Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

There seem to be a few gaps in the locos that were actually build by the GWR out of bits they already had.  A 5'2" driving wheel version of the 56xx, for example, for South Wales Valleys passenger work (probably because the recently rebuilt Taff 'A' and Rhymney 'P' engines were doing fine).  It would have had a bit more pace for main line jobs like the short haul Cardiff-Pontypool road trains taken forward by big LMS engines, and a better range, enabling sheds like Barry to not need 5101 prairies which were not as powerful for their longer passenger turns.  The Cardiff-Porthcawl commuter trains handled by Collett 31xx prairies could have been done by these as well, the shorter wheelbase being appreciated on that branch.  The Beyer Peacock 14xx shows that a small wheeled 0-6-0 version of this side tank loco might have come in handy for the sort of work eventually undertaken by the 16xx panniers; the smaller tanks of the side tank loco would have enabled use on even lighter railways.

 

How about a light 2-8-0 developed from the 43xx mogul, 4'7" drivers.  Even better axle loading, probably able to work over yellow and blue routes with quite heavy loads.  It might have looked a bit like a 42xx without the tanks, and transformed the freight work over the Brecon and Merthyr.

 

Finally, a condensing 42xx ballasted to the maximum for pilot work through the Colwall tunnel, where heavy freight jobs were a nightmare going uphill.  These would have had to handle the train unassisted by the train locomotive in order to keep the smoke down to a minimum, but would have been a welcome respite for crews working this route regularly; I have heard tales of having to lie on the cab floor in order to breathe!  As they might have had to return to Colwall coupled to passenger trains to save paths on this single line, maybe a 2-8-2 configuration with the driving wheels grouped closely enough to permit the trailing pony to sit beneath the bunker would be needed; think 45xx extended to 2-8-2 with a no 4 boiler.

[john new]

Given the number of fictional/fictitious GWR BLTs built over the years either a large extra-build of existing classes or an entirely a new class of loco would have been required. The GWR/BR (WR) just would not have had the spare locos available by the 1950s/1960s explosion in their track milage to run these extra lines/services. That was the essence of our spoof SLS Christmas card in 2016. (Describing page here) Impractical as a real loco, for example the necessary swing on the rear truck would have precluded adding the ash-pan and grate but a relatively straight forward re-hash in model terms to make a Meyer type with PUG chassis and modified Dapol or Hornby J94 body shells. You could even speculate the need for a further loco works or foreign imports to meet the demand. Not just locos - coaches and wagons too.

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by john new

[DCB]

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

Churchward designed the Saints to run with 5' 8" wheels so there was no need to do anything but fit 1ft smaller driving wheels to a straight framed "Saint".  That is why the GW 2 cylinder 4-6-0s had such deep buffer beams so they could move the buffers up by 6"  to accomodate the smaller wheels.  They would also have needed to alter the rear drag box to allow the tender coupling to fit . Maybe they could have fitted smaller splashers, et voila a 1902 Grange, except a non superheated 5'8" wheeled Saint would have been lighter than a Manor, a better steamer with no need to design the Manor's silly little boiler.    

One sad examples of locos that should have been was the LNER B6 2 cyl 4-6-0s, designed by Robinson to compete with the B7 4 cyl locos using the big 05 class 2-8-0 boiler which were later replaced in the 2-8-0s by the 04 type or 100A etc    Only 3 were built, yet many parts were standard with the ROD 2-8-0s available cheap from the WD and with little work by using the slightly smaller ROD boiler the LNER could have had a couple of hundred very effective mixed traffic locos in 1925, instead of 408 rather less effective B1s from 1942....

The GC 2-6-0 looks a potent beast..  The Double 04 Garrett Wordborough bankers would have been impressive beasts, again using second hand ROD chassis the LNER could have built a couple of dozen quite cheaply instead of the one incredibly expensive six cylinder monster Gresley came up with.

[sir douglas]

(Describing page here)  Impractical as a real loco, for example the necessary swing on the rear truck would have precluded adding the ash-pan and grate but a relatively straight forward re-hash in model terms to make a mallet type with PUG chassis and modified Dapol or Hornby J94 body shells. You could even speculate the need for a further loco works or foreign imports to meet the demand. Not just locos - coaches and wagons too.

 

 

 

 

 

The link incorrectly describes the mallet as "twin bogie" which would suggest they were thinking of a meyer and used the wrong name. On a mallet, the rear set of wheels are fixed to the body and the pivot point of the front set is in between the rear cylinders. when both wheels sets are articulated is called a meyer

[The Johnster]

The link incorrectly describes the mallet as "twin bogie" which would suggest they were thinking of a meyer and used the wrong name. On a mallet, the rear set of wheels are fixed to the body and the pivot point of the front set is in between the rear cylinders. when both wheels sets are articulated is called a meyer

 

Unless it's a Duplex...

[john new]

The link incorrectly describes the mallet as "twin bogie" which would suggest they were thinking of a meyer and used the wrong name. On a mallet, the rear set of wheels are fixed to the body and the pivot point of the front set is in between the rear cylinders. when both wheels sets are articulated is called a meyer

Yes, c*** up by me in original page text!  Thanks for the update. I'm not an expert on those flexi chassis jobbies and treated mallet as a generic term rather like Hoover for vacuum cleaners etc.

