scots region Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hello all, Scots Region here with a pair of 'never were's' for discussion. The devil you may know and the devil you probably won't know. I 'recently' became the proud owner of a copy of 'Locomotives that never were' by Robin Barnes, and whilst I am still musing upon the economic moral of buying a book filled with painting of Locomotives that don't exist, two designs in particular have caught my attention. The first of the designs is a pacific, but not the one your thinking of, it is Mr Fowler's 1926 proposal for 4-6-2 compound pacific. It s ironic that this is the better known of the two designs I have chosen as it could well have proved to be the inferior of the pair, the pacific came about came about due to the LMSRs chronic need for a new express design, a need that was, after much difficulty, satisfied by the Royal Scot 4-6-0s. The new pacific, despite its midland parentage , took from French practice. It was to have been a four cylinder arrangement comprised of two outside high pressure cylinders of 16 3/4 in + 26in and two inside low pressure of 23 5/8 in + 26 in, which would have been the largest diameter of any cylinder mounted between the frames of a British Express locomotive, so large that they were to protrude through the frames of the Locomotive , these would have been operated by the two sets of Walschaerts valve on the outer cylinders. its from this that the first weakness could have arisen, to accommodated these vast new cylinders would have resulted in very short main bearing and crank web lengths. The Locomotives Boiler was also to be of interest, at 17 feet in length and 5ft 9in diameter it would have broken all British record in those fields at the time, it also was to contain a combustion chamber of 4ft, which was to visibly extend over the last driving wheel, which were to be of 6ft 9in dia. Weather or not its flaws would have heavily taxed it is anyones guess, it was ultimately defeated by the Royal Scots. However it may have proved to be quite successful in itself, again that is anyones guess. I doubt it would have seriously prevented Stainer from introducing his design which probably would have proved to be superior to Fowler's design in spite of possible success. From the ascetics point of view they would have been very imposing, with the high set outer cylinders pushing the ruining plate high around the smokebox, they would have given off an impression of bunched muscle and raw power. The second such design comes from the little know successor to Fowler, E.J.H Lemon and his deputy H.P Beames, for a 4-8-0 freight locomotive. This catches the interest as it would have been the first main line machine to use that wheel arrangement in this country. it was to contain two outside 21in+26in cylinders working off the standard Walschaerts valve gear, 4ft 8in coupled wheels, a tractive effort of 32775 lbs and an axle loading of 16 tons. Theres is very little to suggest that this would not have been successful and is a great shame it was not pursued. I imagine it would been inferior to the 8F but would have still enjoyed its own success. Its simplistic beauty is very pleasing to the eye. So do please discuss the merits of these two designs, would the pacific have survived its possible flaws and, for a few years, changed the shape of LMS Express locomotive policy? Could the 4-8-0 have changed the development of freight policy? What names and what numbers? In a related matter, is this site trustworthy? http://www.pdhdrawin...ge/1?shop_param= Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 17, 2011 Coincidentally at our last Midlands Area SLS meeting (Sat 14th May) we had a talk about these might have been engines and both those mentioned came up. In the ensuing post-talk debate about the merits/demerits of them from the engineering aspect and whether or not they were ever more than just concept ideas an observation was made on the Midland/LMS small engine policy in operation at the time of the pacific proposal - was it in part influenced by constraints imposed by their roundhouses and turntable lengths? The capital cost of rebuilding those in addition to the new locomotives made adding more new small engines a financially cheaper short-term option. The 4-8-0 was also discussed and the thought was that had it been built it would have been too big for the work available at the time. Again irrespective of the loco engineering aspects commercial realism would have precluded progression of the design even if it ever got as far as a board room level debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Coincidentally at our last Midlands Area SLS meeting (Sat 14th May) we had a talk about these might have been engines and both those mentioned came up. In the ensuing post-talk debate about the merits/demerits of them from the engineering aspect and whether or not they were ever more than just concept ideas an observation was made on the Midland/LMS small engine policy in operation at the time of the pacific proposal - was it in part influenced by constraints imposed by their roundhouses and turntable lengths? The capital cost of rebuilding those in addition to the new locomotives made adding more new small engines a financially cheaper