Imaginary Locomotives

[Corbs]

Something I've been rolling around in my head for a while (after seeing Matthew Cousins' photoshop)

The P2/1 (or should it be P2/4?)

Edited November 4, 2016 by Corbs

[relaxinghobby]

 

A favourite for imaginary loco conversions, the pug bash. In this case an old Airfix one ( Black Plastic ) with the cab from a Airfix J94, rear frames extended slightly.

 

 

 

Also this long boiler type based vaguely on the Robert Stephenson & Co types built for the Australian railways, long boilers where popular in the UK in the early railway years some lingered on in industrial use.  This loco was built from a 3mm scale  4-6-0  static model, the same firm that made the GBL series of static 00 models last year.  For mine I sawed off the front of the  chassis and turned the boiler around, the white bits are patches from plasticard.  It remains static.

 

This picture shows it's size relative to an LMS 3F tank.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by relaxinghobby

[Ken A.]

This has given me a real idea...  All I need is an old Triang/Hornby M7 so that I can bash it into this little beastie that featured in the December 1947 issue of The Model Railway News:

Edited November 1, 2016 by Ken A.

[unclebobkt]

       Something I've been rolling around in my head for a while (after seeing Matthew Cousins' photoshop)

The P2/1

P2-1.jpg

 

        II am no Locomotive Engr. - so with that disclaimer safely out of the way - the seemingly long boiler of the P2/1. set me wondering as to just how near to steam-production the water at the front end of the single-pass boiler would be?

 

       

[Corbs]

        II am no Locomotive Engr. - so with that disclaimer safely out of the way - the seemingly long boiler of the P2/1. set me wondering as to just how near to steam-production the water at the front end of the single-pass boiler would be?

 

       

Good question, I have no idea, however the boiler is in fact not stretched in the photoshop , the original photo of 60505 is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:York_Locomotive_Yard_with_A2-2_Pacific_geograph-2827807-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg

 

The only things I changed were adding the missing wheelset, moving the position of the cylinders (and the exhaust pipe from the cylinders to the smokebox) and the changes to the running plate.

[Ken A.]

 The interesting aspect of the 2-10-0+0-10-2 model is that the builder really has not grasped the essence of the Beyer-Garratt concept.

 

If we assume an identical engine unit to the 9F on each set of frames - and it would make no sense to have anything smaller on a loco this size - then to fully exploit these engines in continuous steaming near twice the grate area of the 9F is required, inevitably mechanically fired. That grate would be built out to the full width permitted by the loading gauge, with a vast ashpan underneath nearly down to rail level. This is a key element of the design, exploiting the advantage that accrues from the grate draughting not being compromised by the ash in the ashpan or any frames or mechanism. The barrel of this boiler would be shorter and larger in diameter, and untapered. 

 

I also suspect that Beyers would at least specify 2-8-2+2-8-2 in preference to the proposed layout, as one chassis is always running in reverse in the sense that coupled wheels are leading, and guidance of the fixed wheelbase element becomes rather important if any sort of speed is attained. Given how fleet the 9F was, the dynamics of a ten coupled leading arrangement might not make for easy riding shall we say.

I am intrigued by your 2-10-0+0-10-2 Riddles Garratt.  It shouldn't be too difficult to turn it into a 2-10-2+2-10-2 with a couple of Hornby 2 wheel trucks - this would solve the problem of the "driving wheels leading" problem that you mentioned and would produce something even more imposing.

[Budgie]

I am intrigued by your 2-10-0+0-10-2 Riddles Garratt.  It shouldn't be too difficult to turn it into a 2-10-2+2-10-2 with a couple of Hornby 2 wheel trucks - this would solve the problem of the "driving wheels leading" problem that you mentioned and would produce something even more imposing.

If you're going to do that, you might as well turn it into a 2-10-4+4-10-2 and make it even more imposing.

[PhilJ W]

I am intrigued by your 2-10-0+0-10-2 Riddles Garratt.  It shouldn't be too difficult to turn it into a 2-10-2+2-10-2 with a couple of Hornby 2 wheel trucks - this would solve the problem of the "driving wheels leading" problem that you mentioned and would produce something even more imposing.

 

 

If you're going to do that, you might as well turn it into a 2-10-4+4-10-2 and make it even more imposing.

