Imaginary Locomotives

[relaxinghobby]

These remind me of the GWR Kings and Castle, they should do they have the same provenance.

 

from pg 63 of Compounds Locomotives by J.T. van Riemsdijk.

 

They are a line up of some of the 90 Nord Pacifics of 1921 built for that French Railway by the Societe Alsacienne. They were developed

from Messieur Du Bousquet Atlantics of 1900-1904. One of the 4-4-2 were purchased by Churchward on the GWR to run in direct comparison with

his new 4-6-0s that he was to later develop into the Castles and Kings.

 

After the exchange locomotive trials of the 1920's the LMS nearly bought GW Castles instead of the Royal Scots to run the West Coast Mainline trains from

London to Scotland.

 

Maybe if then either the GW or LMS had then developed the Kings into the Pacifics they may have ended up with something like what is in the picture.

 

Or even if the new LMS desperately trying to find something big and capable enough to pull the WCML expresses we could have had these Pacifics in the early

1920s if they had bought them directly from the Societe Alsacienne any time after 1921.

 

What if.........?

[Guest Belgian]

After the exchange locomotive trials of the 1920's the LMS nearly bought GW Castles instead of the Royal Scots to run the West Coast Mainline trains from

London to Scotland.

 

Maybe if then either the GW or LMS had then developed the Kings into the Pacifics they may have ended up with something like what is in the picture.

 

Or even if the new LMS desperately trying to find something big and capable enough to pull the WCML expresses we could have had these Pacifics in the early

1920s if they had bought them directly from the Societe Alsacienne any time after 1921.

 

What if.........?

But that's almost what actually happened . . . the GWR wouldn't let the LMS have "Castle" drawings, so they borrowed a set of SR "Lord Nelson" ones and produced the "Royal Scots" (which bore little resemblance to the LNs).

Later the LMS got Stanier from Swindon and he produced a Pacific version of the "King" and called it a "Princess Royal".

 

JE

[asmay2002]

 

Maybe if then either the GW or LMS had then developed the Kings into the Pacifics they may have ended up with something like what is in the picture.

 

The Princess class is essentially a Pacific version of a King.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Power

We start by taking the cylinders from the Baldwin GCR loco - and make them a little bigger. 20" should be doable. Certainly, I've seen locos planned (for use in Britain) that had 20" external cylinders. (I thought the 9F had 19 1/2" cylinders, but apparently they had 20" cylinders) 22" would be nice, but I have a feeling that we'd be pushing it too much for width. And also for clearance from the ground... So, 4 20" x 30" external cylinders. Could it be done as a conventional 4 cylinder design? I'm not sure. My instincts say... no. Again, I've seen designs for British locos with internal cylinders at 20 1/2" but they only had internal cylinders ....

The P2 had 21 inch diameter outside cylinders, and also a third one inside. To get four 21" cylinders across is doable, probably best achieved by using the cast steel frame technique latterly seen on US superpower. But inside cylinders are a maintenance burden that became increasingly unwanted, also demands a heavy crank axle, better to have them outside.

... we're going to need a really good boiler to feed those cylinders. Also, we'll be moving it backwards and down to sit behind the last set of drivers, and also to give us a little more height. The I1 has a boiler that tapers from 7'9 to 7', and a firebox that's 10'8" long and 6'8 wide. These should fit within the British loading gauge- well, width-wise at least .....

Well over 11 feet external over the firebox casing hanging off the back of the 9F chassis implies a 2-10-4. It's a long loco, and a boiler over 8 feet diameter externally over cladding above the 5 foot diameter drivers of the 9F chassis will completely fill the height of the most generous UK loading gauge. In motion it will be well outside gauge, every lineside structure will need repositioning along the route which it is to operate...

... Oh yes, and we'll want a mechanical stoker. This is going to be one really hungry engine. And thirsty too. Not sure what kind of tender you'd need, but I'm guessing it's going to have bogies. ... tractive effort? ...

So, how about a well proven layout, that actually operated in the UK and elsewhere in the world where a lot of power and high starting tractive effort were required in a compact (relative to loading gauge ) and (relatively) lightweight format?

