Imaginary Locomotives

[tythatguy1312]

5 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

How would it stay on the rails?

Luck.ONLY luck.

Edited May 20, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[billbedford]

3 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html#annex4

 

  

 

Pity it's so wrong. 

[JimC]

13 hours ago, MikeOxon said:

Good to see 'imagination' returning to this thread - a Crampton Dragster - now that would be something :)

 

Slung some GW components together. Sadly the more I looked at it and the more design problems I picked up the more ridiculous the whole concept became... and if you think that's dreadful you should have seen some of the rejected features!

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by JimC

[tythatguy1312]

2 hours ago, JimC said:

 

Slung some GW components together. Sadly the more I looked at it and the more design problems I picked up the more ridiculous the whole concept became... and if you think that's dreadful you should have seen some of the rejected features!

 

 

I do believe my large height might preclude me from driving such a machine, but it is an impressive beast

[MikeOxon]

14 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

How would it stay on the rails?

Traction tyres

[tythatguy1312]

For an idea that I've certainly brought up before, I still remain fascinated by geared locomotives. Something I'm surprised I didn't bring up months ago is their potential use as heavy shunting locomotives or bankers, given their impressive power at speeds that make a Class 04 look like a HST. Yes Shunting locomotives hardly demand such complexity, but that never stopped Gresley.

Edited May 21, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[JimC]

8 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I do believe my large height might preclude me from driving such a machine, but it is an impressive beast

With my lowered boiler I suspect I may have drawn a footplate height that is actually above the firebox door! I had trouble with access into the cab. Perhaps the tank needs to be set back on the tender so the crew climb onto the tender footplate, not the locomotive one?

So if we do that and raise the boiler back to a more conventional height so the firebox is accessible...



Umm, maybe that's not an improvement! Its starting to make the Kruger's look pretty!

Incidentally, how does one describe that wheel arrangement? I suppose its a 4-2-2-0 of sorts, or perhaps 21A for the continental?

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by JimC

[tythatguy1312]

37 minutes ago, JimC said:

With my lowered boiler I suspect I may have drawn a footplate height that is actually above the firebox door! I had trouble with access into the cab. Perhaps the tank needs to be set back on the tender so the crew climb onto the tender footplate, not the locomotive one?

So if we do that and raise the boiler back to a more conventional height so the firebox is accessible...



Umm, maybe that's not an improvement! Its starting to make the Kruger's look pretty!

Incidentally, how does one describe that wheel arrangement? I suppose its a 4-2-2-0 of sorts, or perhaps 21A for the continental?

 

 

oh no I'm just too tall to fit in the cab of a Stirling Single or Dolgoch as-is, but that would probably be an improvement for the shorter of the GWR's crews

[MikeOxon]

On 21/05/2022 at 21:08, JimC said:

Incidentally, how does one describe that wheel arrangement? I suppose its a 4-2-2-0 of sorts, or perhaps 21A for the continental?

I don't believe that Whyte notation distinguishes between single carrying axles and bogies - it just states "carrying wheels".  Hence, yours is a 6-2-0.  Some people do use '+' signs for carrying wheels not in a bogie (e..g. 2+2-2-2 for the Gooch 'singles') but I don't think that is formally part of the Whyte scheme

 

Mike

[Flying Pig]

On 21/05/2022 at 21:08, JimC said:

So if we do that and raise the boiler back to a more conventional height so the firebox is accessible...

 

But the whole point of the Crampton is a low-pitched boiler.  I can't find an image on the web that shows a section of a Crampton, but this image of a long boilered type shows a low-slung boiler with the firehole high up under the crown plate so I guess that's how they were arranged.  No brick arch, so likely it was a coke-burner and I doubt the cold air from the firedoor did anything to keep the tubes tight.  Add a brick arch and firing would get very tricky.

 

Perhaps you should go for a mechanical stoker or even oil firing.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

No brick arch, so likely it was a coke-burner and I doubt the cold air from the firedoor did anything to keep the tubes tight.  Add a brick arch and firing would get very tricky.

 

The Crampton craze was over by the time the firebox arch was invented - except in France, where coke remained the fuel of choice for longer, I believe. The low-centre-of-gravity fetish had been exploded by then, too.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Compound2632

[tythatguy1312]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The low-centre-of-gravity fetish had been exploded by then, too.

Ah, the days before common sense and the leading bogie. Surprised an "American style" 4-4-0 was never used to test its stability instead of waiting for Sturrock to do it

[JimC]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

But the whole point of the Crampton is a low-pitched boiler. 

The whole idea of a 20thC Crampton is sufficiently ridiculous that its probably pointless to debate what the point is, but for the purpose of my flight of fancy I chose to believe that the key design aim was to have larger driving wheels than could be fitted under a 4-4-0 sized boiler.

It now occurs to me that the Crampton configuration might have been a better solution for Brunel's impossible to meet specification for Broad Gauge engines than any that were actually delivered. A 6-2-0 might have come closer to permitting Brunel's desired piston speed and thus very large wheels than any of the locomotives that were delivered? And maybe that's what inspired Gooch's chief draughtsman (for 'twas Crampton) to come up with the idea?

Edited May 26, 2022 by JimC

[AlfaZagato]

I wonder if a Crampton with a trick tender connection would have been improved?  Not much I suppose.   The oval boilers probably weren't the best idea, either.   

