Imaginary Locomotives

[JimC]

5 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I am an avid enthusiast of CONSTRUCTIVE discussion; I see no point in ENTRENCHED combatants firing their stale opinions at each other, when there is not the slightest possibility of them being swayed by their opponents' salvos.

On the other hand, if they can present their opinions and evidence rationally and without rancour or pointless personal attacks then it may serve to inform the rest of us. 

[tythatguy1312]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

On the other hand, if they can present their opinions and evidence rationally and without rancour or pointless personal attacks then it may serve to inform the rest of us. 

Unfortunately, from what I've seen of debates surrounding Thompson, arguments quickly start as the first point brought up, that of his Pacifics being rather visually unpleasant, is based in the personal aesthetic tastes of the person stating their opinions. Due to the influence of one's own personal taste from the get-go, this leads to debates quickly becoming fiery and emotional. Alas, I'm unsure as to why someone would actively dislike Thompson for aesthetic issues, especially considering how the (admittedly somewhat ugly) BR Standard Class 9f is regularly cited as extremely popular.

Edited July 4, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

..... the (admittedly somewhat ugly) BR Standard Class 9f is regularly cited as extremely popular.

 

Whhhhhhhhhhat?!?

 

The epitomy of form and function combined!

 

CJI.

[Mike 84C]

As an ex operator of 9f's back in the day. They were the canine gonads.

[John Besley]

Mike tell us some stories of working on the very best of BR Standards 

[melmerby]

18 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

They were the canine gonads.

I think this thread has become a total load of...........☹️

[Mike 84C]

Not tonight, way past my bedtime! had micoco!

[Johnson044]

Speaking of BR Standards, I've posted this on the "A Wild Kitbash Appeared" thread but thought it might cheer people up here too.

A new loco on Ebay. Britannia-y-Duchess-y sort of job. It's 0 gauge. I love the Tri-ang Britannia smoke deflectors fixed to the 0 gauge ones! 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175348066658?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Dca5cd9fe5b4d49838126dfeee61ccfc4%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D5%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D134170000774%26itm%3D175348066658%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2380057&_trksid=p2380057.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A874fbe04-02f0-11ed-b28b-824a269b463f|parentrq%3Af968227d1810a6e62b9da5ebfff2b44c|iid%3A1

[tythatguy1312]

To continue discussion of them, a unique possibility that's dawned upon me is what could've happened if Peppercorn, Ivatt, Bulleid or Collett had been trusted with the job of designing the BR Standard range instead of Riddles. There could be some truly fascinating potential here.

[Johnson044]

Bulleid definitely. Fletcher, Kirtley, Stroudley or Dean would have been glorious. Or, if considering Lazarus - how about Francis Webb!!

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Johnson044 said:

how about Francis Webb!!

 

Well, wouldn't see much difference in livery.

[AlfaZagato]

I hazard Collett would have been further evolution, as was his known way.   Admittedly, without the direct influence of his superiors at GWR, he may have come to similar solutions as Riddles.   Wasn't Riddles working largely from Stanier's influence?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Wasn't Riddles working largely from Stanier's influence?

 

I think a more accurate way of putting that would be to say that the influence of the ex-LMS Locomotive Drawing Office Staff was dominant. Too much focus on one individual distorts the picture - and remember that it was well over a decade since Stanier had had any real technical involvement with LMS locomotive design by the time the standard classes were being developed.

 

Riddles had accompanied Stanier on a tour of Germany in the mid-30s; the DR CME, Richard Wagner, and Stanier knew each other well. Riddles was, apparently, much influenced in his thinking about the standard classes by Wagner's standardisation programme on the DR, which emphasised simple, straightforward to maintain, machines.

[John Besley]

It was the small items that made the difference...

 

GWR Whistle and injector, sniffer valve,

SR clack valves 

 

Just to name a couple of items, read through the BR standard books and Riddles book and you should get an interesting idea

 

I think the BR Mk1 was a development of Bulleids coacches

 

Correct me if I'm wrong 

[The Johnster]

The mk1 gangwayed coaches with drophead buckeye couplers and pullman gangways were probably a development of both Bullied’s and Thompson’s all steel stock (themselves no doubt owing much to Gresley’s, but the end vestibules are perhaps more rooted in Bullied’s.  The gangwayed mk1s were innovative in their own right, though, with their central truss underframes.  
 

The Bullieds and Thompsons were both well ahead of the game as far as the big 4 designs went.  Ivatt’s were not much more than a stylistic advance on Stanier’s, still flat ended and while Hawksworth incorporated strengthened bow-ended steel underframes the body framing was still wooden. Both retained screw couplings.  
 

BR’s non-gangwayed mk1s, and much of the diesel and electric multiple unit stock derived from it, also retained flat ends and screw couplings; they were all-steel but modernity ended there!

[rockershovel]

One thing I have never quite worked out, is how the GWR managed to design a 4-6-0 with outside cylinders behind the leading truck and endow it with a quite majestic appearance, while the LNER's 4-6-2 variation on that theme simply looks misconceived. 

 

It can't just be the plate frames outside the leading axle...

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The mk1 gangwayed coaches with drophead buckeye couplers and pullman gangways were probably a development of both Bullied’s and Thompson’s all steel stock (themselves no doubt owing much to Gresley’s, but the end vestibules are perhaps more rooted in Bullied’s.  The gangwayed mk1s were innovative in their own right, though, with their central truss underframes.  
 