 

Take the Wath Banker, U1 2-8-0+0-8-2T. As the equivalent to two standard 2-8-0 goods machines it had near double the starting tractive effort of a 9F (73,000lb) on a modest 180lb boiler pressure, the 56 sq ft grate was good for plentiful power output, but the relatively small superheater aree (650sq ft) was not optimised for high steaming rates. Rejig it to a twin two cylinder arrangement, enlarge the grate, lift the boiler pressure to at least 250 psi, give it a superheater area roughly 20 times the grate area, and you can probably shake out an 80 - 90,000lb starting tractive effort, 4,000dbhp 2-8-4+4-8-2 that would fit inside the UK loading gauge. I have had the fun of riding on an African 3'6" gauge Garratt in this power range. It fairly trotted up the 1 in 39 of the Victoria Falls escarpment with about 1,200 tons on the drawbar.

 

Of course you couldn't actually use it in the UK for traction purposes in the era of 10T mineral wagons with three link couplers. A complete redesign of the wagon fleet to high capacity continuously braked bogie vehicles with a buckeye or similar coupler becomes a necessity. Strange to say, the UK's colonial railways with Garratt power were way in advance of the UK's railways with these features...

[Sailor Charon]

Well over 11 feet external over the firebox casing hanging off the back of the 9F chassis implies a 2-10-4. It's a long loco, and a boiler over 8 feet diameter externally over cladding above the 5 foot diameter drivers of the 9F chassis will completely fill the height of the most generous UK loading gauge. In motion it will be well outside gauge, every lineside structure will need repositioning along the route which it is to operate...

So I guess I was asleep and having a nightmare after all. I just figured that if I wrote it down, it would go away. And I was right. It did. Thanks for helping me with the exorcism.

 

Edit: One thing I thought I'd check. From the diagram of the I1, it looks as if 7'9 is the overall diameter. I can't be sure, because it's just a general layout diagram, but it doesn't (as I've seen on quite a few diagrams) go to a dotted line a little way inside the outline.

 

So, how about a well proven layout, that actually operated in the UK and elsewhere in the world where a lot of power and high starting tractive effort were required in a compact (relative to loading gauge ) and (relatively) lightweight format?

 

Take the Wath Banker, U1 2-8-0+0-8-2T. As the equivalent to two standard 2-8-0 goods machines it had near double the starting tractive effort of a 9F (73,000lb) on a modest 180lb boiler pressure, the 56 sq ft grate was good for plentiful power output, but the relatively small superheater aree (650sq ft) was not optimised for high steaming rates. Rejig it to a twin two cylinder arrangement, enlarge the grate, lift the boiler pressure to at least 250 psi, give it a superheater area roughly 20 times the grate area, and you can probably shake out an 80 - 90,000lb starting tractive effort, 4,000dbhp 2-8-4+4-8-2 that would fit inside the UK loading gauge. I have had the fun of riding on an African 3'6" gauge Garratt in this power range. It fairly trotted up the 1 in 39 of the Victoria Falls escarpment with about 1,200 tons on the drawbar.

 

Of course you couldn't actually use it in the UK for traction purposes in the era of 10T mineral wagons with three link couplers. A complete redesign of the wagon fleet to high capacity continuously braked bogie vehicles with a buckeye or similar coupler becomes a necessity. Strange to say, the UK's colonial railways with Garratt power were way in advance of the UK's railways with these features...

 

I quite like Garratts. Although there were only two types built for use in Britain, there were quite a few proposed. The GWR were offered one (2-8-0+0-8-2). The LMS were offered a few, from a 4-4-2+2-4-4 compound (I think it was for the WCML, as was at least one 4-6-2+2-6-4 type). The LMS Garratt could have been a 2-6-2+2-6-2 type instead, and could have been replaced in later years with another 4-6-2+2-6-4 type. Not to mention the one that was proposed for Scotland.

It is, perhaps, sad that they never happened.

The biggest problem, as a modeller, is building one in an era where most up to date models are tender drive...

