Imaginary Locomotives

[DavidB-AU]

If you put a Pacer on bogies, you could increase the overall weight.

 

 

Cheers

David

[Trains4U]

If you put a Pacer on bogies, you could increase the overall weight.

 

Class145.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

The horror...  What the 156 could have been!

Edited September 20, 2017 by Trains4U

[runs as required]

The Dean 4-2-2-2-2 - that'll be his version of the triple-expansion compound - sending up F W Webb? As all the cylinders are between the frames, things must get quite interesting on shed. Who'd be a fitter? I can only imagine that there's one cylinder per driving axle, with rather short connecting rods. I dare say that once in motion, everything slips into synchronisation.

To  my eye that Dean GWR 4-2-2-2-2 (2AAA1) could do with a combustion chamber or two

dh

[runs as required]

I used to be employed as 'concept man' for James Anderson.

He liked my future vision for the creme de la creme of the LMS

[richard i]

Sean O'Connor made a similar Bulleid tank loco.

Was actually draw and prepped for production if I have my facts right.

[Trains4U]

Was actually draw and prepped for production if I have my facts right.

 

That's bizarre, I literally just made the loco up using bits of Hornby images  - Perhaps I am a genius loco designer after all...

[Budgie]

The Drummond double Fairlie has definite possibilities ... ideal for working a push-pull sandwich?

Where does the coal go?

[Trains4U]

Where does the coal go?

 

The "Tanks" on one end are coal bunkers

[Compound2632]

 

Where does the coal go?

 

In the firebox door... not shown in the picture, which omits the central section of boiler taking up most of the cab.

 

The "Tanks" on one end are coal bunkers

 

Is that right? The fireman's surely stuck on one side of the footplate so wouldn't be able to get at the bunker on one side. I thought that on the Ffestiniog's double Fairlies, all four tanks carry water (all connected by equalising pipes, I assume) with bunker space above two tanks on the fireman's side. Struggling to find a photo that makes this very clear. 

 

All assuming the Drummond engine is supposed to be a true double Fairlie.

[Compound2632]

To  my eye that Dean GWR 4-2-2-2-2 (2AAA1) could do with a combustion chamber or two

dh

 

And a much longer tender, if only to accommodate the fireman's dart.

[Ramblin Rich]

If you put a Pacer on bogies, you could increase the overall weight.

 

Class145.jpg

 

Cheers

David

The horror... What the 156 could have been!

But isn't that a class 155 (Leyland body on bogies)? Although they had better doors.... Edited September 20, 2017 by Ramblin Rich

[Coryton]

But isn't that a class 155 (Leyland body on bogies)? Although they had better doors....

 

They certainly feel much less like a bus.

 

Proper doors (with vestibules) and more conventional looking cabs too, and unlike Pacers they were never fitted with bus seats.

 

Oh and they have proper luggage racks too, which makes quite a difference to the look of the interior.

[LNWR18901910]

I used to be employed as 'concept man' for James Anderson.

He liked my future vision for the creme de la creme of the LMS

COMPOUNDS.jpg

Man, I'd give anything to see that in model form, I really would.

[DavidB-AU]

Something built on a single bogie isn't actually that far fetched. Tractive Power Corp in Vancouver built a demo industrial switcher on single SD40 bogie. It's not hard to imagine something Vossloh-ish built on a class 47 bogie as a replacement for the 08. Possibly a hybrid (very useful for locos that don't spent a lot of time actually moving) and probably capable of 50mph on the main line. Not all that different from the proposed class 18 of the 1980s.

 

 

Cheers

David

Edited September 21, 2017 by DavidB-AU

[Northroader]

This sort of thing?

[Corbs]

Something built on a single bogie isn't actually that far fetched. Tractive Power Corp in Vancouver built a demo industrial switcher on single SD40 bogie. It's not hard to imagine something Vossloh-ish built on a class 47 bogie as a replacement for the 08. Possibly a hybrid (very useful for locos that don't spent a lot of time actually moving) and probably capable of 50mph on the main line. Not all that different from the proposed class 18 of the 1980s.

 

Class18.jpg

 

Cheers

David

In that case , as the 58 was designed to be modular, it might be plausible to use a 58 bogie and cab?

[DavidB-AU]

In that case , as the 58 was designed to be modular, it might be plausible to use a 58 bogie and cab?

Possibly. Vision for the driver wouldn't be any worse than the 08.

 

Here's a German hybrid shunter. Note that it's certified for 100km/h (62mph).

https://i0.wp.com/railcolornews.com/wp-content/uploads/alstom_h3_metrans01hhla.jpg

 

Cheers

David

[TheQ]

Possibly. Vision for the driver wouldn't be any worse than the 08.

