Imaginary Locomotives

[Compound2632]

Actually the high vestigial runningplate of Ivatt's 4MT  ('Flying Pig' is it unfairly called by traditionalists ?) would accommodate the Crab's high steeply inclined cylinders rather well!

First time this has occurred to me.

dh

 

I was thinking of Ivatt's 2MT, the third class of LMS 2-6-0, the 4MTs being the fourth and final. But I agree, the 4MTs were more in the line of succession, the 2MTs being for quite different duties. 

[rockershovel]

I've just googled the Ivatt 4MT. My, that's an unsightly thing.

 

The 2MT type looks very American, somehow?

[Compound2632]

I've just googled the Ivatt 4MT. My, that's an unsightly thing.

 

The 2MT type looks very American, somehow?

 

Ivatt had to cope with post-war austerity - really thorough-going modernism: form follows function. Riddles rather smoothed things over with the external appearance of the otherwise rather similar standard 2-6-0s.

[runs as required]

I reckon my Ivatt Crab rebuild looks fairly plausible (if you don't peer too closely)

 

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Ivatt 4MT double chimney didn't steam too well and in an earlier Age of Austerity was one luxury too far and had to be discarded. However a  Giesel oblong ejector would have looked pretty steampunk

 

dh

Edited October 8, 2017 by runs as required

[melmerby]

I reckon my Ivatt Crab rebuild looks fairly plausible (if you don't peer too closely)

 

ivatt crab rebuild.jpg

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Ivatt 4MT double chimney didn't steam too well and in an earlier Age of Austerity was one luxury too far and had to be discarded. However a  Giesel oblong ejector would have looked pretty steampunk

 

dh

Pointing out the rather obvious.

With the later higher pressure boiler those large cylinders can go.

Then you can place the smaller ones horizontally and Oh! Stanier's already done that.

 

Keith

[runs as required]

Pointing out the rather obvious.

With the later higher pressure boiler those large cylinders can go.

Then you can place the smaller ones horizontally and Oh! Stanier's already done that.

Keith

Um....

...Bbbut - Just think - with that really big high pressure Ivatt boiler and those big fat Hughes cylinders, just one of these "could pull two of Churchward's 43XXs backwards"

  dh

[844fan]

the RHDR pacifics dont just look like the  early gresley pacifics, they are directly base on "Great northern", Gresley was also a friend of Howey and there are photos of him on the railway

I'm glad you said something Sam. I have seen many of these outlines for miniature railways and I have always had a nagging feeling Gresley had some connection to them. Now I know they are based heavily off the A1s during their test era. Huh guess that means there really is a class we could call A0s out there.

 

I mainly chose Hurricane as the original possibility of makijg a standard gauge locomotive due to her "Elephant Ear" style smoke deflectors (It's what my father has always called UP 844's so it kind of stuck with me. Of course the kind Scottsman is wearing now are not Elephant Ears they are quite different and I'd call em shield type if I had to since they are quite like sideways shields from a knight.) but seeing that she is more or less a A1 I may look at other miniature designs that have a design unlike others and give them the "Elephant Ears" after I design them. Eh definitely not the strangest freelanced design for my railway nah I'd say that honor goes to the Irish K3 Mogul outlined engine with Pannier tanks on it's sides.

 

Yeah a tender Pannier locomotive. Just came to me after I saw a photo of one of the K3s they tested all the new fittings for the "Turf Burner" with a odd set of boiler additions I thought were tanks not boilers.

 

 

They could employ giant drivers to operate from the tender

 

But Ents can't drive a steam locomotive they'd end up burning to death.

[Hroth]

Um....

...Bbbut - Just think - with that really big high pressure Ivatt boiler and those big fat Hughes cylinders, just one of these "could pull two of Churchward's 43XXs backwards"

  dh

Rather unambitious for a design that was 50 years in advance of the 43xx?

 

Or, I'd venture to say, a grudging tribute to the excellence of the 43xx design.......

 

 

H,C & O

[Corbs]

By that time the Manors and Granges had appeared, so I guess the test would be against them.

[Hroth]

I think the tug'o'war meme dates from when Churchward was asked why one of his engines (a Star) cost twice as much as an LNWR engine (a Claughton), and he said something to the effect that the Star could do twice the work.....

[FPH 603]

On post #1284 I mentioned a MetroVick V set Double Decker, also a Sketchup model. I've also come up with an alternative front end slightly based on the class 312. I'm still considering the Destination Board and maybe a sunshade and conventional locomotive buffers too.

