Imaginary Locomotives

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Some discussion of the Hughes Dreadnought 4-6-0 at the links below.  Apart from Cox, nobody seems particularly impressed

 

Cox was a Horwich man, of course! It was recently pointed out to me by an L&Y enthusiast that the BR Standard Class 4 4-6-0 wears the Dreadnought chimney...

Edited February 5 by Compound2632

[PrincePalatine2551]

15 hours ago, 62613 said:

The top one looks like a 4 - 6 - 0 to me; is the ashpan behind  the rear coupled wheels?

You’re right. I’ve changed it now. And about the ashpan, for the Atlantic, it's behind the rear driving wheel but the 4-6-0 has it on the rear coupled wheels. It’s just not visible

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Cox was a Horwich man, of course! It was recently pointed out to me by an L&Y enthusiast that the BR Standard Class 4 4-6-0 wears the Dreadnought chimney...

Not just that one, all the BR standards had a Horwich pattern chimney as selected by Cox himself.

[Flying Pig]

19 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Not just that one, all the BR standards had a Horwich pattern chimney as selected by Cox himself.

 

Horwich pattern, but surely not the same as the Dreadnought which has a very distinctive shape.

[DenysW]

7 hours ago, PrincePalatine2551 said:

What I meant is that instead of hauling long passenger trains, the LMS used to do more frequent and stopping trains, leaving no necessity for larger locomotives. The idea of creating shorter journeys came from the Midland Railway.

Also part of the myth. There's no evidence that I've seen that the LMS changed the schedules to make the services more frequent and/or with more stops. By Grouping the companies had just-about reinstated the pre-War schedules, so checking this would also be very difficult.

 

Extra to @Flying Pig's point, the truth appears to be that the LMS underestimated the need to maximise use of their best gradients to Manchester & Scotland, which were decisively the LNWR routes from Euston, and the publicity benefits of being time-competitive to Scotland, where their route to Edinburgh was tougher than LNER's. There seems also to have been a bit of a p$ssing contest between GWR, LMS, and LNER about producing the most powerful hand-stoked locomotives, whilst Southern got on with electrification to make itself more profitable/less loss-making

 

So first LMS went Royal Scots (but only 70 of them), then the Duchesses, again a small-ish, specialised class. They tightened times on the ex-LNWR route as the 1930s progressed, but not particularly on the ex-Midland routes.

 

They did continue the Victorian/Edwardian policy of trying to run the correct size locomotive+train combination for the actual duties, but the only exception to this, post-Grouping, seems to have been Bulleid's belief in still-over-sized small Pacifics.

[Michael Edge]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Horwich pattern, but surely not the same as the Dreadnought which has a very distinctive shape.

It’s the rim shape that was pure Horwich.

[The Lurker]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Also part of the myth. There's no evidence that I've seen that the LMS changed the schedules to make the services more frequent and/or with more stops. By Grouping the companies had just-about reinstated the pre-War schedules, so checking this would also be very difficult.

 

Extra to @Flying Pig's point, the truth appears to be that the LMS underestimated the need to maximise use of their best gradients to Manchester & Scotland, which were decisively the LNWR routes from Euston, and the publicity benefits of being time-competitive to Scotland, where their route to Edinburgh was tougher than LNER's. There seems also to have been a bit of a p$ssing contest between GWR, LMS, and LNER about producing the most powerful hand-stoked locomotives, whilst Southern got on with electrification to make itself more profitable/less loss-making

 

Lord Nelson? I seem to recall reading that it was the most powerful in terms of tractive effort, albeit briefly until the King class emerged.

[TrainzBrainz23]

Would this fit here?

A fictional boxcab I drew up based on the main chassis of a Pennsylvania Railroad GG1 and a body from some cabooses (cabeese?) lettered for a fictional railroad I'm thinking up. Heavily inspired by the works from this site.

