Imaginary Locomotives

[sir douglas]

After Hunslet built Beddgelert for the Bryngwyn branch of the NWNGR, it was found to having problems with weight distribution between the driving wheels and the trailing bogie on the gradients of the branch, Hunslet drew up a replacement loco, a 2-6-2 saddletank, but instead they modified Beddgelert, it could be suggested that it was a direct influence on the design of Russell

 

seen here on the last page of Welsh Highland journal No 46

WHH No 46.pdf

Edited April 20, 2017 by sir douglas

[Corbs]

I think 93001 is my favourite 'neverwazza' ever. I still have the bits in my drawer to build 2 Std. 8Fs. One day....

[Corbs]

After Hunslet built Beddgelert for the Bryngwyn branch of the NWNGR, it was found to having problems with weight distribution between the driving wheels and the trailing bogie on the gradients of the branch, Hunslet drew up a replacement loco, a 2-6-2 saddletank, but instead they modified Beddgelert, it could be suggested that it was a direct influence on the design of Russell

 

seen here on the last page of Welsh Highland journal No 46

Very interesting. I guess 'Russell' may never had been built if this design had gone ahead.

[RedgateModels]

On 20/04/2017 at 11:08, Corbs said:

I think 93001 is my favourite 'neverwazza' ever. I still have the bits in my drawer to build 2 Std. 8Fs. One day....

 

I already have two, here's my first go that was also the subject of my first ever magazine article 

 

 

 

Tender drive, 8F boiler and chassis, Brit running plate and cab, 9F cylinders

Edited November 14, 2022 by RedgateModels

[The Johnster]

Fine looking beast, Redgate.  A possible criticism is the big cylinders, which would have emptied the boiler quite quickly; I'd worry about the width of those cylinders a bit as well, and reckon she'd have been a b`*%@^!d for hammer blow and 'interesting' to ride on; much higher centre of gravity than an LMS 8F or Riddles WD 2-8-0.  Had so many of those not been built for war service, something like this might well have actually put into service, either as this or a late LMS Ivatt version with split running plate, the cab off the 4MT mogul, and maybe even the weird double chimney off that engine too.  An ideal banker for Shap or Lickey! 

 

This is the fun of imaginary locos, identifying their potential strengths and faults.  Thanks for posting the pic!

[RedgateModels]

There were six of them in the 1956 build program but were cancelled in favour of the more than capable 9Fs

[scots region]

Hello all, something that's been rattling around the crainium of late has been the ever fascinating possibilities of what could have happened had the Railways been taken into state ownership after the First World War and not the second. Winston Churchill even supported the move, the government of the day even went as far as contacting the ARLE (association of railway locomotive engineers) to begin drawing up plans for a standard range of locomotives, in 1918! There are two designs that are known for sure, a 2-6-0 and a 2-8-0, I've also seen it suggested that there were plans for standard 4-4-0s, 0-6-0s, 4-6-0s and even a 2-8-2 tank, but I can't be sure how serious the last one was. When I get a chance I'll link to the drawings I've found. I believe that they were planning to kit out the standards with belpair fireboxes and parallel boilers, but the idealist in me knows that the SECR N1s were coming on stream at this time and it is tempting to imagine them building off of that instead. Mind you this was a literal design by commity, I wonder how they would have handled a Pacific.

 

There were also plans afoot in the 1920s for electrification of parts of the West Coast Main Line on the Swiss model, but that can be discussed in greater detail later on. Let me close by saying that I'm in two minds about modelling this, on the one hand it is very tempting to conjure a fictional universe of some sort of 'Rail corporation', on the other I like the idea of the standard range being presented to the private companies as a means of 'shoring up' existing stock, rather like the American solution.

Edited May 10, 2017 by scots region

[scots region]

As promised here are the drawings 

 

 

 

 

and my source

 

http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/arle.htm

[The Johnster]

Interesting stuff, Scots.  Two of these are very similar to engines actually built, the Derby 2-8-0 being not much different to the SDJR loco and the SECR mogul being pretty much the Woolwich, which became a sort of standard on the Southern, Met, and Great Southern in Ireland.  Both were very good engines, with the exception of the track sensitive 'River' 2-6-4T variant.