[BernardTPM]

I mainly chose Hurricane as the original possibility of makijg a standard gauge locomotive due to her "Elephant Ear" style smoke deflectors (It's what my father has always called UP 844's so it kind of stuck with me. Of course the kind Scottsman is wearing now are not Elephant Ears they are quite different and I'd call em shield type if I had to since they are quite like sideways shields from a knight.) but seeing that she is more or less a A1 I may look at other miniature designs that have a design unlike others and give them the "Elephant Ears" after I design them. Eh definitely not the strangest freelanced design for my railway nah I'd say that honor goes to the Irish K3 Mogul outlined engine with Pannier tanks on it's sides.

One A3 had 'Thompson/Peppercorn' style deflectors - Humorist. Not quite the same as the Romney style deflectors, but not a million miles out.

[runs as required]

On post #1284 I mentioned a MetroVick V set Double Decker, also a Sketchup model. I've also come up with an alternative front end slightly based on the class 312. I'm still considering the Destination Board and maybe a sunshade and conventional locomotive buffers too.

A fascinating comparison ot the two front ends.for your model.

 

I have to say that if it were not for the 312 front end pictured above, I'd have said the influence for the doorless option was the long lived Metro Cammel 101 DMU.

 

When they first came out in the later 1950s Metro Cammels looked safe and more solidly resolved compared to the earlier Derby lightweights and 'Birminghams'; plus they came with the (then high value) branding of 'Rolls-Royce powered' - very classy.

But by the time they were supplanted by Pacers on our Northern lines, they had become the Cinderellas, unreliable, drab and as hot as Hell.

 

Function has to play its part, so what about the connecting door on the other version? Visually IMHO it looks more part of the rest of the train; are they no longer necessary for in-tunnel passenger escape/interconnection for the crew?

 

Paint schemes, liveries (or these days random computer graphic fantasies on vinyl film) play their part in changing visual perception. No doubt you have ideas for this.

 

Your decisions awaited with interest.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Of course the kind Scotsman is wearing now are not Elephant Ears they are quite different and I'd call em shield type if I had to since they are quite like sideways shields from a knight.) ...

You might even call them 'Witte' deflectors: so named for the German State Railway designer, on which system the design originated.

 

As youngsters we called them 'the blinkers' when they appeared on the A3's. That was for the likeness to the blinkers put on horses, and very apposite because the Gresley non-streamlined pacifics were known by many as 'racehorses' from being given names of horses which had won classic events.

[modelpara]

On post #1284 I mentioned a MetroVick V set Double Decker, also a Sketchup model. I've also come up with an alternative front end slightly based on the class 312. I'm still considering the Destination Board and maybe a sunshade and conventional locomotive buffers too.

 

Is this an australian prototype?

[Ohmisterporter]

I think the tug'o'war meme dates from when Churchward was asked why one of his engines (a Star) cost twice as much as an LNWR engine (a Claughton), and he said something to the effect that the Star could do twice the work.....

 

What Churchward is reputed to have said when asked why Swindon locos cost twice as much as LNWR locos is "Because one of my engines can pull two of their bloody things backwards". A pity no one had the wit to ask him where the requirement for that appeared in the railway's timetable.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Ohmisterporter

[tomparryharry]

You might even call them 'Witte' deflectors: so named for the German State Railway designer, on which system the design originated.

 

As youngsters we called them 'the blinkers' when they appeared on the A3's. That was for the likeness to the blinkers put on horses, and very apposite because the Gresley non-streamlined pacifics were known by many as 'racehorses' from being given names of horses which had won classic events.

I understand they are St. Leger winners.

 

I don't know why, Eastern region pacifics just don't 'do it' for me.

 

No wars, please....

 

Ian.

[FPH 603]

Is this an australian prototype?

It sounds stupid but it is an Australian prototype made for BR (my design is). The original is from Sydney.

[Compound2632]

I understand they are St. Leger winners.

 

I don't know why, Eastern region pacifics just don't 'do it' for me.

 

No wars, please....

 

Ian.

 

Also Derby winners, I believe. Now you've got me imagining an A3 in full LMS express passenger livery - I suppose that would have to be Red Rum. (OK, I know he was a Grand National horse - but it was Derby that made the connection for me...)