The Bullieds and Thompsons were both well ahead of the game as far as the big 4 designs went.  Ivatt’s were not much more than a stylistic advance on Stanier’s, still flat ended and while Hawksworth incorporated strengthened bow-ended steel underframes the body framing was still wooden. Both retained screw couplings.  
 

BR’s non-gangwayed mk1s, and much of the diesel and electric multiple unit stock derived from it, also retained flat ends and screw couplings; they were all-steel but modernity ended there!

What an exciting time the BR years must have been, for rolling stock designers... from the Mk1 non-gangway stock to the HST in under two decades! 

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The mk1 gangwayed coaches with drophead buckeye couplers and pullman gangways were probably a development of both Bullied’s and Thompson’s all steel stock (themselves no doubt owing much to Gresley’s, but the end vestibules are perhaps more rooted in Bullied’s.  The gangwayed mk1s were innovative in their own right, though, with their central truss underframes.  
 

The Bullieds and Thompsons were both well ahead of the game as far as the big 4 designs went.  Ivatt’s were not much more than a stylistic advance on Stanier’s, still flat ended and while Hawksworth incorporated strengthened bow-ended steel underframes the body framing was still wooden. Both retained screw couplings.  
 

BR’s non-gangwayed mk1s, and much of the diesel and electric multiple unit stock derived from it, also retained flat ends and screw couplings; they were all-steel but modernity ended there!

 

LMS carriage design was ahead of the game in the early 20s under R.W. Reid but had stagnated somewhat, as far as I can see - the basic underframe design never changed, for instance. What I'm unclear on is what the later history of the C&W department was - when did Reid retire, who was his successor, did the C&W dept continue to be autonomous? 

 

In other words, what was Stanier's role as CME in relation to carriage design? Are the so-called "Stanier" (or Period 3) designs actually the result of his intervention, or the result of a natural progression in design with the C&W drawing office?

[Flying Pig]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Bullied’s and Thompson’s all steel stock

 

Are you sure?  I thought the Bulleid stock at least was wood framed.

 

There was, I believe, a late batch of Porthole stock built at Derby which anticipated the all-steel contruction of the Mk1s and possibly the centre-trussed underframe.

[billbedford]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

LMS carriage design was ahead of the game in the early 20s under R.W. Reid but had stagnated somewhat, as far as I can see - the basic underframe design never changed, for instance. What I'm unclear on is what the later history of the C&W department was - when did Reid retire, who was his successor, did the C&W dept continue to be autonomous? 

Not really. 

At least some of the "Stanier" coaches had the body frames fitted into box brackets welded to the underframes. This meant that the continuous body side member could be dispensed with. Also there were some coach built with centre truss underframes. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

Not really. 

At least some of the "Stanier" coaches had the body frames fitted into box brackets welded to the underframes. This meant that the continuous body side member could be dispensed with. Also there were some coach built with centre truss underframes. 

 

But these were very late developments - post-war, I think, or perhaps originating with the articulated pairs? But also, do they show the start of some of the design ideas that went into the Mk 1s?

[62613]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The mk1 gangwayed coaches with drophead buckeye couplers and pullman gangways were probably a development of both Bullied’s and Thompson’s all steel stock (themselves no doubt owing much to Gresley’s, but the end vestibules are perhaps more rooted in Bullied’s.  The gangwayed mk1s were innovative in their own right, though, with their central truss underframes.  
 

The Bullieds and Thompsons were both well ahead of the game as far as the big 4 designs went.  Ivatt’s were not much more than a stylistic advance on Stanier’s, still flat ended and while Hawksworth incorporated strengthened bow-ended steel underframes the body framing was still wooden. Both retained screw couplings.  
 

BR’s non-gangwayed mk1s, and much of the diesel and electric multiple unit stock derived from it, also retained flat ends and screw couplings; they were all-steel but modernity ended there!

I think the GNR changed to all- steel underframes and, on the gangwayed stock at least, Pullman gangways and buckeye couplers, when Gresley became C & W superintendent in 1906. He had a large interest in the ECJS stock as well, so the NER and NBR would have been building similar from then as well, surely?

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by 62613

[62613]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In other words, what was Stanier's role as CME in relation to carriage design? Are the so-called "Stanier" (or Period 3) designs actually the result of his intervention, or the result of a natural progression in design with the C&W drawing office?

Or were they a compromise between the CME and his C & W department, after a series of meetings and rough sketches in daybooks?; Doubtless Stanier had ideas on what he wanted, but the C & W would surely advise him on what was possible with the available workshops and plant.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Or were they a compromise between the CME and his C & W department, after a series of meetings and rough sketches in daybooks?; Doubtless Stanier had ideas on what he wanted, but the C & W would surely advise him on what was possible with the available workshops and plant.

 

My point is that it is an unwarranted assumption that Stanier was the man with the ideas on how carriage design should develop; his career had all been on the locomotive side. 

 

Gresley, on the other hand, was a progressive carriage & wagon superintendent who was obliged to turn his hand to managing a locomotive drawing office.

[AlfaZagato]

Drifting a bit, with all this coaching discussion.

 

There were a number of railcar experiments by the Big 4 (and others, in other countries) pre-WWII.  GWR in particular had success with their cars.

 

Where would development overall have gone if the other railways had made good of their attempts?