 

It is not difficult to see where each drawing originated without being told, and herein I suspect lay the downfall of the scheme; each railway simply submitted it's own ideas as the best without considering that a national standard scheme might require a new approach to encompass operating conditions perhaps not found on their own lines.  It is a little surprising, perhaps, given it's sense of superiority at the time, that the drawing least tied to it's own company's ideas is Swindon's.  I cannot see why they went for an outside framed axlebox, though; perhaps Dean's ghost had a hand in the drawing!

 

Horwich's mogul is a very handsome machine from a railway which, IIRC, had no engines of that wheel arrangement, though some Horwich ideas were incorporated into the Hughes/Fowler 'Crab' a few years later, which, with the Fowler 2-6-4T, was the only bright spot in an otherwise unremittingly dreary and unimaginative period of the early LMS.  I would say that this, the clearly hopelessly overweight Caledonian attempt, and the Swindon loco are the only ones 'odd' enough to be worth attempting as models; the others are just variants of their companies' established practice.   But I am sure there are enough of you out there who disagree with me to ensure that each of these gets a turn in the 4mm or 7mm limelight...

[richard i]

Have already seen one of the GCR 2-6-0 and it inspired me to order cylinders for my own take on the loco. Now to acquire the other bits I will need.

Richard

[kevinlms]

I recently stumbled across these GWR 'neverwazzas' on an online auction site...

 

Brutish looking 2-10-2T

 

28xx-like 2-10-0

 

A 4-8-0 Cathedral akin to a stretched 'King' rather than the 'Swindon Princess' style 4-6-2

 

A 4-6-2 version of the Cathedral!

 

I don't know what this is but it looks nice

No. 4750 & 8029 appeared in Railway Modeller 1994 November pages 516 and 517.

 

Nos 8205 & 36 appeared in Railway Modeller 1996 April pages 153 - 155.

 

No. 9000 appeared in Railway Modeller 1997 June pages 248 - 250.

[Corbs]

Makes me muse about cutting and shutting an S&DJR 7F 2-8-0 into a 2-6-0.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Makes me muse about cutting and shutting an S&DJR 7F 2-8-0 into a 2-6-0.

 That will work very neatly, as the eight coupled wheelbase is much the same as a Derby standard six coupled 8'+8'6", and any Derby design six coupled had to have that wheelbase, 'because'. (Compare Stanier's mogul and 8F to see how it works if in doubt.) The main body work modifications would probably be raising the boiler centreline a little and either adding splashers or raising the footplating for the 5'6" or thereabouts drivers appropriate to a mixed traffic type. Done well you might have people looking at it trying to work out whether it was authentic or not, as it is an entirely possible design.

[Rasendyll]

A challenge for the builders of hypothetical locomotives.  What if Churchward had pursued the idea of a mixed traffic 4-6-0 before World War I? Sort of an Edwardin Hall:

[scots region]

Very nice Rasendyll, and wouldn't be to hard to pull off either.

[Clearwater]

A challenge for the builders of hypothetical locomotives. What if Churchward had pursued the idea of a mixed traffic 4-6-0 before World War I? Sort of an Edwardin Hall:

Surely more a Grange/Manor with a Churchward cab? Particularly given they shared wheel diameters with the moguls. I think the grange concept was the only unbuilt class in GJC's original list of 'standard' types. If I get time, it should be fairly easy to draw up in the GWS loco sketch pad software.

 

David

Edited May 28, 2017 by Clearwater

[Rasendyll]

I suppose I was envisaging something slightly different- lets say wheelbase and diameter from (one of) the Abedares/Krugers/Crocodile but inside frame, outside cylinders and taper boiler.  I admit that's probably less likely but I went down that path simply because it would be a little more distinctive and eye-catching...

 

 

Surely more a Grange/Manor with a Churchward cab? Particularly given they shared wheel diameters with the moguls. I think the grange concept was the only unbuilt class in GJC's original list of 'standard' types. If I get time, it should be fairly easy to draw up in the GWS loco sketch pad software.

David

[LNWR18901910]

As promised here are the drawings 

 

ARLE standard 2-6-0 + 2-8-0.jpg

 

ARLE standard 2-6-0.jpg

 

ARLE st GWR 2-6-0 + st CR 2-6-0.jpg

 

and my source

 

http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/arle.htm

Wow, that's a lot of nice Moguls! If they were actual models, I'd sure love to own at least one of them.