[Guest Belgian]

So I guess I was asleep and having a nightmare after all. I just figured that if I wrote it down, it would go away. And I was right. It did. Thanks for helping me with the exorcism.

 

 

 

I quite like Garratts. Although there were only two types built for use in Britain, there were quite a few proposed. The GWR were offered one (2-8-0+0-8-2). The LMS were offered a few, from a 4-4-2+2-4-4 compound (I think it was for the WCML, as was at least one 4-6-2+2-6-4 type). The LMS Garratt could have been a 2-6-2+2-6-2 type instead, and could have been replaced in later years with another 4-6-2+2-6-4 type. Not to mention the one that was proposed for Scotland.

It is, perhaps, sad that they never happened.

The biggest problem, as a modeller, is building one in an era where most up to date models are tender drive...

The SR under Maunsell seriously considered a proposal for Beyer-Peacock to supply 10 6-cylinder double-Pacific Beyer Garretts (4-6-2 + 2-6-4) in the mid 1930s to work all traffic on the West of England main line. They would replace no less than 77 conventional steam engines: that' a better replacement ratio than diesels managed!

 

JE

[relaxinghobby]

It's worth taking a look at the MOSI website, that 's the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry.

 

They have the records of the Beyer Peacock Loco building factory, including drawings

and photographs of the many types of Beyer Garretts supplied to the Argentinian and Uruguay-ian? railways.

 

If any of the British railway companies had just gone shopping in Manchester......

[LH&JC]

In 'Green Arrow & the LNER V2 class' there are a couple of drawings of early prototypes for the V2, one of which was basically a K3 with a bogie between the loco & tender like on Gresley articulated coaches, one idea was a scaled down P2 with the streamlining seen on 2001, poppet valve gear & a double chimney, and finally a V2 but with A4 style streamlining.

A4s, B17s, the P2s and Hush Hush were streamlined, I wonder what else they'd streamline if given the chance!

[Sailor Charon]

In 'Green Arrow & the LNER V2 class' there are a couple of drawings of early prototypes for the V2, one of which was basically a K3 with a bogie between the loco & tender like on Gresley articulated coaches, one idea was a scaled down P2 with the streamlining seen on 2001, poppet valve gear & a double chimney, and finally a V2 but with A4 style streamlining.

A4s, B17s, the P2s and Hush Hush were streamlined, I wonder what else they'd streamline if given the chance!

 

I'm considering using a spare A4 body to make a streamlined V2. Just not yet. Too much on. It'd make a nice brother for the streamlined B17 I've got. [Actually, when I say considering, what I'm trying to decide is whether it's worth trying to put the wheels off the B2 onto a V2 chassis... ]

[Starscream]

If you're really after some wild thinking.....

Imagine the mid 1860's Gauge Commission had decided that BROAD gauge was to be the standard gauge!!

 

Several years ago, I had a great idea of a modern mage layout based on the decision going the other way...

 

Imagine Broad gauge HST's (possibly called 'InterCity 150' or 'Intercity 200' due to the faster line speeds possible due to the better stability) with 3x3 seating!

 

You could argue that the haulage capacity would've been higher due to the larger engine compartments, but since the width/weight of coaches and wagons would also increase, it would probably even out.

 

In the Nottinghamshire coalfields we might have seen Class 58s where the skinny middle is as wide as a regular loco today, and the wagons may have been 50t HAA's.....

 

The possibilities are huge!

 

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[Coach bogie]

I bought a couple of 1930 style American locos last time I was over the pond. I have the intention of repainting them in lined GWR green.

 

Not as daft as it sounds as Swindon engineers visited the states several times on 'fact finding' missions. If the 1930's had not ended as they did then the GWR would have been a very different railway. They had already looked at electrifying parts of the network but did not proceed due to the cost. Maybe they would have bought ALCO rather than Brown Boveri.

 

This opens up all sorts of ideas.

 

On my line the Great Bear is still in use in the 1930's as several plans were drawn up to reboiler it, one based on a 47XX, and of course the three DeGlehns finished their days in the late thirties based at Westbury hauling Weymouth trains and were not scrapped in the late twenties from Oxford as some books wuld have it.

