Imaginary Locomotives

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The 'missed opportunity' Standard loco was a 6' wheel 2-8-2 using the 7MT boiler and cylinders for a high adhesion 7P/8F. The 2-8-2 mixed traffic formula worked well in all of North America, France and Germany, so why not the UK?  Five hundred of these instead of a jumble of Standard 4MT, 5MT, 6MT, 7MT, 8P and 9F would be more like 'standardisation' on a format proven elsewhere.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Five hundred of these instead of a jumble of Standard 4MT, 5MT, 6MT, 7MT, 8P and 9F would be more like 'standardisation' on a format proven elsewhere.

 

And what would you do to provide employment for the drawing office staff?

[Niels]

20 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

 The 2-8-2 mixed traffic formula worked well in all of North America, France and Germany,

Not quite.

The  german 2-8-2 s  were all outlived by 2-10-0s

The last SNCF steam haul was done by a WW1 2-8-0 and the americans went for 2-8-4 and 2-10-4s

Edited September 28, 2023 by Niels

[Flying Pig]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

And what would you do to provide employment for the drawing office staff?

 

They could work on liveries like they have done since 1980.

 

29 minutes ago, Niels said:

Not quite.

The  german 2-8-2 s  were all outlived by 2-10-0s

The last SNCF steam haul was done by a WW1 2-8-0 and the americans went for 2-8-4 and 2-10-4s

 

 

Which locos were the last to be replaced by modern traction may reflect other factors than which were the most useful ten years earlier on a mostly steam worked railway.  So it may not be the best yardstick by which to judge design decisions made at that earlier period.  The French example just sounds like an outlier, as if you took it as indicating the most successful type, then all design work could have stopped in 1916.

 

 

[The Johnster]

The French success story was the 141R mikados, but these were not actually designed in France, they were American imports to an SNCF specification.  The BR standard mikado has come up a lot in this thread, usually as an alternative to the 9F, but I would have thought 5'8" wheels would be better than 6' for a mixed traffic engine, especially if it had roller bearings and a double chimney.  But there was really not much need for a big mixed traffic engine in the 1950s in the UK, with plenty of Halls, Black 5s, V2s, and S15s still with plenty of life left in them.  What was needed, increasingly as block circuit working of very heavy freight trains that had to be kept out of the way of faster traffic developed, what was needed was a heavy freight hauler that could run fast if it had to, and the 9F is a perfect iteration of that.

 

Resistance to 9Fs on the WR was primarily driven by the fact that they weren't 28xx, in the same way that Britannias weren't Castles and 3MT tanks weren't 5101s.  In other words the newcomers were 'Midland engines', and the view on the WR was that the Midland had been trying to take over since Swindon was ordered to build Stanier 8Fs for the War Department.  In fact the 9F was a better locomotive for much of the WR's heaviest jobs than a 28xx, and most WR drivers would unwillingly admit that if pressed.

 

Ivatt 2MT moguls were resisted because they weren't Dean Goods, but there was at least a bit of rationality to this.  Brecon and Moat Lane crews, who had mostly Cambrian loyalties, complained that they didn't steam as well as the Dean Goods they replaced on the Mid-Wales line; now, the Mid-Wales followed the Wye valley for most of it's route, was not noted for particularly difficult gradients or tight timings, and was somewhat bucolic in nature.  The complaints were passed to the Loco. Dept, Superintendent at Croes Newydd, who passed it up the line to Swindon, who passed it to Paddington, who passed it to Marylebone, who decided that Derby designed the loco and passed it to Derby.

 

Derby's feathers were slightly ruffled and they sent a response asking if the WR wanted a copper cap on the chimney, so Swindon unleashed their secret steaming weapon, Sam Ell, to investigate.  Ell discovered that the Dean Goods did indeed steam better than the Ivatt 2MT, and set about improving the latter with his usual blastpipe/chimney modifications.  This resulted in a 2MT pulling 20 coaches at 60mph along the main line between Swindon and Didcot.  The improved 2MTs successfully worked the Mid Wales, and some jobs on the precipitious Brecon & Merthyr route (5 miles at 1 in 38, anyone?) until the closure of those lines in 1962.