short-term option. The 4-8-0 was also discussed and the thought was that had it been built it would have been too big for the work available at the time. Again irrespective of the loco engineering aspects commercial realism would have precluded progression of the design even if it ever got as far as a board room level debate. I see, but they still make for interesting subjects despite the reality of the situation. One of the great joys of this hobby is the ability to play with history, can anyone think of circumstances that might have been in favor of these two, both real and unreal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 It is indeed a good book. Well, an expensive book, because it set me off looking for other information on such locos. Whether either of them could have found a niche... I'm sure it's possible to find a scenario where they could. It's just that at the moment I can't think of one. I've found diagrams of the Fowler pacific, and possibly the other one. They're certainly on my list of 'Engines I'd like to build'... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2011 It is indeed a good book. Well, an expensive book, because it set me off looking for other information on such locos. Whether either of them could have found a niche... I'm sure it's possible to find a scenario where they could. It's just that at the moment I can't think of one. I've found diagrams of the Fowler pacific, and possibly the other one. They're certainly on my list of 'Engines I'd like to build'... They and the fowler 2-6-0 (mini 7f are indeed very interesting) I have got a set of etchings for both the compound and 4-8-0 to build> however i decided the cab would probably have been rounded off at the bottom so modified mine. My only comment on the book would be that the only 2 drawings I had from that company were totally inaccurate (the Stanier 2-6-2 for example only had a single slide bar) and when i tried to talk to them either via e mail or at a show they were not interested. Buyer beware. I will try to dig out the etchings when i get home and take a photo. Kind regards Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 They and the fowler 2-6-0 (mini 7f are indeed very interesting) I have got a set of etchings for both the compound and 4-8-0 to build> however i decided the cab would probably have been rounded off at the bottom so modified mine. My only comment on the book would be that the only 2 drawings I had from that company were totally inaccurate (the Stanier 2-6-2 for example only had a single slide bar) and when i tried to talk to them either via e mail or at a show they were not interested. Buyer beware. I will try to dig out the etchings when i get home and take a photo. Kind regards Duncan thanks I just wanted to be sure, I could probably find the drawing for the 4-8-0 else were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 They and the fowler 2-6-0 (mini 7f are indeed very interesting) I have got a set of etchings for both the compound and 4-8-0 to build> however i decided the cab would probably have been rounded off at the bottom so modified mine. My only comment on the book would be that the only 2 drawings I had from that company were totally inaccurate (the Stanier 2-6-2 for example only had a single slide bar) and when i tried to talk to them either via e mail or at a show they were not interested. Buyer beware. I will try to dig out the etchings when i get home and take a photo. Kind regards Duncan I've not dealt with the company in question. I considered doing so, but I heard bad things about them so changed my mind. No, the diagrams I've found are in... you know I can't remember which book. Possibly either Locomotive Panorama, Living with London Midland Steam, or... the other book by the author of Locomotive Panorama. I know, I'll go and check. Chronicles of Steam, that's the one. Well, one of the three possibilities... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 .....My only comment on the book would be that the only 2 drawings I had from that company were totally inaccurate (the Stanier 2-6-2 for example only had a single slide bar) and when i tried to talk to them either via e mail or at a show they were not interested. Buyer beware..... The two sample drawings I have seen appear to be computer-drawn, not hand / draughtsman-drawn. Looked a bit amateurish even then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2011 The two sample drawings I have seen appear to be computer-drawn, not hand / draughtsman-drawn. Looked a bit amateurish even then. I drew out the compound and 4-8-0 at 8mm to the foot (for ease of doing etchings) would you like me to scan it for you? The drawings were in Loco Panorama by Cox an excellent book. I also like the stanier 0-6-0 and the modern 2-4-2 tank engine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 I drew out the compound and 4-8-0 at 8mm to the foot (for ease of doing etchings) would you like me to scan it for you? The drawings were in Loco Panorama by Cox an excellent book. I also like the stanier 0-6-0 and the modern 2-4-2 tank engine. Do you mean 4mm, only I don't now how to resize drawings accurately, if they are to 4MM I would be interested, However even if they are not I'm sure there are those here that would be interested. thanks ScR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 I drew out the compound and 4-8-0 at 8mm to the foot (for ease of doing etchings) would you like me to scan it for you? If you're able to, then they would be interesting to see! OT, but the drawing(s) I'd really like to get hold of are for the USATC S160. Edward Talbot published an original works GA in his second volume of the BR Standards, but it looked like it had shifted during copying or scanning, so the eventual print looked a bit "bent" halfway down the boiler . Shame really, as I was on the point of discovering whether the S160's boiler was tapered on the top..