Imaginary Locomotives

[relaxinghobby]

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by relaxinghobby
typo

[rodent279]

Has anyone done a GWR 2-6-4T or Baltic tank yet?

[JimC]

One thing is to think about Fireboxes and ash pans.  If you go to my blog you can find a number of sketches of Welsh 0-6-2Ts. Look at them and consider that rear axle/firebox/ash pan relationship.  Consider the wheel spacing in that light too, and i think it will help get the most prototypical looking options.

[33C]

6 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

The jinty chassis looks better proportioned and rear driver axle clears the firebox/ashpan. Looks like an N2!

[tythatguy1312]

12 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

to be completely honest the Jinty chassis-M7 Body combo looks far better. It certainly gives adequate space for the M7's firebox, though the cab would be rather cramped. Reminds me of how I used to privately swap bogies between models in Trainz: A New Era before they dropped the feature in Trainz 2019 onwards.

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

 

As others have said, the relationship between axles and firebox has to be right. With R1 on the cut-down L1 chassis, turn the chassis round so that the large spacing between the driving axles is to the rear. On both, bring the trailing wheels inboard a few millimetres. 

[Gilwell Park]

Try this for size. Modified old M7 body on Hornby jinty chassis.

[Captain_Mumbles]

Gday.

I always thought a non streamlined LNER P2 would look smart.

A peppercorn A1 body might have fit without too much work but I really wanted it to look more Gresley.

Here is my Hornby/Bachmann remix so far.

 

[rodent279]

On the theme of 0-6-0T to 0-6-2T conversions, I wonder if an 0-8-0T version of the 56xx 0-6-2T would find a niche role somewhere? Possibly the long fixed wheelbase would not be suitable for the valleys, but maybe somewhere else?

[rockershovel]

I do like the unstreamlined Gresley Mikado!

 

Why bother with the 0-6-2T? There's one in the original Hornby range if you want one.

 

There must be a good and sufficient reason why British builders never really pursued the 0-8-0T. I would guess that their only real use was heavy shunting and that tended to be more the province of 0-8-4 or 4-8-0 ypes and converted tender engines. (although the SR built a rather striking original design) 

 

 

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

Gday.

I always thought a non streamlined LNER P2 would look smart.

A peppercorn A1 body might have fit without too much work but I really wanted it to look more Gresley.

Here is my Hornby/Bachmann remix so far.

 

Push the envelope. Make it an inside cylinder 2-8-2!

[JimC]

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

On the theme of 0-6-0T to 0-6-2T conversions, I wonder if an 0-8-0T version of the 56xx 0-6-2T would find a niche role somewhere? 

Need a big reworking. The 56, like it's Rhymney forebears, had a rather long fixed wheelbase for a 6 coupled tank (though not as bad as Jinty et al), and an 8 coupled version with the 4th pair where the trailing truck was would have been a spectacular curve straightener. The SR Z looks to be a much better pattern, although looking at it I wonder about the grate/ashpan. 

There was, apparently, a Churchward era proposal for an 0-8-0PT with a very high pitched 45xx boiler, but it was seemingly abandoned at a very early stage. 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by JimC

[john new]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I do like the unstreamlined Gresley Mikado!

 

Why bother with the 0-6-2T? There's one in the original Hornby range if you want one.

 

There must be a good and sufficient reason why British builders never really pursued the 0-8-0T. I would guess that their only real use was heavy shunting and that tended to be more the province of 0-8-4 or 4-8-0 ypes and converted tender engines. (although the SR built a rather striking original design) 

 

 

I think because the traffic needing the grunt given by the extra driving wheelset was hauled on longer runs with more water and coal capacity needed than a tank engine could carry and instead companies built tender hauling 0-8-0s a plenty. Variable successes. Where I can think of UK freight tanks in use (S Wales & to the Co Durham staithes) they were often 0-6-2Ts. 
 