[Northmoor]

Surely the non-existence of a Standard 2-8-0 results from the sheer number of serviceable 28xx/38xx available to the Western, 8Fs available to the London Midland and WDs to just about anyone?  How many were in operation in 1955, something like 1700 in total?  If they couldn't cope with the traffic, well the 9F was on its way.....

[Ben Alder]

4 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The 'missed opportunity' Standard loco was a 6' wheel 2-8-2 using the 7MT boiler and cylinders for a high adhesion 7P/8F. The 2-8-2 mixed traffic formula worked well in all of North America, France and Germany, so why not the UK?  Five hundred of these instead of a jumble of Standard 4MT, 5MT, 6MT, 7MT, 8P and 9F would be more like 'standardisation' on a format proven elsewhere.

5'8" version.

[AlfaZagato]

Also, steam-era policy was generally a loco just right for each job.   One large class of 7MT replacing upteen lesser classes made as much sense as former Midland policy of Class 2 or 3 locos in multiple to match the work.  The 'Universal' Mikados in other countries weren't quite as universal as one might think.   On many American lines, a decently-sized Mikado was the bare minimum to maintain any sort of traffic efficiency on even lesser short lines.   

Japan was the other country married to the arrangement (and the reason for the name.)  Japan is surprisingly mountainous, so more tread offering power was desirable.

[The Johnster]

17 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Also, steam-era policy was generally a loco just right for each job.   One large class of 7MT replacing upteen lesser classes made as much sense as former Midland policy of Class 2 or 3 locos in multiple to match the work.  The 'Universal' Mikados in other countries weren't quite as universal as one might think.   On many American lines, a decently-sized Mikado was the bare minimum to maintain any sort of traffic efficiency on even lesser short lines.   

Japan was the other country married to the arrangement (and the reason for the name.)  Japan is surprisingly mountainous, so more tread offering power was desirable.

 

Good points.  British railway operators are not good at 'one size fits all' standardised locos, and when one does come along and is widely adopted, it is not long before it is subdivided into different sub-classes and allocated to specifc work, negating the whole point of the 'one size fits all' approach.  Examples would be the Class 37 and Class 47, BR's standard workhorses for many years.  A 47 could make a reasonable fist of any job in the country, not an ideal one perhaps but it would pull the train and make the timings, but within a decade of their introduction there were eth only, steam heat only, MGR slow control, long-range, and Scottish push-pull versions. 

 

A BR standard 7 or 8MT mikado would, similarly, be able to pull anything BR could hang on the tender during the 50s and 60s, and time it.  But that is not the same as saying that it should; the driving wheels are too small for fast work, resulting in damging hammer-blow more frequently than from wheels a foot larger in diameter, at the same time as being a bit on the large side for heavy mineral hauling of the traditional 25mph sort (9Fs were supreme in this role, and in the rapidly developing fast heavy freight work as well).  A jack of all trades is master of none. 

 

There were a lot of very effective 2-8-0s around.  The WR had the 28xx, with the 38xx series being only a few years old, LMS the Stanier 8F and the LNER the O4s and 01s.  Everybody had WD 2-8-0s for slow slogging jobs, ran like a bag of nails but the price and the quantity available were right.  There was a need in the 50s for more modern mixed traffic locos in the 5MT and under category, to enable the elimination of pre-grouping and early grouping 0-6-0s and 4-4-0s, but this was overtaken by the 1955 plan.  A Standard 8MT mikado starts to look like a solution without a problem; the forte of mikados abroad was as fast mixed traffic horses, but we had plenty of very good 4-6-0s for that, and not (yet) enough fast block freight work.  I suspect that, had  it been built, there would have been a similar discussion over the next 60 years on the subject of a proposed but never built heavy goods 2-10-0...