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2011 If you're able to, then they would be interesting to see! OT, but the drawing(s) I'd really like to get hold of are for the USATC S160. Edward Talbot published an original works GA in his second volume of the BR Standards, but it looked like it had shifted during copying or scanning, so the eventual print looked a bit "bent" halfway down the boiler . Shame really, as I was on the point of discovering whether the S160's boiler was tapered on the top..... I will dig out the drawing and get it reduced- I am away on business at the moment so it will be Friday when i am able to do that - I will also do the various others I have drawn. As for the S160 - i agree on your comments. Kind regards Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 If Andersens crowd in Fowler's days had any involvement, the Pacific would have had 4F axleboxes and the engine part would have been a complete bollox like the Beyer Garratt and 7F 0-8-0. Fowler didn't do the LMS any favours and yet where would we enthusiasts be without the locomotive designs he put his signature to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted May 17, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 17, 2011 The Fowler Pacific design didn't disappear entirely, the arrangement of the frames under the cab was used in the Princesses. Michael Edge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 It is frequently forgotten that Hughes had proposed a design for a compound pacific, a 2-10-0 and a Mikado. The drawing of "Fowler's" pacific looks rather similar to what Hughes had proposed - who knows, it may even have been built if Andersen had stopped interfering with the design requirements of new locomotives to the extent that Hughes left. The Scots were ordered in a hurry, let us not forget, when the GWR declined to allow the LMS to have Castles. I think I've seen the Hughes compound pacific... But as for the other two... Ah, right. The 2-10-0 is also in 'Locos that never were' Actually, scratch that, the one I've seen isn't a compound. And I haven't seen the 2-8-2 either. Although I've seen a Fowler 2-8-2... So I'd be interested to see what they looked like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 On this subject I wonder if Stanier might have decided to convert the Fowlers from 4 cylinder machines to 3, as I imagine the two vast inside cylinders would be more trouble than was worth the bother. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 The 4-8-0 was also discussed and the thought was that had it been built it would have been too big for the work available at the time. It wasn't a particularly big loco. The boiler was the large Claughton one used on the Patriots with a grate only just over 1sq ft bigger than the 8F and an almost identical tractive effort. I just don't buy the argument that it was too big. If it was then the 8F was too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Going purely off the painting (and ignoring the wheel centres being well off centre!), the drivers look to be larger than 4' 8½". Maybe they are 5' 3" or thereabouts. This could make for a longer wheelbase than the usual eight-coupled loco. Then the bogie might not be a bogie but two radial axles, going off Beames LNWR origins. While there are no more axles than on a BR 9F 2-10-0, the 4-8-0 chassis would be more rigid unless one of the coupled wheel sets was unflanged like on the LNW Super D. Seeing as road locomotives often had to shunt their own trains or at least be used for shunting as part of a diagram, I thing the 4-8-0 would have been more restricted on yard curves than a loco such as the Fowler 7F 0-8-0 of 1931. Nevertheless, it would make for an interesting model with its large 5XP Claughton boiler and Hughes style cab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted May 18, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 18, 2011 It wasn't a particularly big loco. The boiler was the large Claughton one used on the Patriots with a grate only just over 1sq ft bigger than the 8F and an almost identical tractive effort. I just don't buy the argument that it was too big. If it was then the 8F was too. I'm no expert on these proposed locomotives, and may have misremembered the comment made. Also in the case of the 4-8-0 the too big comment related to power output not length. Equally the point raised by our member on the day could have been wrong. (It wasn't my comment) Generally though there is no point having an engine capable of hauling n+x extra wagons if either the commercial market gives a loading of n or n is all you can practically