Imaginary Locomotives

[DavidB-AU]

Please note that if you are designing a high speed Co Co you need Brush bogies as used on the 89 as few Co Co are OK at 125mph

That's why I suggested a Bo-Bo-Bo.

 

Cheers

David

[TheQ]

Like the GWR standard boilers, tenders generally did not stay with one locomotive, when a loco completed a major service it took the next available tender that would be appropriate. the eight wheel tender was used by many of the large locomotives over the years.

[BernardTPM]

Please note that if you are designing a high speed Co Co you need Brush bogies as used on the 89 as few Co Co are OK at 125mph

 

That's why I suggested a Bo-Bo-Bo.

 

For a powerful electric loco you'll also need a big (and heavy) transformer so it is preferable to sling it between the bogies to keep the centre of gravity low, hence the arrangement of the Cl.89 for high speed. Given the stretched Class 90 isn't long enough to allow this it might look better as a Bo-Bo-Bo on 'standard' 87/90 bogies.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I think the sole GWR 4-6-2 Great Bear might have been a better success had it had walschaerts valve gear, a weather proof cab in a style like the cabs on the king class locos and dare I say a corridor tender to all non stop running like the LNER did.

Actually it had Walschaerts gear, in the Swindon adaption for inside the frames as generally implemented on the Star following the eye-opening experience of the Walshaerts gear valve events on 'The Frenchmen', (and which would subsequently be deployed on the Castle and King). The steam distribution in the engine was not the problem, Swindon had the best multicylinder valve events in the UK for the twenty years following their adoption of Walschaerts gear.

 

The primary troubles were in the boiler, superheater, and grate. The boiler tubes were too long, designed before the combustion chamber innovation solved this problem satisfactorily; but even without this in conjunction with the development of a satisfactory superheater arrangement with changes to the tubing, this was largely overcome in the first few years of the Bear's existence, as the design received development attention.

 

But the grate was another matter, the only one of its kind on the GWR; with fifty percent more area than a Star and requiring a completely different firing technique as Churchward himself acknowledged. (The situation quite closely parallels BR's DoG near fifty years later, a single loco on the LMR requiring different firing from the Stanier pacifics, and as a result generally disliked: yet it could and did perform when fired correctly.The Gresley pacific with near identical grate area to the Bear, had no such problem at introduction; the top link crews had long experience developed on the wide grate of the large Atlantic, then twenty years in service.) The First World War was badly timed for the Bear, without it Churchward might have had more of the class built, and increased the operational experience of the crews; he was 'nearly there'. That's the path to a whole 'Neverwazza' development line, changes everything subsequently at Swindon, Crewe and then BR. 

 

As for the cab, there's a wonderful story of how the slightly longer roof alone was disliked: some protesting fireman demonstrating how it cramped his style by getting a fire iron wedged between the roof and the fallplate. It seems strange to us now, but practically all the UK's railways yield tales of enginemen resisting the introduction of any enclosure of the footplate, beginning with the first simple weather boards. (Rather akin to the protests of car drivers over the introduction of seat belts: they abhored being 'trapped', preferring the chance of being 'thrown clear' - doubtless shouting as they whizzed through the air at 60mph "I'm fine, see!".)

[Corbs]

1 loco I think that might possibly have been considered years ago when 9Fs were running is based on the 9F but, it would use 2 of the 2-10-0 chassis back to back so in essence its a garratt loco but has either a 9F body between the 2 drive units or an A3 body so it would be or have been the next power level up from the LNER 2-8-0 + 0-8-2 thus it would be a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2.

 

I wonder what its power classification would have been and load limit.

 

A 9F would take something up to 60 or possibly 70 wagons.

The LNER P1 2-8-2s could take upto 100 loaded coal wagons

 

 

Begs the question, would a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2 take somewhere in between these loads or would it take a load higher than that of the P1 or LNER Garratt.

 

I might try and build 1 someday when I can get the parts.

 

The main thing about 'neverwazza' garratts is that the real life locos almost always had the distinctive large diameter, round firebox, BG type boiler, and as such looked largely the same.