 

There is a BR lined green P2 on Retford - and why not . It looks superb.

 

I have enjoyed many long discusssions of 'what if' for the GWR, such as what if the Broad Gauge had been retained. Can you imagine the comfort and speed of a Broad Gauge HST and the size of freightliner containers????

 

Enjoy -that's what our hobby is about.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Black Sheep]

If you're really after some wild thinking.....

Imagine the mid 1860's Gauge Commission had decided that BROAD gauge was to be the standard gauge!!

 

Several years ago, I had a great idea of a modern mage layout based on the decision going the other way...

 

Imagine Broad gauge HST's (possibly called 'InterCity 150' or 'Intercity 200' due to the faster line speeds possible due to the better stability) with 3x3 seating!

 

You could argue that the haulage capacity would've been higher due to the larger engine compartments, but since the width/weight of coaches and wagons would also increase, it would probably even out.

 

In the Nottinghamshire coalfields we might have seen Class 58s where the skinny middle is as wide as a regular loco today, and the wagons may have been 50t HAA's.....

 

The possibilities are huge!

 

 

Cheers

 

Dave

 

Someone should do this, the development of steam locos would have been vastly different!

 

surely train lengths and thus station lengths would have been shorter as you'd fit more people in each coach?

[Sidecar Racer]

 

On my line the Great Bear is still in use in the 1930's as several plans were drawn up to reboiler it, one based on a 47XX, and of course the three DeGlehns finished their days in the late thirties based at Westbury hauling Weymouth trains and were not scrapped in the late twenties from Oxford as some books wuld have it.

 

Enjoy -that's what our hobby is about.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Thanks for that Mike , It is exactly the scenario that I will be using with the Bear and a De Glenn , and also City of Truro

will still be working hard .

 

Your last line sums up exactly what I want from my model railway , enjoyment .

[PhilJ W]

In 'Green Arrow & the LNER V2 class' there are a couple of drawings of early prototypes for the V2, one of which was basically a K3 with a bogie between the loco & tender like on Gresley articulated coaches, one idea was a scaled down P2 with the streamlining seen on 2001, poppet valve gear & a double chimney, and finally a V2 but with A4 style streamlining.

A4s, B17s, the P2s and Hush Hush were streamlined, I wonder what else they'd streamline if given the chance!

Are you sure it wasn't a booster? Gresley experimented with these on some GN Atlantics. Basically the pony truck was replaced with a powered four wheeled bogie articulated with the tender effectively making it a 4-4-4-0.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

I've not read the whole thread but picked up a basic rule of 1:

 

ITS MY TRAINSET.

 

even if you are the most devoted scale modeller you could still run Thomas on appropriate wheelset

 

or you could run a class 60 (or 70?) with GWR 4 wheel coaches.

 

 

I think we sometimes look to too much justification and no sense of humour

 

I've tied myself to the year I was born in and the 2 after (1973-1976) just to keep meself on the straight and narrow- just dont mention narrow gauge!

[James]

Imagine the mid 1860's Gauge Commission had decided that BROAD gauge was to be the standard gauge!!

 

Several years ago, I had a great idea of a modern mage layout based on the decision going the other way...

 

Imagine Broad gauge HST's (possibly called 'InterCity 150' or 'Intercity 200' due to the faster line speeds possible due to the better stability) with 3x3 seating!

 

You could argue that the haulage capacity would've been higher due to the larger engine compartments, but since the width/weight of coaches and wagons would also increase, it would probably even out.

 

In the Nottinghamshire coalfields we might have seen Class 58s where the skinny middle is as wide as a regular loco today, and the wagons may have been 50t HAA's.....

It's an intersting prospect - though I'd have hated the 3+3 seating!

 

Another broad gauge project could be Hitler's rather enormous 3m gauge idea - there's a book on the subject, Broader than Broad, from Locomotives International I think. Could make an intersting model!

[Sailor Charon]

Are you sure it wasn't a booster? Gresley experimented with these on some GN Atlantics. Basically the pony truck was replaced with a powered four wheeled bogie articulated with the tender effectively making it a 4-4-4-0.