 

Improving a Crampton is building something other than a Crampton, at the end of the day.   Even solving the detail faults, you still have a design that intentionally shifts adhesion weight away from the drivers.   

 

I still want Est Modele's kit of one.  

[John Besley]

How about running the driving wheel crank axle in front of the backhead the same as a traction engine, then the firehole can go down below that allowing for a HUGE driving wheel

 

Will proberly need a steam powered tender drive to assist with starting

 

Bit Steam Punk

Edited May 26, 2022 by John Besley

[John Besley]

Didn't Mike Sharmon build one?

[Flying Pig]

59 minutes ago, JimC said:

The whole idea of a 20thC Crampton is sufficiently ridiculous that its probably pointless to debate what the point is, but for the purpose of my flight of fancy I chose to believe that the key design aim was to have larger driving wheels than could be fitted under a 4-4-0 sized boiler.

 

Getting large wheels under a boiler is more a question of fitting the boiler between the wheels.  The Crampton doesn't solve that problem for you as the firebox still sits between the wheels ahead of the driven axle, so if a conventional 4-2-2 won't work, I can't see a Crampton working either, unless you move the axle way back (that might be fun come to think of it).

 

You could invent a new type by reversing the chassis to place the smokebox and  a narrow parallel front ring of the boiler between the drivers with a steeply tapering rear section and firebox behind.  It would probably need to run as an 0-2-6 which might not go down well, unless you articulate two of them nose to nose as a 6-2-0+0-2-6.

 

If you really want 8' drivers and a modern boiler on standard gauge, it might still be easer to ask Beyer Peacock for a 4-2-2+2-2-4 Garratt and put up with the derisive laughter.

[The Johnster]

Jim C's Churchward Crampton is not really a Crampton, though it is close.  A proper Crampton has all the carrying wheels fixed in the frame, and the Churchward version has a leading bogie.  It might have had a serious purpose, high speed with small loads to replace the Dean Singles, though I've no idea how the set back cyldiners would have affected the ride.  The Churchward 'County' class, his only outside cylinder 4-4-0s and probably the nearest thing actually built to the 'Churchton', or is it a 'Crampward', were famous for not being the world's best ever riders.  The reciprocating waggling masses are probably better contained amidships than at the front end, but this is not my field of expertise. 

[JimC]

16 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Getting large wheels under a boiler is more a question of fitting the boiler between the wheels.  The Crampton doesn't solve that problem for you as the firebox still sits between the wheels ahead of the driven axle,

Excellent point, I hadn't properly considered that. I did give it a Std 1 length firebox though, so there's potential, but its still got to manage the transition between the rear corner of the box fitting between the wheels and the back of the boiler barrel being 5'6. I simply don't know enough about boiler design to comment whether its feasible to have the side of the firebox other than straight lines, or alternatively whether the firebox could be designed to taper from front to back in plan view. 

[Ohmisterporter]

On 26/05/2022 at 19:34, John Besley said:

Didn't Mike Sharmon build one?

 

This one? 

 

 

 

[Ohmisterporter]

Link to Mike's layout on You tube here. Starts with a Crampton hauling a train. 

 

 

[Pandora]

On 19/05/2022 at 22:26, tythatguy1312 said:

realistically speaking, that was due to the coal itself. Welsh coal, which the GWR extensively used, was almost competitive with fuel oil for locomotives, and actively proved superior for the day-to-day operation of Great Western Trains. However, crucially, the A1's were designed with Newcastle Coal in mind, which was lower quality and needed a larger ashpan and firebox to be used effectively. Hence, the Castles could get away with a smaller firebox for the same performance as the A1's.
It's also of note that the Castle has 4 cylinders, whilst the A1 has 3. This meant the Castle was more powerful, yet the A1's were easier going on maintenance for its work, even with Gresley's conjugated valve gear.

The Gresley Pacifics were heavy on coal in their original form,  uncomfortably close to an empty tender at the end of a duty, it is recorded as  a cause of worry to Mr Gresley,  Bert Spencer, was a key player in the corrective redesign work of the A1, Gresley and Spencer maintained   a strong life-long professional relationship, poor Spencer had a rough time by Edward Thompson  following the death  of Gresley  

Edited May 31, 2022 by Pandora

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Pandora said:

The Gresley Pacifics were heavy on coal in their original form,  uncomfortably close to an empty tender at the end of a duty, it is recorded as  a cause of worry to Mr Gresley

 

I would imagine it was rather more than a cause of worry to the firemen. Is it recorded whether Gresley had a deputation wait upon him?

[AlfaZagato]

University class?

[Pandora]

On 31/05/2022 at 07:28, Compound2632 said:

 

I would imagine it was rather more than a cause of worry to the firemen. Is it recorded whether Gresley had a deputation wait upon him?

Not sure I understand your question, by deputation in waiting,  do you mean a group of people loyal and supportive of Gresley?  Doncaster  Plant Works were loyal to Gresley and Peppercorn too, My Grandfather worked as a boilersmith at the Plant, retiring around 1960 with 40 years of service, as a young boy I recall hearing him tell, in colourful words, of the universal distrust and dislike of the autocratic Edward Thompson, and the welcome  appointment  of genial Arthur Peppercorn when Thompson retired.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Pandora