 

Here's a German hybrid shunter. Note that it's certified for 100km/h (62mph).

https://i0.wp.com/railcolornews.com/wp-content/uploads/alstom_h3_metrans01hhla.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Is that paintwork disruptive camoflage?

[Pacific231G]

I always enjoyed the cut and shut stuff

 

I was particularly fond of my streamlined (A4) tank and double deck Mk3

 

 

cs11.jpg

 

At the risk of being a bit OT by looking at imaginary coaches rather than just locos, I'm intrigued by your double deck Mk3 because I think a proper double decker night just be achievable within the British loading gauge.

(cc Hugh Llewelyn

This attempt by Bulleid using interleaved compartments was one less than successful approach but modern design should be able to do better.

 

We're clearly not looking for anything like this .

 

(crude bur dimensionally accurate Jouef model of a CF de l'Ouest later Etat "Imperiale")

 

This looks like a deathtrap for the very good reason that it was, leave your seat and you might well take leave of your head, but hundreds were built and  if you'd been a third class Parisian commuter you might have been confronted by one of these until about about 1930,

(CC Patrick Giraud)

 

 

A much safer development was to use a lowered chassis to make room for an upper saloon.

 

These, were much better and a few were in use until 1952

(CC Claude Shoshany)

 

The upper level was rather cramped but with bogies and modern lightweight construction you could probably depress the lower deck sufficiently (and turn it from compartments to a saloon) to fit a version of these, first introduced in the early 1930s, within our loading gauge

(GFDL Didier Duforest)

 

 it would be an interesting design exercise. Our loading gauge (4.115m) is lower than that in continental Europe (4.28m) but only by about six inches though with a more rounded maximum roof section. You also don't actually need full headroom over the seats, you don't get that on the London tube or Glasgow Subway, so judicious placement of gangways would probably help.

It would be cramped though possibly no more so than tube stock so not ideal for long distances. However, the real downside for the TOCs might be the need to give everyone seats and that might go against the British philosophy for commuter services of cramming more passengers in by making most of them stand and providing fewer seats (Am I being too cynical?)

 

.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Pacific231G

[whart57]

Dare one suggest we start work on increasing our loading gauge? It might be a better way of significantly increasing capacity on London's commuter lines than the billions CrossRail 2 is going to cost.

[Coryton]

At the risk of being a bit OT by looking at imaginary coaches rather than just locos, I'm intrigued by your double deck Mk3 because I think a proper double decker night just be achievable within the British loading gauge.

19) Bulleid 4DD drawing cropped.jpg

4DD_no_4902_at_Ashford_Steam_Centre cc Hugh Llewelyn.jpg

(cc Hugh Llewelyn

This attempt by Bulleid using interleaved compartments was one less than successful approach but modern design should be able to do better.

 

We're clearly not looking for anything like this .

 

7) Jouef Etat (ouest) impériale side (c DT).jpg

(crude bur dimensionally accurate Jouef model of a CF de l'Ouest later Etat "Imperiale")

6) Imperiale Ouest no dimensions .jpg

 

This looks like a deathtrap for the very good reason that it was, leave your seat and you might well take leave of your head, but hundreds were built and  if you'd been a third class Parisian commuter you might have been confronted by one of these until about about 1930,

5). Ouest imperiale cc GIRAUD Patrick.jpg

(CC Patrick Giraud)

 

 

A much safer development was to use a lowered chassis to make room for an upper saloon.

 

10) voiture Bournique & Vidard.jpg

These, were much better and a few were in use until 1952

11) MONTMORENCY_1951 cc Claude Shoshany .jpg

(CC Claude Shoshany)

 

The upper level was rather cramped but with bogies and modern lightweight construction you could probably depress the lower deck sufficiently (and turn it from compartments to a saloon) to fit a version of these, first introduced in the early 1930s, within our loading gauge

VB_2N_Etat_Argenteuil- GFDL Didier Duforest cropped.jpg

(GFDL Didier Duforest)

 

 it would be an interesting design exercise. Our loading gauge (4.115m) is lower than that in continental Europe (4.28m) but only by about six inches though with a more rounded maximum roof section. You also don't actually need full headroom over the seats, you don't get that on the London tube or Glasgow Subway, so judicious placement of gangways would probably help.

It would be cramped though possibly no more so than tube stock so not ideal for long distances. However, the real downside for the TOCs might be the need to give everyone seats and that might go against the British philosophy for commuter services of cramming more passengers in by making most of them stand and providing fewer seats (Am I being too cynical?).

 

I think the problem is not just the reduced height in our loading gauge, but the restricted width at the bottom because of our high platforms.

 

This is of course not the first time this topic has come up on RMWeb...