If Swindon had built one, it would be unlikely to have a 28xx boiler, for example. Likewise for BR, the proven design was the BG boiler, so it's unlikely a 9f one would be used.

[21st Century Railfan]

What if the LMS had purchased Castles? No rebuilt Scots/Patriots? No Black 5s? does not bear thinking about. GWR were too soon with its Pacific, What if the King had been developed as a 4-6-2?

 

1. If the LMS had purchased the Castles, They probably would've had a similar destiny as the Royal Scots did. Even though he came from the GWR, Stanier would probably modernize the Castle design, but maybe keep the four cylinders. Not too sure about the Patriots and Black 5s. The former would probably just be Castles with three cylinders instead of four, and a slightly smaller boiler.

 

2. Don't think making the Kings a Pacific would've done them much good. Their route availability is slim enough as it is, and building them as Pacifics would probably put them in the same position as The Great Bear.  Actually, didn't Hawksworth propose a Pacific? The Cathedrals maybe? Or the Queens?

[21st Century Railfan]

That set me thinking - and here's a question - was "Leader" a Garratt? Or was it a Mallet? Or was it something completely different?

 

Best Regards,

 

Zero Gravitas.

Given its design, I want to say a Mallet. I would say a Fairly, but not all of them were double-ended. So yeah, Leader's a Mallet.

[BernardTPM]

Given its design, I want to say a Mallet. I would say a Fairly, but not all of them were double-ended. So yeah, Leader's a Mallet.

Mallets have one set of driving wheels fixed, so it can't be a Mallet. They were normally (one hesitates to say exclusively, just in case!) compounded as well, with the moving section having the low pressure cylinders (less pressure on the flexible joints).

Probably the closest description would be a Modified Fairlie - two moving bogies but one boiler with the framework carrying the fuel and water (these are on the articulated parts of Garratts).

[Mike 84C]

I would have thought the Leader was a Meyer. Frame carries boiler and fuel but without the overhang on curves of the Modified Fairlie.

 Big selling point of the B.G. is the boiler could be built to the loading gauge and a firebox to suit the power of the boiler and demands of the cylinders. It also was more stable than most other articulateds and user friendly.

[Guest]

Had another slow day at the office yesterday, so I rebuilt one of my (many) previous failed designs, and formed this:

 

Regards,
Matt

[Budgie]

It looks as though it could use a Collett cab.

[scots region]

1 loco I think that might possibly have been considered years ago when 9Fs were running is based on the 9F but, it would use 2 of the 2-10-0 chassis back to back so in essence its a garratt loco but has either a 9F body between the 2 drive units or an A3 body so it would be or have been the next power level up from the LNER 2-8-0 + 0-8-2 thus it would be a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2.

 

I wonder what its power classification would have been and load limit.

 

A 9F would take something up to 60 or possibly 70 wagons.

The LNER P1 2-8-2s could take upto 100 loaded coal wagons

 

 

Begs the question, would a 2-10-0 + 0-10-2 take somewhere in between these loads or would it take a load higher than that of the P1 or LNER Garratt.

 

I might try and build 1 someday when I can get the parts.

 

Funny you should mention that...

 

 

http://www.beyergarrattlocos.co.uk/source.html

[jjb1970]

"What if's" are fascinating subjects for modellers. I'm not that hot on imaginary models but I do love models of types that might have been and which are based on actual design projects. Whilst not model trains I have modelled warships based on never realised plans in 1/700 scale, such as a rebuilt Hood (think Hood with a KGV style superstructure) and Gneisenau with the planned twin 38cm guns.

[scots region]

I am sorry Mersey, but I didn't build the model in question, I found the picture a few years ago on the included site, I do apologise for giving the impression that it was mine.