[LNWR18901910]

I already have two, here's my first go that was also the subject of my first ever magazine article 

 

P1050631.JPG

 

Tender drive, 8F boiler and chassis, Brit running plate and cab, 9F cylinders

Nice model. That reminds me of an old Black Five model with inaccurate valve gear. I think it was the old Hornby one from the 60s or 70s.

[LNWR18901910]

Of all the large tank engines the GWR had, the one wheel arrangement they never experimented with was the 2-6-4T arrangement. So, what do I do? Why, fill in that void, of course!

 

Yes - I had the idea of a GWR 2-6-4T tank engine called the 7100 Class (basically, I had a Hornby Large Prairie in BR black and it still seems to work). The name of it had been decided as locomotives were named after animals like dogs, birds, fish and elks. My dealer, Mark, and I came up with the name 'Platypus' because of the trailing rear double bogies (like that of a platypus' tail) we put on the back like an Adriatic tank engine has.

 

I've even come up with a history behind the class and and, on a happy note, made a fictional preserved locomotive. I have not taken any pictures yet, but I will show you the locomotive once it's complete.

[unravelled]

Of all the large tank engines the GWR had, the one wheel arrangement they never experimented with was the 2-6-4T arrangement. So, what do I do? Why, fill in that void, of course!

 

Yes - I had the idea of a GWR 2-6-4T tank engine called the 7100 Class (basically, I had a Hornby Large Prairie in BR black and it still seems to work). The name of it had been decided as locomotives were named after animals like dogs, birds, fish and elks. My dealer, Mark, and I came up with the name 'Platypus' because of the trailing rear double bogies (like that of a platypus' tail) we put on the back like an Adriatic tank engine has.

 

I've even come up with a history behind the class and and, on a happy note, made a fictional preserved locomotive. I have not taken any pictures yet, but I will show you the locomotive once it's complete.

I'll be interested to see this as  an extended bunker 61xx is something I've considered building.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

[The Johnster]

I bought a Hornby 42xx this week, and, looking at it, wondered if Collett had ever considered rebuilding any of the 5205s converted to the 72xx class into  2-6-4 tanks.  With a number 4 boiler, the loco would have been a handsome and impressive beast, run rings around any large prairie, and probably seen off the best of the LMS competition from the 30s as well, the Fowlers and their Stanier derivates.  A probable limiting factor would have been the size of the driving wheels, but if you assume that the boiler clearance would have permitted 5'8" wheels as on the 43xx you'd have had a loco with a useful turn of speed and plenty of power.  The other limiting factor would have been water capacity, with the tanks being a few inches narrower than on the prairies, and there would have probably been a well tank under the bunker, if that didn't take the overall weight over the top. Scoops to pick up from troughs would have helped for main line work  Axle loading should have been the same as on the 72xx, and adhesion weight might have been better, concentrated on 3 driving axles instead of 4.  A 72xx type extended bunker would probably have featured.

 

Question is, what would such a beast have been used for?  The 61xx prairies were coping with the heavy Paddington suburban trains and there was no need for that sort of haulage capacity for suburban work elsewhere on the GW.  With 5'3" wheels, it would have been a formidable banker and come in handy for South Wales main line transfer work (the concept screams Severn Tunnel Junction allocation), as did the Collett 31xx class a few years later, but again the prairies and 56xx were coping well enough.  It would have been an asset for some of the heavier short haul excursion work as well, but that would not have justified it's building.  Canton might have used them for the short haul express runs to Pontypool Road, some of which must have had the prairies floundering a bit and left the 56xx out of their depth speed-wise!

 

I like the idea though, especially in 1956 BR(W) lined green, even though the 5202s I am proposing as the engines they would have been rebuilt from had cast iron chimneys with no copper caps.  I propose 82xx as the class number; I doubt more than a dozen would ever have been needed, split between Canton and Severn Tunnel Junction sheds.  Maybe a few more at Newton Abbot for banking on Dainton or Hemerdon

Edited June 9, 2017 by The Johnster

[Co-tr-Paul]

Devon and Cornwall ??

[sir douglas]

i can't quite remember why i tried it but just now ive mashed a beyer peacock chassis (like the IoMR) with a 14xx body. and yes the front wheel arch is still there, i can't be bothered removing it

Edited August 9, 2017 by sir douglas

[David Bigcheeseplant]

i can't quite remember why i tried it but just now ive mashed a beyer peacock chassis (like the IoMR) with a 14xx body. and yes the front wheel arch is still there, i can't be bothered removing it

 

There is something quite nice about this.