Edited February 16 by TrainzBrainz23

[Buckfire]

Everyone, I’ve got an idea that I think would be interesting for any modelers here: what would it look like if Sir Henry Fowler took inspiration from some of Richard Maunsell’s designs, such as the Schools class, the U class and the Z class? I’m just curious what “Fowlerized” versions of these engines would look like. I’d draw them myself, but I need to work on my drawing skills more before I try that. 

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Buckfire said:

Everyone, I’ve got an idea that I think would be interesting for any modelers here: what would it look like if Sir Henry Fowler took inspiration from some of Richard Maunsell’s designs, such as the Schools class, the U class and the Z class? I’m just curious what “Fowlerized” versions of these engines would look like. I’d draw them myself, but I need to work on my drawing skills more before I try that. 

 

Maunsell's designs were already Derbified to a degree through his Chief Draughtsman, James Clayton. Maunsell seems to have been good at picking the best - both personnel and design ideas - from elsewhere.

Edited February 16 by Compound2632

[Buckfire]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

Maunsell's designs were already Derbified to a degree through his Chief Draughtsman, James Clayton.

Huh, I didn’t know that, thanks for the info. 

[Compound2632]

Just now, Buckfire said:

Huh, I didn’t know that, thanks for the info. 

 

The interconnectedness of the locomotive engineering community at that time - and indeed since the days of George Stephenson - makes for an interesting study.

[Buckfire]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The interconnectedness of the locomotive engineering community at that time - and indeed since the days of George Stephenson - makes for an interesting study.

I’d bet, there are plenty of engineers who have similar design philosophies. 

[Buckfire]

I suppose that I should rephrase what I was trying to say earlier, I’d like to see what lms versions of those classes would look like, and I’d like some help working out the details if it’s not too much trouble. 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Buckfire said:

I suppose that I should rephrase what I was trying to say earlier, I’d like to see what lms versions of those classes would look like, and I’d like some help working out the details if it’s not too much trouble. 

 

I think the Z is almost there. Perhaps give it the Lickey Banker's 4-cylinder front end.

 

The Wikipedia article on the U says "The U class design drew from experience with the GWR 4300s and N classes, improved by applying Midland Railway ideas to the design, enabling the SECR to influence development of the 2-6-0 in Britain." - which says, job done! (Though there will be a school of thought that rebels against the idea of Derby improving on Churchward's 43xx!)

 

The Schools is a bit more problematic, since with its round-topped firebox it harks back to Urie's designs for the LSWR, also developed by Maunsell, ultimately to the King Arthurs, whereas the Derby school was wedded to the Belpaire firebox. But the 3-cylinder layout is very LMS...

 

The Schools were Class V. It's interesting to compare with another Class V of the time, also 3-cylindered, and heavily influenced by the Midland / LMS compounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNRI_Class_V.

[Buckfire]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think the Z is almost there. Perhaps give it the Lickey Banker's 4-cylinder front end.

 

The Wikipedia article on the U says "The U class design drew from experience with the GWR 4300s and N classes, improved by applying Midland Railway ideas to the design, enabling the SECR to influence development of the 2-6-0 in Britain." - which says, job done! (Though there will be a school of thought that rebels against the idea of Derby improving on Churchward's 43xx!)

 

The Schools is a bit more problematic, since with its round-topped firebox it harks back to Urie's designs for the LSWR, also developed by Maunsell, ultimately to the King Arthurs, whereas the Derby school was wedded to the Belpaire firebox. But the 3-cylinder layout is very LMS...

 

The Schools were Class V. It's interesting to compare with another Class V of the time, also 3-cylindered, and heavily influenced by the Midland / LMS compounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNRI_Class_V.

Well then, how much of the Southern V class would you need to change to “derbyfy” it? I mean you’re right about the firebox needing to be a Belpaire design, but besides the cab being change to accommodate the new firebox, I can’t really think of anything else. 

[DenysW]

I initially posted this elsewhere, i.e. in the wrong place ...