[JimC]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Ell discovered that the Dean Goods did indeed steam better than the Ivatt 2MT, and set about improving the latter with his usual blastpipe/chimney modifications. 

Yes indeed. Formal trials were run, and a Dean Goods tactfully prettied up in Riddles LNWR lined black to make the comparison, at which it came out well ahead. However it should be remembered that a 1950 Dean Goods was a very different beast to a 1890 one, reboilered with superheater, belpaire firebox and increased pressure, and, judging by dates on drawings, having had front end design work as late as the 1940s.

[rodent279]

Here's an imaginary loco that may have been touched on before.

The Hunsley Austerity 0-6-0ST had a short 11' wheelbase for 30'4" of loco. Would they have been better locos for short trip work if they had a leading & trailing axle, turning it into that rare beast the inside cylinder 2-6-2ST?

[JimC]

I think the trouble is that when you change from a shunter to a trip engine everything changes. The Austerity has a much smaller boiler than a locomotive required to run trips like a GWR pannier tank. I've heard it said the draughting could be improved too. Then if you're not going to be running on hastily laid uneven track with harsh curves, then the wheelbase can be increased a bit and it will ride better and the hornguides etc last longer, and before you know it you've changed everything but the space between the wheels. 

[Niels]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Here's an imaginary loco that may have been touched on before.

The Hunsley Austerity 0-6-0ST had a short 11' wheelbase for 30'4" of loco. Would they have been better locos for short trip work if they had a leading & trailing axle, turning it into that rare beast the inside cylinder 2-6-2ST?

A simple modification for all inside 0-6-0 locomotives  can be to put balancing rods on the driver outside pins.

We balance ca 50% up and down as usual with counterweigths in the wheels and the rest in the rods and that will also cancel the swaying  or yawing movements.

The Southern Q1 with 4 feet  drivers and wide firebox can run and track better at  speed if it had been made that way.

Bulleid knew this locomotve pre WW2 as inspiration.

Nord 141-T

Edited September 30, 2023 by Niels

[The Johnster]

Austerities run up to 25mph on heritage railway passenger trains, but not having ridden on one I can't comment as to their steadiness or suitability for the tasks beyond saying that it's not what they were designed for.  An Austerity is a Hunslet 18 inch industrial modified with larger driving wheels and some other detail alterations for war production and service, and as such may be regarded as a general duties engine for rough track in poor conditions, speed not being a primary requirement but Riddles clearly thought it advisable to up the driving wheel diameter, which would increase the viable top speed but, probably more importantly, increase the loco's 'range' between tank toppings.  Perhaps he had North Africa in the back of his mind.  It might be informative to look at Hunlset's customers for the 18 inch and the previous (Rapido) 16 inch; these were largely big steelworks, port authority, and colliery systems where the loco's range and T.E. cf other industrial six-coupled tanks was an advantage.  This was not a world in which speed mattered.

 

Both the aforementioned Hunslets and the Austerity design continued in production after the war, the Austerity being chosen as the NCB's standard loco and built by other manufacturers, showing that there was still a market for the older designs.  The popularity of the Austerity version may be in part explained by it's availability post-war, but, again, this was not a world in which speed mattered; the engine was fine as it was for the work it was put to.  Alternatives were the big 'Maerdy Monster' Pecketts and the final development of Andrew Barclays, both outside cylinder six-coupled beasties with smaller driving wheels and what look like smaller bunkers, though the tanks were enormous.  BR gave it's power classicifations to locos certificated to run on it's metals, and these may give some rough impression of power; Austerities were 5F, as were the big ABs, but the Peckett design was 7F, making Bullied's Q1's claim to be the most powerful 0-6-0 in the country a bit wobbly...