 

Very sorry about the mistake, I would suggest contacting the chap running the site, despite its age it's still being updated, he may be able to put you in touch with the model's owner. At a glance though it would appear that a 'Brittania' boiler been used. Just checking the original page it said to have been built for a Graham Kelsey, for the Garratt 50, a bit of searching reveals that this was an event held at the Ffestiniog in 2008, Searching for Kelsey produces a PDF for the Wimborne Railway Society and thats as narrow as I can get it.

 

I hope all of that helps

 

ScR

[The Black Hat]

 

New build 67802 sits on the service road getting final checks and some TLC, waiting to move to head the 12:00 Northumbrian service to Stanhope. 

[Corbs]

Everything's better in blue

[The Black Hat]

Everything's better in blue

 

I've got plans for two more. One in NER Darlington Green, Late Crest and another in Brunswick Green too. 

[Ben Alder]

Maybe not imaginary, but an interpretation of a proposed Drummond 0-4-4T for the Highland Railway. This one never got further than the drawing board, but when I realised how close to it the O2 was in overall dimensions, bringing it to life was irresistible....

 

[Zomboid]

Take HST power cars and replace them with EMD E or F units...

[Martino]

Well - in the days when Airfix Pug kits were two bob (10p in today's money) I think I must have done pretty much all possible variants - but as un-powered models for 12mm. gauge.

 

The Fairlie looked great, as did the 0-4-2ST and 2-4-2ST. There were several other variants that I can no longer remember precisely. Suffice to say they all went into the scrap box years ago.

 

The Airfix Drewry 0-6-0DM kit was the same price and so was similarly butchered - a chunky 0-6-6-0 inspired by the Claytons is one I remember.

 

Good modelling practice for a then-teenager.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I was just rereading this thread. I did the same John. Various Fairlie types out of the pugs, and the Drewrys grew twin bonnets and even a pantograph at one point!

[21st Century Railfan]

You mean an A3? (Which technically, is factual).

 

EDIT: Although if you mean with the cut down smokebox - Humorist in its smoke deflecting experiment days had that. Looked rather nifty. There must be a pic on the net somewhere.

Uhh...the A4s had higher boiler pressure than the A3s, didn't they?  Personally, I'd think a de-streamlined A4 would probably be an A9. New classification since you're removing an important part of the design, unlike the Coronations.

[DavidB-AU]

Take HST power cars and replace them with EMD E or F units...

Slightly tangential, but when Comeng in Australia was redesigning the HST into the XPT, various options for GM and Alco engines were examined as an alternative to Paxman.

 

Cheers

David

[Zomboid]

Slightly tangential, but when Comeng in Australia was redesigning the HST into the XPT, various options for GM and Alco engines were examined as an alternative to Paxman.

 

Cheers

David

In even more of a tangent, though regarding similar(ish) trains, I believe the LRC (Canada) had engines whose heritage was decidedly ALCo/ MLW.

[Steve K]

Slightly tangential, but when Comeng in Australia was redesigning the HST into the XPT, various options for GM and Alco engines were examined as an alternative to Paxman.

 

In even more of a tangent, though regarding similar(ish) trains, I believe the LRC (Canada) had engines whose heritage was decidedly ALCo/ MLW.

 

Leaving the tangent, and skidding off into the bushes, whatever happened to Hanovale's model of the XPT? Their website suggested that the model (and everything else, for that matter) was on hold "for the time being" years ago, saying since 2009:

 

Hanovale is not taking further orders at this time. We have a number of outstanding orders that we have been unable to fill for some time due to our inability to obtain some of the necessary components.

Every order received before 13 February 2009 will be filled, although it may take some time, as will a handful of other orders that we have been discussing with customers in recent times.

 

... which is a shame, as I quite fancied one to turn into an HO HST-a-like.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Steve K

[DavidB-AU]

In even more of a tangent, though regarding similar(ish) trains, I believe the LRC (Canada) had engines whose heritage was decidedly ALCo/ MLW.

They had Alco-designed 16-251F engines built by MLW.

 

A variant of the LRC power cars was one of the options for the XPT. Mechanically more or less the same as an 80 class, which Comeng was building at the time, but with an LRC style body.

 

Cheers

David