 

If you really wanted to use external combustion to travel at 150 mph (on the flat or on downgrades), surely the answer is to take one of the most powerful 4-2-2 Singles, and replace its reciprocating bits with a turbine. The combination of a single with a turbine eliminates hammer, and the final versions of the singles fitted-in at 20 tons/axle. Roller-bearings all round, including the carriages. All-wheel brakes, as-well.

 

You'd have to manage expectations that the services was limited to about 2-3 coaches, and probably would be at 75 mph uphill on adverse mainline gradients (180 tons gross requires 730 hp to do 75 mph up a 1:110, neglecting all other losses). Presumably this is similar to the logic that lead the 'Flying Hamburger' in the 1930s to be a very small, very fast, diesel-powered train. 

 

On reading (too many) of Cecil J. Allan's 'British Locomotive Practice and Performance' articles, fairly dramatic loss of top speed on upgrades was regarded as normal, rather than embarrassing back in the golden age of steam.

[The Lurker]

On 16/02/2024 at 21:55, Compound2632 said:

 

I think the Z is almost there. Perhaps give it the Lickey Banker's 4-cylinder front end.

 

The Wikipedia article on the U says "The U class design drew from experience with the GWR 4300s and N classes, improved by applying Midland Railway ideas to the design, enabling the SECR to influence development of the 2-6-0 in Britain." - which says, job done! (Though there will be a school of thought that rebels against the idea of Derby improving on Churchward's 43xx!)

 

The Schools is a bit more problematic, since with its round-topped firebox it harks back to Urie's designs for the LSWR, also developed by Maunsell, ultimately to the King Arthurs, whereas the Derby school was wedded to the Belpaire firebox. But the 3-cylinder layout is very LMS...

 

The Schools were Class V. It's interesting to compare with another Class V of the time, also 3-cylindered, and heavily influenced by the Midland / LMS compounds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNRI_Class_V.

The reason that the Schools were given a round topped boiler was the restricted nature of the Hastings line for which they were designed- the original plan I believe was to use a shortened Lord Nelson boiler.

 

and of course we could speculate what an LMSified Lord Nelson would’ve looked like but we all know where that would take us….😉

[SteamedLyons]

Is this anything? :3

Edited March 24 by SteamedLyons

[Northmoor]

36 minutes ago, SteamedLyons said:

 

Is this anything? :3

Not sure it's imaginary, it's 75078 in Haworth Yard on the KWVR.  One of the Southern Region-allocated batch with double chimney and BR1B tender, providing a larger water capacity to compensate for the absence of water troughs on the Southern.

[Lochgorm]

There is some jiggery pokery as the real Standard 4s had a solid front underneath the smokebox door as the footplate dropped down to bufferbeam level.

Charlie

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Not sure it's imaginary, it's 75078 in Haworth Yard on the KWVR.  One of the Southern Region-allocated batch with double chimney and BR1B tender, providing a larger water capacity to compensate for the absence of water troughs on the Southern.

 

Runing plate lowered and drop ends removed in LMS Austerity style.

[Northmoor]

49 minutes ago, Lochgorm said:

There is some jiggery pokery as the real Standard 4s had a solid front underneath the smokebox door as the footplate dropped down to bufferbeam level.

Charlie

 

25 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Runing plate lowered and drop ends removed in LMS Austerity style.

I could have stared at that for ten minutes and not noticed that and I have two Mainline Std 4s.  I'll be thrown out of Trayne Klub at this rate. Shocking.

(Well done @SteamedLyons).

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I thought the steam pipe looked a little odd, but didn't notice the difference between the two pictures.

 

It's no good, though. How do the engine crew get up on to the running board? An Austerity only has 4' 8½" drivers. This thing's got 5' 8" drivers, and inclined cylinders to boot.

[Flying Pig]

27 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

I could have stared at that for ten minutes and not noticed that and I have two Mainline Std 4s.  I'll be thrown out of Trayne Klub at this rate. Shocking.

(Well done @SteamedLyons).

 

On the other hand you may be happier and less stressed than the footsoldiers of the Finescale Brigade who haven't had a day off in ages.