 

Making them into prairies for better running?  Two objections, firstly, what would be the point?  The Austerities' heritage operators are largely happy with them as they are and those that require faster/longer distance work have plenty of main line engines to do this that are going to be better, more economical, and more attractive to the punters.  Secondly, I'm not sure it would work.  On the Austerity, the pivot for the leading pony would have to be a long way forward to clear the inside cylinders an would therefore need to be very short or be a radial truck/carrying axle.  This would affect the adhesive weight and T.E., not in a good way.  Less problem positioning the rear radial, but again it might affect the adhesive weight.  Actually, three objections, the frames would have to be cut back to accommodate the additional pony/radial arrangements, possibly weakening support for the front end and bunker of the loco.  And, fourthly, I reckon the short coupled wheelbase would still adversely affect riding at 'high' speeds. 

 

On the other two designs, the outside cylinders make for an easier conversion to prairie form, but will not, I contend, affect the even poorer ride that these waddlers provide.  I've driven the big ABs at Talywaun, and while you can let 'em run a bit on the downhill with the empties, you have to keep them in check to avoid running away; there isn't any need for much more than about 10mph anyway.  They are classic heavy freight uphill plodders, all about the dig in and pull power, and not at all uncomfortable at the speeds they are intended for.  I would expect the Maerdy Monster to be the same.  I've managed two loco coal empties up the 1 in 14 Gelynos bank at Talywaun with an AB, but failed to get more than 50 yards up it light engine with an Austerity, to the considerable amusement of it's real crew!

 

Adding ponies and radials to an 08 might be interesting, though...

 

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Perhaps he had North Africa in the back of his mind. 

For North Africa diesels were the choice from the beginning. They were less conspicuous from the air than steam and the Whitcombe* locomotives used by the British were easily disguised as vans. *Two of them ended up at Longmoor and lasted into the sixties and the design was so good that several hundred were built for use on the continent after D day.

[rockershovel]

 

Can we declare a moratorium on the following;

 

- BR Standard 2-8-2 

- random combinations of GWR 4-6-0 parts

 

They being covered several times over by now....

 

 

[Compound2632]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Can we declare a moratorium on the following;

 

- BR Standard 2-8-2 

- random combinations of GWR 4-6-0 parts

 

They being covered several times over by now....

 

If you only want original contributions posted, I fear you would be killing the topic. I think this is at least the third outing for S.W. Johnson's 4-6-0:

 

 

[billbedford]

That looks silly, you could have deleted the second dome. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by billbedford
Typo

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

That looks silly, you could have deleted the second dome. 

No, to make it convincing, the forward Beatrice should become Beautiful.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

That looks silly, you could have deleted the second dome. 

 

And the duplicate trees. I maintain that two dome are better than one, providing independent control of the steam supply to each cylinder - useful when cornering... 

[JimC]

16 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Can we declare a moratorium on the following;

 

- random combinations of GWR 4-6-0 parts

 

Is that a general opinion? If the occasional what if of standard parts I post is unwanted then I'll go away.

[DK123GWR]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

Is that a general opinion? If the occasional what if of standard parts I post is unwanted then I'll go away.

Absolutely not! This work-in-progress wouldn't exist without your contributions to this thread:

Hornby Grange chassis, Bachmann Manor Boiler and running plate, 3D printed tanks, the rest Airfix 61xx. Some of the joins need smoothing out a bit more and the left cab steps need replacing before it gets painted.

[BernardTPM]

7 hours ago, billbedford said:

That looks silly, you could have deleted the second dome. 

And the coupled wheelbase is ridiculously long.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

And the coupled wheelbase is ridiculously long.

 

Really? 8' 6" + 8' 6" - only 6" more than the standard Midland goods engine and less than a good few 0-8-0s.

 

It's the boiler that's ridiculously long, even if you imagine it has a combustion chamber like Webb's 2-2-2-2s. (Perhaps it's the access to that the forward dome covers.)

Edited October 1, 2023 by Compound2632

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Absolutely not! This work-in-progress wouldn't exist without your contributions to this thread:

Hornby Grange chassis, Bachmann Manor Boiler and running plate, 3D printed tanks, the rest Airfix 61xx. Some of the joins need smoothing out a bit more and the left cab steps need replacing before it gets painted.

Actual models stand on their own merits.