Problem is to my eye at least is that the boiler is too 'skinny', a larger diameter and perhaps slightly shorter boiler would improve the appearance.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

        II am no Locomotive Engr. - so with that disclaimer safely out of the way - the seemingly long boiler of the P2/1. set me wondering as to just how near to steam-production the water at the front end of the single-pass boiler would be?

 The eye is deceived by the very long smokebox. The superheater header cover - visible as the rectangular pad to the rear of the chimney - is on the smokebox. The boiler is exactly as on the Pepp A1 and A2, 17 foot barrel between tubeplates, and the steam production is 'adequate'.

[Flying Pig]

Something I've been rolling around in my head for a while (after seeing Matthew Cousins' photoshop)

The P2/1

P2-1.jpg

I like that, but it does look a bit cramped at the front to me. How do the positions of the pony axle and cylinder compare with the original locos?

[Corbs]

Not sure, but I have a Peppercorn A1 body and a Railroad P2 chassis sitting on my desk right now....

[Corbs]

Repeat after me:

 

"I have too many projects, I have too many projects"

 

[Corbs]

Yes! V2 valve gear, I was racking my brains trying to think of a suitable donor but you are right, think I should look for some.

At the moment I am trying to figure out if I should move the step down in the running plate forward, remove the step entirely or leave as is and add a wheel arch to accommodate the forward drivers. The arches will have to be moved anyway but I am keen on not doing too much surgery as I'd like not to have to repaint it much.

[richard i]

Repeat after me:

 

"I have too many projects, I have too many projects"

 

IMG_6710.jpg

That will all hinge on the cylinder if the body does not go low enough you will have to move the step down much further forward. I like your thinking though.

[Corbs]

That will all hinge on the cylinder if the body does not go low enough you will have to move the step down much further forward. I like your thinking though.

True, I can probably modify the cylinders to sit a bit lower than standard though, as I am swapping out the No.2001 type for the more traditional style.

[ady77014]

Anyone ever seen a plan that Maunsell planned 2-6-2T tank for the Southern which was meant to be 'modern' traction for branch lines?

Edited November 9, 2016 by ady77014

[DavidB-AU]

Anyone ever seen a plan that Maunsell planned 2-6-2T tank for the Southern which was meant to be 'modern' traction for branch lines?

A model of one here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/27456-maunsell-2-6-2t-proposed/

 

Cheers

David

[BlueLightning]

Well a new project of mine3 has involved modifying a Hornby A1 chassis and while waiting before I can start on the body of the loco I thought I would stick the Hornby body back on to see how it looked so I give you The Flying Baltic

 

 

I imagine an A1 with an extra set of trailing wheels in real life would have a bigger firebox, although not being an engineer I don't know how much of an advantage, if any, it would have. What do others think??

 

Gary

[Corbs]

It reminds me of the engines that gresley fitted with boosters, like the C9

http://www.lner.info/locos/C/c9.php

[BlueLightning]

That is a strange looking thing, never even heard of them before.

 

Gary

[Clearwater]

It reminds me of the engines that gresley fitted with boosters, like the C9

http://www.lner.info/locos/C/c9.php

I like the somewhat laconic line at the bottom "I am not aware of any models"

[Ohmisterporter]

Well a new project of mine3 has involved modifying a Hornby A1 chassis and while waiting before I can start on the body of the loco I thought I would stick the Hornby body back on to see how it looked so I give you The Flying Baltic

 

 

I imagine an A1 with an extra set of trailing wheels in real life would have a bigger firebox, although not being an engineer I don't know how much of an advantage, if any, it would have. What do others think??

 

Gary

 

This would be better with outside bearings, not only for ease of access but having bearings under the firebox brings problems keeping ash out of the bearings. Look at pictures of wide firebox engines and I think they all have outside bearings. Engines with inside bearings under the firebox usually have narrow fireboxes.

[Horsetan]

....Look at pictures of wide firebox engines and I think they all have outside bearings....

 

Not the German ones.

[Ohmisterporter]

Yes there are examples of inside bearings for carrying wheels. I should have made it clear that I was thinking about four wheels under the firebox, not two. 

[BlueLightning]

While it may look better with outside bearings we shall unfortunately never know as the chassis is actually going to be used for an LBSCR L Class which had inside bearings. I would consider it if I were actually going to make this engine though. Especially after looking at the C9 that Corbs linked too.

 

Gary

Edited November 18, 2016 by BlueLightning