 

(Linked to page now updated)

Edited August 10, 2017 by john new

[sir douglas]

it reminds of a mallet i drew many years ago

 

 

[Budgie]

Unless it's a Duplex...

A duplex has both sets of driving wheels in the same frame, rather than in bogies. For more information see this wikipedia page.

[LNWR18901910]

For those of you who read the original RWS books, maybe it's worth attempting to model some of the freelance locomotives based on the characters in the original books.

[The Johnster]

A duplex has both sets of driving wheels in the same frame, rather than in bogies. For more information see this wikipedia page.

 

I know.

[Corbs]

For those of you who read the original RWS books, maybe it's worth attempting to model some of the freelance locomotives based on the characters in the original books.

 

 

[LNWR18901910]

 

blogentry-898-0-15020000-1489448004_thumb.jpg

nwr-704-52.jpg

nwr-301-33.jpg

I've seen them and they all look very nice. James is a 2-6-0 locomotive.

[LNWR18901910]

Funny how the London & North Western Railway (LNWR) never had a 2-6-0 Mogul locomotive. What if there could have been an experimental one in the 1890s? I was planning on making one myself.

[DavidB-AU]

Funny how the London & North Western Railway (LNWR) never had a 2-6-0 Mogul locomotive. What if there could have been an experimental one in the 1890s? I was planning on making one myself.

Something like this?

 

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

And speaking of stretched locomotives, here's something silly I did ages ago. I have no idea what traffic would demand a design like this.

 

 

Cheers

David

[The Johnster]

Something like this?

 

LNWR Mogul.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Reckon that would have spread track at least as well as a Beames 0-8-4T...

[The Johnster]

And speaking of stretched locomotives, here's something silly I did ages ago. I have no idea what traffic would demand a design like this.

 

GWR light goods.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

I think that nice Mr Churchyard or whatever his name was built this, wasn't it called a 47xx?  (orignally with No.1 boiler not a million miles from this stretched No. 4).  And he never did anything silly except for the Counties.

 

Fast freight, or heavy milk/parcels, on routes less weight restricted than those used by 47xx?  Bank Holiday traffic west of Newton Abbot or Carmarthen?

[DCB]

Something like this?

Cheers

David

 

A stretched Precursor? The connecting rods on the Mogul would be impossibly short and Webb would probably have built it as a 3 cylinder compound 2-2-4-0!  Still it couldn't be worse than the Bill Bailey compound 4-6-0s

 

 

And speaking of stretched locomotives, here's something silly I did ages ago. I have no idea what traffic would demand a design like this.

Cheers

David

A lengthened 43XX, it looks like an early scheme for the prototype 4700 except it has the short no 4 firebox rather than the longer No 1 firebox.   I always thought as the fireboxes had the same front tube plate that they should have put the long No 1 Firebox on the short no 4 barrel instead of the feeble Manor boiler...  

 

I drew a 42XX converted to a 2-6-0 once and swiftly realised why the GWR rebuilt some as 2-8-2Ts instead!

 

These freelance designs show how brilliant the design teams of Churchward and Gresley were, some of free lance designs look like they were designed by the bloke who came up with the rebuilt "Cock of the North" and the L1!,  Even some RTR free lance designs like the Triang Polly basically couldn't have worked due to an excessively short boiler and firebox and no logical way to arrange the connecting rods and cylinders, the nearest prototype had outside cylinders...

[28XX]

I suspect Polly et al had long wheelbases to bridge the yawning connectivity gap in Series 3 track.

[Flying Pig]

A stretched Precursor? The connecting rods on the Mogul would be impossibly short and Webb would probably have built it as a 3 cylinder compound 2-2-4-0!  Still it couldn't be worse than the Bill Bailey compound 4-6-0s

 

A 5-cylinder, triple expansion 2-2-2-2-0, surely.

[£1.38]

Something like this?

 

LNWR Mogul.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

When I saw that image. my mind too came up with the idea of a Webb triple compound with high, medium and low pressure cylinders, each working on separate uncoupled driving axles. Now a model of that would look good!

Edited August 27, 2017 by £1.38

[MikeOxon]

................................

 

some of free lance designs look like they were designed by the bloke who came up with the rebuilt "Cock of the North" and the L1!, .......

That "bloke's" father-in-law had earlier come unstuck when lengthening his splendid 'Class Z' Atlantic into an ungainly Pacific!

[brack]

That "bloke's" father-in-law had earlier come unstuck when lengthening his splendid 'Class Z' Atlantic into an ungainly Pacific!

True, but he'd have preferred not to bother with those and just build his rather splendid electric locos instead.

[The Johnster]

My impression (no more than that, I'm no expert on railways north or east of the GW) (or south of it for that matter) (and only to a limited extent of the GW), is that Raven's pacific wasn't a bad loco, certainly worth keeping until it was worn out.  It obviously never stood a chance against the Gresleys, because Gresley was in charge of locos on the new LNER and because his were very good engines indeed, but to say that Raven 'got into trouble' with his Cities seems a bit strong.  They were no faster or easier steaming than the Zs, but more powerful which was perhaps the most important thing in the immediate post WW1 period, as train sizes and weights increase but the timetables were held back to the post 'race to the north' agreements.

 

It was certainly more successful than 'The Great Bear'.

[DavidB-AU]

Another silly idea, how to shorten a Grange.

 

 

Cheers

David