Edited December 28, 2022 by john new

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Where I can think of UK freight tanks in use (S Wales & to the Co Durham staithes) they were often 0-6-2Ts. 

 

Don't overlook:

 

 

and its 0-8-4T younger brother.

 

As for 0-8-0Ts, there was the Caledonian 492 Class of 1903 and a fair few built for industrial or colliery use.

[tythatguy1312]

I do suspect that there was room for an 0-8-0t based on the 56xx, but I can't imagine what it could do. The 56xx needed its trailing bogie for the additional stability when running through the valleys, something an 0-8-0 wouldn't have. It could work as a banking engine but the GWR didn't have enough suitable inclines to warrant a new design, and a heavy shunter is out of the question because GWR doctrine saw locomotives as large as Castles being used in the role.

[tythatguy1312]

11 hours ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

Gday.

I always thought a non streamlined LNER P2 would look smart.

A peppercorn A1 body might have fit without too much work but I really wanted it to look more Gresley.

Here is my Hornby/Bachmann remix so far.

 

ah nice, a P1 which wouldn't try to murder the poor fireman. Frankly it looks brilliant, but it does raise the question of what an unstreamlined A4/W1 would look like

Edited December 28, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[Mike 84C]

How about the two Cooke 0-8-2t from the USA and the later 0-8-2t built by I believe Nielson for the Port Talbot Rly? Built to haul 300t up 1 in 40 and 800t up 1 in 75 both at 12 mph. Fuel saved 29lb's per mile over 2 0-6-2t's. 

[rodent279]

32 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I do suspect that there was room for an 0-8-0t based on the 56xx, but I can't imagine what it could do. The 56xx needed its trailing bogie for the additional stability when running through the valleys, something an 0-8-0 wouldn't have. It could work as a banking engine but the GWR didn't have enough suitable inclines to warrant a new design, and a heavy shunter is out of the question because GWR doctrine saw locomotives as large as Castles being used in the role.

Maybe, if we combine Imaginary Railways with Imaginary Locos, and imagine the Bristol & Gloucester and the Birmingham & Gloucester had been acquired by the GWR, then an 0-8-0T based on the the 56xx could find a role as Lickey Banker?

[The Johnster]

Given Collett's proclivity for messing around with wheel diameters (54xx, 81xx, 31xx), it is more surprising perhaps that there was never a 5'2" 56xx for passenger work, though you could regard the Swindonised Rhymney P as this loco, or a 4'1" version for mineral traffic, though again you might regard the Swindonised Rhymney M as this loco.  Except on the Rhymney, where speeds can run up to 70mph below Ystrad Mynach and 90mph below Wernddu, speeds are not really high enough on Valleys lines to warrant the P version, though it might have found some use in suburban work elsewhere, West Midlands perhaps, and the 56xx as built proved capable of the mineral work; I'd suggest it as the best mixed traffic tank loco ever in the British genre, and the ultimate Valleys engine!

 

It was less comfortable than a Rhymney P or a Taff A in faster or longer distance passenger roles even in South Wales, but the Ps and As were concieved as passenger rather than mixed traffic engines anyway; anywhere but South Wales would have wanted driving wheel diameters about 6 inches bigger.  In late GW and BR days these locos were replaced by new 41xx series large prairies and standard 3MT tanks.  The 56xx is, to all intents and purposes, a Rhymney R with vacuum brakes built out of Swindon standard components; in fact, Swindonised rebuilt Rs needed a double take to be distinguished from 56xx at any distance, so closely copied were the general proportions of the locos.  Once you got closer, the wheels (especially the 56xx's centre drivers because of the big balance weights) and coupling rods (parallel fluted on the R) gave the game away, as did the area ahead of the smokebox.  And the vacuum pipes and bags of course.

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

How about the two Cooke 0-8-2t from the USA and the later 0-8-2t built by I believe Nielson for the Port Talbot Rly? Built to haul 300t up 1 in 40 and 800t up 1 in 75 both at 12 mph. Fuel saved 29lb's per mile over 2 0-6-2t's. 