[rockershovel]

Commuter trains have seats for all passengers?.......

[Bloodnok]

I think the problem is not just the reduced height in our loading gauge, but the restricted width at the bottom because of our high platforms.

 

This is of course not the first time this topic has come up on RMWeb...

We also have a third issue in the well length between bogies. Taking a Mk3 coach as a pattern, the available space between the bogies is only about half the length of the coach, which means once you add two sets of stairs, you're not actually getting much extra capacity per train length versus plain single deck coaches.

 

The fix for that is instead of using the bogie pattern of the Mk3, start with a shared bogie platform. I've heard suggestions of something like a CARTIC-4 as a base outline (and exploting the small wheels for a lower main floor throughout), but that implies a restriction to only lower speed operations, which feel more thematic to run as single deck with loads of standing space.

 

So I picked the APT bogie centers when I had a go, looking at longer distance work. With the twin pivots and balancing overhang (there's a lot that's ridiculously clever about the APT design...) that gives a much, much longer well space than anything else.

 

However, I still had issues getting it into a sensible loading gauge. The below is W6, which gives 3.965m height from railhead to the top of the coach, and a usefully wide well between the bogies which can still fit 2+2 seating comfortably. The top deck feels very ... tube-train like, and the lower deck also has to have very restricted height clearance, too.

 

This is how far I got along these lines (image dates from 2005):

 

 

I experimented for a while with staggered aisles and a non-flat intermediate floor (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowbridge_double-deck_bus for the kind of thing I mean), but eventually decided that a flat floor was probably better for both structural rigidity and the avoidance of trip and head-bump injuries. Remember that unlike the bus, the upper floor walkway absolutely has to be in the middle -- it cannot be at the edge. It is the lower floor walkway that must be put at the edge.

 

I had thought the best treatment of the upper area would probably be to put a bench seat continuously down one wall over where the extra head-space for the walkaway was below. This would disguise the non-flat floor almost entirely, albeit at the cost of some seated capacity upstairs.

 

On the lower floor, a slight duck might be necessary to access the seating from an edge corridor, as the roof would be lower over the seats.

 

After a brief bit of "I wonder how that would look with compartment doors..." nostalgia, I decided in the end that the loading gauge would have to go up by approximately ~20cm to allow for a flat floor.

 

After briefly experimenting with a roof profile similar to an american Bombardier Bi-Level coach, I decided instead to keep the roof-line smooth at the higher level, and this then gave me something that starts to look like this (Image dates from 2011):

 

 

Starting to look a bit more continental in pattern IMHO.

 

Also note the switch to longer windows for those who were using them as a length reference -- and they'd not been cut in yet because I was still tweaking the layout and position of doors and windows when I essentially gave up on this project.

 

Despite the fact the windows and doors aren't cut yet, it does actually have an interior with seats in it (donated from an original Mk3 temporarily to check for size references). Using these at a similar pitch and in a mostly-airline configuration gave a seated capacity of around ~124 in each vehicle. A respectable and worthwhile increase over ~80 from an all-airline Mk3.

 

Add in toilets and HVAC and so on to each vehicle and you'd have to be very creative not to lose some seats. You've also got to watch axle loading here - remember the intermediate vehicle is effectively on just two axles. There's enough space to make the shared bogie a three axle one, although that departs slightly from how the APT would have run, but it might have been a necessary change to cope with axle loading.

 

Then you get the requirement to cater for disabled access, including the provision of a disabled toilet, which would probably force one entire vehicle somewhere to be single-deck throughout. I'd planned one end vehicle would cope with this, but to be honest would probably end up being both.

 

And if you wanted it to be an EMU rather than loco hauled ... good luck finding anywhere to put power equipment along the train.

 

Ditto a catering car -- that's a challenge that would probably require going to single deck, too.

 

If you've then got three single deck vehicles in an EMU with perhaps five cars total, that leaves only two double deck trailers. Not a lot of extra seats per service.

 

I can certainly understand why this hasn't been done within the UK loading gauge before...

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bloodnok

[LNWR18901910]

Something built on a single bogie isn't actually that far fetched. Tractive Power Corp in Vancouver built a demo industrial switcher on single SD40 bogie. It's not hard to imagine something Vossloh-ish built on a class 47 bogie as a replacement for the 08. Possibly a hybrid (very useful for locos that don't spent a lot of time actually moving) and probably capable of 50mph on the main line. Not all that different from the proposed class 18 of the 1980s.

 

Class18.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Good luck making it into a model.

[runs as required]

Would adopting the Talgo pggy-back concept not work effectively in saving bogie space for a high capacity double decker ?

dh

(as someone who used to ride the Dartford 4DD units)

Edited September 21, 2017 by runs as required