fit into your refuge loops. IIRC that was a significant problem later on when big locos like the LNER P1 and the LMS Garrett classes were built, they could haul train lengths of n+x but the traffic department struggled to find paths for trains that long as the infrastructure had been built for the shorter n length trains. The 8F was a later build and in different times. I've also had thoughts today that I've not previously seen aired relating to issues other than just the practical motive power needs of the railway. Is it not possible that these were drawn up as much as a means of answering pressures within the new post-Hughes LMS CME's locomotive design hierarchy than of actually getting them built? [see the top 2 of Maslow's theory on personal needs for example] Fowler needing to have something impressive to show to justify his appointment, perhaps simply the new CME giving the new works element of his drawing office team something to do either to avoid laying them off or to give them a project to do to get them adjusted to him as their new boss etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted May 18, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 18, 2011 My scanner is not big enough for the 4-8-0 and Compound so I will have to get the drawings reduced elsewhere before i can scan. In relation to the comment on the wheel size the diagram in Cox's book does indeed show 4' 8 1/2" drivers. I felt when drawing it it was too harsh and would have got curved bottoms to the cab so that's what i drew. In the meantime and slightly off topic here are drawings of some of the others the first is the Superheated freight engine, it would have had a six wheeled tender that looks like a cross between a WD and Ivat tender. It was also going to have Allen valve gear Secondly is the 1944 proposal for a 2-4-2. while i was drawing it I wondered about the bunker and ended up drawing two versions. 1 with flat sides and the second raved in to give improved rear vison - Cox's drawing gives no indication of what it would have been like. The final one of this threesome was the 1942 proposal for a Stanier 0-6-0 which I quite like, coupled with a 3500 Stanier tender I will dig out the etchings of these which give a bit more of an idea. Finally here is the front end of the 4-8-0 as a taster- I think it would have had real bulk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Charon Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Can I just say how much I like that first 0-6-0 freight engine. It's got character. In fact I'd say it's got more character than the Q1. The biggest problem is that I model in N gauge, and those inside cylinders are really noticeable, but getting the valve gear in... brrr... Also the only suitable chassis at the moment is the Peco Collett which is horribly expensive. Then again, I guess the upcoming LNER 0-6-0 might be an option... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Going purely off the painting (and ignoring the wheel centres being well off centre!), the drivers look to be larger than 4' 8½". Maybe they are 5' 3" or thereabouts. The official digram reproduced in Locomotive Panorama Volume 1 has a 6'-6" wheelbase bogie with 4'-8.5" drivers spaced 5'-9" + 5'-9" + 5'-9" apart. 5'0" space between the bogie and the leading driver. Doing the sums to work out the BR power class it comes out almost identical to an 8F and would have been an 8F too (although likely to have had poorer valves so probably not as effective in everyday service). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Also in the case of the 4-8-0 the too big comment related to power output not length. Equally the point raised by our member on the day could have been wrong. (It wasn't my comment) Doing the sums gives it a BR power class 8F - same as the Stanier loco. The 8F was a later build and in different times. The Beames/Lemon 4-8-0 proposal dates to 1931 for the 1932 building programme. The first Stanier 8F was built in 1935. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 IIRC that was a significant problem later on when big locos like the LNER P1 and the LMS Garrett classes were built, they could haul train lengths of n+x but the traffic department struggled to find paths for trains that long as the infrastructure had been built for the shorter n length trains. Whilst this may well have been the case for the P1 it was not so for the Garratts which were built to replace double headed 0-6-0s on a specific duty, hence saving crew costs, a duty which they carried out for many years. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Asmay said : Doing the sums to work out the BR power class it comes out almost identical to an 8F and would have been an 8F too (although likely to have had poorer valves so probably not as effective in everyday service). I should think it would have long lap long travel valves and multi ring pistol valve heads seeing as the Fowler 7F 0-8-0 of 1930 had a thoroughly modern 'engine' portion, let down innadequate axle boxes. Thanks for the info on wheelbase. With smaller wheels and no inside cylinders, the 'Claughton/Patriot' boiler could be pitched lower. I find this particular engine a quite fascinating might-have-been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.