29lb is what, 35% saving? Plus savings on crew costs and the capital and maintenance costs of the second locomotive ... the later, bigger 0-8-2T were by Sharp Stewart. They seem to have been rather camera shy. There is a topic here on RMweb about a conversion but the pictures don't appear to survive. 

 

The Sharp Stewart locos seem to have been a known quantity https://chasewaterstuff.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/steam-locos-of-a-leisurely-era-1889-0-8-0-0-8-2t-barry-railway/

Edited December 29, 2022 by rockershovel

[The Johnster]

18 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

56xx needed its trailing bogie for the additional stability when running through the valleys, something an 0-8-0 wouldn't have.

 

I'm really not sure about this.  It is certainly recieved wisdom that the popularity of 0-6-2Ts for valleys work is partly because the loco went slower up the hill and needed steadification on the faster downhil run, but this was not always the case.  Except for the lower sections of the Rhymney and Radyr-Crockherbtown on the Taff Vale, speeds were 50mph or less, and the benefit of the ponies on the downhill parts of the job is moot.  On top of that, the mineral trains, which anyway didn't run much above 20mph, were subject to 'incline working', in which handbrakes were pinned down at the top of gradients until the driver signalled that he could control the train, by which is meant that the drag from the brakes was sufficient to necessitate him pulling the train down the bank under power, so that it would come to a stop if he coasted.

 

Now, the success of this operation was never fully assured, as the momentum of loose-coupled trains at any point in time on a downhil gradient is never entirely predictable, and neither is the railhead condition nor the efficacy of whatever brakes you have available.  Many such gradients had runaway roads with sand drags at the bottom, and these habitually had piles of broken wagonry at the ends.  Never spilled coal, of course, that was very quickly found new homes...  But it worked mostly most of the time.  Often these runaways were not going particularly fast, but they couldn't be stopped, and 600-or-so tons, even at walking pace once it's built up some momentum and worn it's brake blocks down to the bolts, is something of a force to be reckoned with!  Sometimes they were a bit faster, and this is where the nerves of steel enter the equation; do you stick to your post or bail out?  Above about 35mph, with John Axon's ghost (and Casey Jones') looking over your shoulder, you don't have a choice, as jumping will kill or seriously injure you anyway.  I've had the experience in a brake van coming down Llanvihangel, and it isn't nice...

 

If you were overcautious and pinned too many down, then the loco couldn't pull the train against the brakes and you'd stall, which meant that the guard had to come forward and pick some of the brakes up, until the loco could pull the train, and the drivers were reluctant to ask for them to be pinned back down again once on the move in case the result was a further stall.  I became familiar with this world during the summer of 1965, the last of steam in the area, when I spent some time hanging around the brakesmens' cabin at Penrhos, always good for a cuppa and there was usually a chance of a brakevan ride or a footplate ride on the banker, usually a Radyr 94xx.  I got a ride on a 37 with the Dolomite trip over Walnut Tree viaduct on one of these occasions, but I digress.

 

Among the brakesmen, and the drivers I spoke to later when I was working on the railway, it was generally held that the 0-6-2T was the result of providing support beneath a bunker large enough for an 8-hour shift away from the shed, in which there might be several colliery clearances and a good bit of shunting, and in which the loco was under power and consuming coal even going downhill.  An 0-8-0 with driving wheels as large (by valleys standards) as a 56xx would have not had sufficient tractive weight and been a problem on the tight curves of the upper Rhymney, Taff Vale, and Barry at passenger speeds, though of course much heavier 8-coupled GW locos were used on other lines with tight curves, notably the Western Valley where strain on the frames led to excessive tank leakage.  The Barry and Port Talbot 8-coupled locos were built for specific tasks with smaller diameter driving wheels (and no vacuum or air brakes), and the LNW 0-8-2Ts and 0-8-4Ts were renowned track spreaders and curve straighteners, though nobody denied that they could pull trains up and down some very steep and long hills!

