Had a go at the 2-8-4T over Xmas - Stanier body, 8F chassis and ignoring the extra length in the bunker..... Like what you are doing with this one though. 10 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 16 hours ago, Nearholmer said: Where is the ashpan in relation to the axles? ... The design got no further than a weight diagram, and I'm not certain if that was submitted to the Civil Engineer. The would have to have been changes to the grate and/or the ashpan. It would have been the first locomotive to have had the ashpan fitted over an axle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 16 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said: It would have been the first locomotive Did you mean wouldn't? If so, I agree. I "grew up" with narrow-gauge things, mostly 2ft, and there it becomes a real challenge, but much less so in SG, where there is more width. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted August 11, 2020 Share Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Nearholmer said: Did you mean wouldn't? If so, I agree. I "grew up" with narrow-gauge things, mostly 2ft, and there it becomes a real challenge, but much less so in SG, where there is more width. Yes, wouldn't, sorry. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted August 17, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 17, 2020 We've been here before in Imaginary Locomotives. My view FWIW is that route availability would have restricted the loco's usefulness if an already heavy beast like an 8F had side tanks and bunker fitted to it and an 8-coupled version of a 2-6-4T would not have had enough steam raising capacity to be much use over any sort of distance; of course tank engines are limited in range anyway by bunker capacity. The GW 72xx was capable of loaded hauls Radyr to Exeter, Salisbury, Corby, and Shrewsbury on a bunker of coal, but had to take water at every possible opportunity; fortunately the trains were unfitted coal hauls that went inside everywhere anyway. The 72xx was a way to use 2-8-0 tanks that were in storage; they were not worth building from scratch. The GW 8-coupled tanks gave problems with tank leakage as rivetted seams were sprung by the flexing frames on the tight curves of the Western Valley, and a proposed 2-10-2T with a King boiler which was supposed to haul 35 iron ore hoppers up the valley without banking from Aberbeeg would have been a proper gusher. In the end, 9Fs were used, banked from Aberbeeg. It is difficult to find a job to match this or the Tyne Dock-Consetts on the LMS, though the Scottish Region of BR had the General Terminus Quay (Glasgow)-Ravenscraig haul from 1954, using WD 2-10-0s , but this had to wait for wharf expansion at General Terminus. So we are left with the question of what would this loco, and similar imaginary 'this chassis under this body' proposals. They are interesting, and good modelling challenges, but there is a reason they are imaginary; there was never any reason in reality to build them. Super power steam has a very limited application in the UK, where the majority of routes are restricted by the size of loops and refuge sidings and signal clearances to trains of no more than 60 standard wagons in length, and this was close to the limit of the 3-link couplings used until instanters were adopted. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now