[bimble]

It sounds stupid but it is an Australian prototype made for BR (my design is). The original is from Sydney.

 

hehe, thought it looked vaguely familiar!!

 

[runs as required]

It sounds stupid but it is an Australian prototype made for BR (my design is). The original is from Sydney.

Ha!   I hadn't realised that; how interesting.

So is that particular part of the Australian railway system (which I understand to be standard gauge) compatible with the British loading gauge?

I had concluded that general UK clearances precluded conventional bogied DD stock, unless with severely restricted internal height dimensions. Hence my opting for the short articulated Talgo format as in post 1203 page 49.

 

I suppose the longer (mark 3 length) DD coach could be feasible on newer routes - eg HS1 out to Kent and Crossrail. The 4SUB DDs were I believe only viable on the Dartford line

[FPH 603]

A fascinating comparison ot the two front ends.for your model.

 

I have to say that if it were not for the 312 front end pictured above, I'd have said the influence for the doorless option was the long lived Metro Cammel 101 DMU.

 

When they first came out in the later 1950s Metro Cammels looked safe and more solidly resolved compared to the earlier Derby lightweights and 'Birminghams'; plus they came with the (then high value) branding of 'Rolls-Royce powered' - very classy.

But by the time they were supplanted by Pacers on our Northern lines, they had become the Cinderellas, unreliable, drab and as hot as Hell.

 

Function has to play its part, so what about the connecting door on the other version? Visually IMHO it looks more part of the rest of the train; are they no longer necessary for in-tunnel passenger escape/interconnection for the crew?

 

Paint schemes, liveries (or these days random computer graphic fantasies on vinyl film) play their part in changing visual perception. No doubt you have ideas for this.

 

Your decisions awaited with interest.

 

The removal of the end communication door came out from my experimentation with the model. When I did this, that's when I came up with the alternative front. The reason I chose the class 312 as the basis is due to it being an EMU, unlike the 101. I also find that EMU's front ends are either very plain or very characteristic. In the subject of the paint schemes, I never intended it to be a MODERN prototype, my intentions were for it to run during the 1974 - 1990's period. I was going to use a simple retool of the original 'Blue Goose' colour scheme, but if I do go with the alternative front I think it will take a more consideration.

 

hehe, thought it looked vaguely familiar!!

 

It's funny that you mention the S set. It's interesting that the V set actually was proposed (and the first series built) prior to the NSW railways even thinking of such an idea. My model is actually going to have completely smooth sides at the bottom deck window level, just like the series one S sets. Edited October 9, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[runs as required]

Also Derby winners, I believe. Now you've got me imagining an A3 in full LMS express passenger livery - I suppose that would have to be Red Rum. (OK, I know he was a Grand National horse - but it was Derby that made the connection for me...)

Can I please request the script of a dialogue at LMS headquarters Euston where Sir Josiah Stamp instructs Anderson to order Gresley Pacifics to finally solve the LMS chronic lack of effective express passenger motive power?

dh

[FPH 603]

Ha! I hadn't realised that; how interesting.

So is that particular part of the Australian railway system (which I understand to be standard gauge) compatible with the British loading gauge?

I had concluded that general UK clearances precluded conventional bogied DD stock, unless with severely restricted internal height dimensions. Hence my opting for the short articulated Talgo format as in post 1203 page 49.

 

I suppose the longer (mark 3 length) DD coach could be feasible on newer routes - eg HS1 out to Kent and Crossrail. The 4SUB DDs were I believe only viable on the Dartford line

I'm still finding a potential line for it to run on. I'm thinking I might have to come up with a new line along with it. It's interesting to point out that it was only luck that the NSW railways could even fit double deckers in the first place, so what would have come of the railways if they couldn't fit them?

 

EDIT: I will also say that like the series one V sets that the equipment will be shared between two carriages, meaning I will make them semi permanently coupled two car sets which can form into an eight car set which can divide into two four car sets. I'm also considering whether to move the Pantograph to the trailer or to keep it in the motor car. (There will be one pantograph per 4 car train).

Edited October 9, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[844fan]

I understand they are St. Leger winners.

 

I don't know why, Eastern region pacifics just don't 'do it' for me.

 

No wars, please....

 

Ian.

Hey we all have our likes my friend. Some hate E2s I like them, Some can't stand industrial designs though seeing the topic of this thread we are unlikely to see them in this thread. Seeing as how any design that isn't a real class or design could be called a industrial design and all.