Murican Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Even going off all my ideas and what I know about how Modernization of BR may have gone better, something truly worth of thought is the idea of a Stanier 10MT hauling container trains from London to Crewe, with a 8MT tank assisting her on the Lickey Incline. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo675 Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Flying Pig said: Sorry, no - I don't have a suitable device at home. I'm sure someone else can oblige though. As the LMS 2A-boilered engines became 7P under BR, do you see the Class 6 as a two-cylinder engine? Would that possibly exacerbate the rear end roll of the Scots et al? Hi There, A two cylinder locomotive would be the kind of thing I was thinking of, I would have thought that the locomotive would ride as a Std five dose reasonably, I would guess that the roll of the Scots is due to them being three cylinder locomotives. You could reduce the cylinder diameter by half an inch to 18.5" X 28" and leave the boiler pressure at 250lb and the TE figure would be equivalent to the Clans or up the cylinders by half an inch and drop the boiler pressure to 225 and be the same as the Clans at 27520lb. Gibbo. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted March 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 1, 2021 15 minutes ago, Murican said: Even going off all my ideas and what I know about how Modernization of BR may have gone better, something truly worth of thought is the idea of a Stanier 10MT hauling container trains from London to Crewe, with a 8MT tank assisting her on the Lickey Incline. Odd route to take. Crewe to Glasgow via Shap and Beattock however.... 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murican Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 minute ago, petethemole said: Odd route to take. Crewe to Glasgow via Shap and Beattock however.... Just a brain fart there is all. I could probably use studying British rail maps more often. - 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted March 1, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said: I would guess that the roll of the Scots is due to them being three cylinder locomotives. I had the impression it was at least in part due to the high c of g of the boiler and firebox. Bogie side control and the main springs were also factors that were adjusted to try and tame the problem, with limited success as I understand. Wouldn't a two cylinder loco have more asymmetric forces than a three cylinder one? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murican Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Not bad at British steam for a Yankee, am I? 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 No, and you know more about UK steam than most of us know about US steam. Keep at it M. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murican Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 I was also thinking about my LNER 4-6-4 and 4-8-2s. Would there be room for the A3s beyond the East Coast mainline? Maybe on the Great Central? If so, what could the A4s do if displaced by W2s and I1s? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murican Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Does anyone know of any restrictions that would prevent certain engines from working on the former Great Central? I ask since I was thinking of either having my idea for the Gresley T2 4-8-0s or a new fictional Gresley design work there. Though IIRC, the Gresley T2s were apparently proposed for Scotland. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 (edited) The GC had a reasonable loading gauge on its main lines, 9'3" wide and 13'5 high. The Great Northern was a bit higher. I have yet to find what gauge(s) the LNER itself used. There's a (little) bit more in the link in my sig. Edited March 1, 2021 by JimC 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted March 2, 2021 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2021 11 hours ago, Compound2632 said: That'll straighten the track out for you. Whether you wanted it straightened or not... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 9 hours ago, The Johnster said: Whether you wanted it straightened or not... I'm interested, its a standard 47 "fixed" wheelbase (the last pair of drivers had some lateral movement), but with a front bogie instead of the pony truck. I suppose if there is more lateral control in the bogie than the pony truck it must put more lateral forces in the track, but would it be as big a deal as you folks are suggesting? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted March 2, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, JimC said: I'm interested, its a standard 47 "fixed" wheelbase (the last pair of drivers had some lateral movement), but with a front bogie instead of the pony truck. I suppose if there is more lateral control in the bogie than the pony truck it must put more lateral forces in the track, but would it be as big a deal as you folks are suggesting? Fair point. It's supposed to run faster than a mineral engine and perhaps on the South Devon line which, I understand, has curves as well as gradients. I have gathered that one of the objections to a pacific design for the Great Western was length, even though most pacifics have a shorter coupled wheelbase than most 4-6-0s and 2-6-0s. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Hello everyone! After a wee bit of time away from photo editing, I’ve gotten back into the swing of it with two designs based on the 9F. First is a 2-8-0 version, quite possibly passenger or mixed-traffic. It does away with the monstrous gap between the running board and the wheels. The larger wheel diameter could lead to a feasible way of running over 60mph without the serious wear-and-tear on its drivers and associated motion. Second is something I’m either proud of or terrified of. This takes the 9F to a new level with a Garratt format. The drivers would retain their full size, with the locomotive probably coming somewhere between 25 and 30 metres in length. Tractive effort estimates anybody? 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Another one, this time a massive overseas-inspired track straightener of an engine. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Mini-50 anyone? 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 It’ s official, I’ve gone mad with tractive effort. SOMEBODY, PLEASE STOP ME!!! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murican Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I also had a what-if idea where the USATC built and operate a 4-6-0 counterpart to first the Pershings then the S160. Naturally, my idea would include the post-war Southern region using them on goods work. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, ScottishRailFanatic said: It’ s official, I’ve gone mad with tractive effort. SOMEBODY, PLEASE STOP ME!!! What do you need all those wheels for? Are we transporting solid blocks of depleted Uranium? 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, scots region said: What do you need all those wheels for? Are we transporting solid blocks of depleted Uranium? Not by any means - I just thought I’d go the Russian way with this odd design. Maybe to work at Consett? Or to get up the Lickey without a banker? I wonder if anyone else can find a purpose for any of my monsters. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, ScottishRailFanatic said: Not by any means - I just thought I’d go the Russian way with this odd design. Maybe to work at Consett? Or to get up the Lickey without a banker? I wonder if anyone else can find a purpose for any of my monsters. They'll work very well if I ever need to plead insanity. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Just now, scots region said: They'll work very well if I ever need to plead insanity. They’d sure do well in that regard! The Garratt 9F (12F maybe?!) could probably do a semi-fast 2000T+ train. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, ScottishRailFanatic said: They’d sure do well in that regard! The Garratt 9F (12F maybe?!) could probably do a semi-fast 2000T+ train. You could, though at this point the only thing out of the design office would be the laughter of broken men. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 minute ago, scots region said: You could, though at this point the only thing out of the design office would be the laughter of broken men. Too right! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRailFanatic Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Origin story time! BR STANDARD 12F EXPERIMENT - THE CREATURE OF CONSETT "This was an experiment I thought would go nowhere. I was both right and wrong. Right in that they didn't build more of 'it' - wrong in that 'it' really was built. In combining two Standard 9Fs with a supersized boiler, Riddles created a monster. However, it was an effective monster." "A 2-10-0+0-10-2, the most monstrous Garratt ever. They carted her off to Consett Iron. The 9F assignments were soon shown their place, as the Creature of Consett, as it became known, would charge up the grade with 2500 tons in tow. She was kept in a dark siding within the works itself, showing her face once a week to take a single massive delivery from overseas. Nobody knew anything of her, other than that Riddles was severely drunk when he designed her." What do you all think? Is it feasible or do you have an alternative fate for the Creature of Consett? 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now