 

The only successful use of 8-coupled engines on South Wales passenger work was that of the LNWR G2a tender engines, which were used on the M,T,&A, and were highly successful on Tredegar-Barry Island excursions, heavily loaded up to 12 bogies and routed via Maesycwmmer and Walnut Tree viaducts.  And these ran down to the coast smokebox first and were triangle-turned at Barry, despite having tender cabs, so there was no directional advantage to be had. 

 

The reason for working uphill smokebox first in the valleys was that it assisted in keeping the boiler water level above the fusible plug in the firebox and ensured sufficient water in the rear of the boiler, the hottest part, to provide the best available steaming, and applied to all wheel arrangements.  The Cardiff Railway Kitson 0-6-2Ts, not dissimilar to the 56xx in leading dimensions and Swindonised in rebuild, were particularly well-regarded, incidentally, because of the tractive weight provided by their J50-like extended side tanks, but were not vacuum fitted and could not be used on passenger work.  Tractive weight enhances braking performance as well, because it helps prevent skidding especially on wet rail, and every little helped.  They may not have been particularly good at 'speed', such as it was in the valleys, though.

 

 

[Compound2632]

19 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

The 56xx needed its trailing bogie for the additional stability when running through the valleys, something an 0-8-0 wouldn't have.

 

There's a misapprehension here. The trailing axle of a 56xx, and of the various indigenous 0-6-2Ts it replaced, was not mounted in a bogie, pony, or Bissel truck, unlike, say, the leading axle of a 43xx 2-6-0. I'm not sure of the exact arrangement, whether radial or simply given increased sideplay. 

 

24 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Among the brakesmen, and the drivers I spoke to later when I was working on the railway, it was generally held that the 0-6-2T was the result of providing support beneath a bunker large enough for an 8-hour shift away from the shed, in which there might be several colliery clearances and a good bit of shunting, and in which the loco was under power and consuming coal even going downhill. 

 

Just so. A 0-6-2T is simply a tank engine version of the bog standard Victorian 0-6-0 mineral engine. One need look no further.

 

26 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The reason for working uphill smokebox first in the valleys was that it assisted in keeping the boiler water level above the fusible plug in the firebox

 

Again, one need look no further for an explanation of why these engines were worked chimney uphill.

[billbedford]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There's a misapprehension here. The trailing axle of a 56xx, and of the various indigenous 0-6-2Ts it replaced, was not mounted in a bogie, pony, or Bissel truck, unlike, say, the leading axle of a 43xx 2-6-0. I'm not sure of the exact arrangement, whether radial or simply given increased sideplay. 

 

 

It was a radial truck. 

[The Johnster]

Yes, quite correct, I should have said radial truck.  The RTR solution is to either have them floating about freestyle staying on the rails under their own weight and willpower (Mainline) or floating around freestyle with springing from above (Bachmann); I can't remember how matters were arranged on the Trix model.  One would hope that, if Bachmann ever consider retooling this loco (which it has to be said is a pretty good model and cracking value as it stands), they will provide a more prototypical treatment of this area.  One of my two Bachmanns has lost it's springing, Mainline style, but runs just as well and looks just as good as the other one, which suggests that the springing is unneccessary, though Bachmann clearly thought it was a worthwhile improvement.

 

[relaxinghobby]

On 26/12/2022 at 09:14, relaxinghobby said:

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

 

The motor is in the cab because it is so large, can't fit inside the body.

The crowded wheelbase would suit one of the Taff Vale Railway 0-6-2 tanks rather than the long M7 style body. Like the survivor Taffy tank, is it at the Keithly and Worth Valley line?

The old Hornby 0-6-2t is too large and over scale.

This chassis with the shorter body is nearer in style to a Taffy tank where their fireboxes where above the rear axle.

The fun of imaginary locos is chopping and changing and making one's own version, is that not so.