 

I've seen the drawings for this one. It's in 'Gresley Locomotives' as well, It's also 'Locomotives that never were.' Indeed, it's this book that says that it wasn't for a booster, but to improve riding at high speed.

Also in Gresley Locomotives is a beefed up B17... (Bigger firebox, bigger boiler, well bigger round, it's quite possibly shorter, but it's hard to say since it gives the lengths in different ways. Higher Pressure.)

oh yes, and Locos that never were also includes a K3 with the same type of boiler as the W1...

[brightspark]

Hmmm. I have been given an old Airfix Biggin Hill kit.

I was thinking of making it up into one of the Brighton Spamcans. But the work involved in converting the body is not worth it comparted to getting an off the shelf body.

 

Now what to do with it...two choices.

 

Network Southeast livery pulling a set of NWSE Mk1s?

Or the Bullied Atlantic from "Locomotives that never were"?

 

What do you think?

[John M Upton]

I have to admit I have had thoughts about a cut and shut job on a couple of Lima Class 60's to produce the never built Class 38 Bo-Bo...

[Sailor Charon]

Hmmm. I have been given an old Airfix Biggin Hill kit.

I was thinking of making it up into one of the Brighton Spamcans. But the work involved in converting the body is not worth it comparted to getting an off the shelf body.

 

Now what to do with it...two choices.

 

Network Southeast livery pulling a set of NWSE Mk1s?

Or the Bullied Atlantic from "Locomotives that never were"?

 

What do you think?

I think I'm confused

Do you mean the 2-8-2 in chapter 32, or the 4-6-4T in chapter 39? (or is there a 4-4-2 mentioned somewhere in the text that I've missed?)

I think I'd go for the 4-6-4T to be honest. I was thinking about it myself, but couldn't get a suitable body to hack about. [i'd have scratch built the bunker and the back of the cab.]

But yes, it's a really nice looking engine, and a big tank engine too. [so that's two reasons why I'd do it]

[Etched Pixels]

Someone should do this, the development of steam locos would have been vastly different!

 

surely train lengths and thus station lengths would have been shorter as you'd fit more people in each coach?

 

The continental loading gauge width isn't that different to the broad gauge one but with far narrower track (as come to think of it were some of the historic Irish ones), neither led to shorter vehicles, in fact in Europe they seem to have led to larger ones (26m being common).

[ForestPines]

Are you sure it wasn't a booster? Gresley experimented with these on some GN Atlantics. Basically the pony truck was replaced with a powered four wheeled bogie articulated with the tender effectively making it a 4-4-4-0.

 

A pedant writes: you're possibly thinking of the C9 class, a pair of ex-NER C7 Atlantics rebuilt with an articulated booster bogie (and arguably a 4-4-4-4T!). They were converted in 1931, had the booster engines removed in 1936/7, and were scrapped in 1942/3. Gresley rather liked booster experiments: earlier, he had tried fitting a booster to the rear carrying axle of an ex-GN C1 Atlantic - indeed, the project started before Grouping, with the modified engine going into service in summer 1923. That experiment didn't alter the wheel arrangement, though, but the booster wasn't removed until 1935.

 

As for streamlining, Locomotives Of The LNER has a general arrangement of a proposed streamlined C1, dated Feb. 1936.

 

All the people who said above that Raven as CME would have meant mainline electrification sooner: remember, Gresley started electrification as soon as he could get the money for it. Which meant: when the government was willing to fund it, because the board certainly wouldn't. All this speculation about different possible CMEs tends to gloss over the company directors' role in company leadership. The LNER was lead by Whitelaw, who had already shown his parsimonious nature before Grouping (hence why Gresley ordered an extra batch of D11s, because he needed something quick to sort out the state of the ex-NB area's traction). If someone else had been elected Chairman - for example, if Sir Frederick Banbury hadn't been so anti-Grouping that he refused to become an LNER director - then things could have been very different again.

[tomparryharry]

Having seen Redgates photos of the Standard 2-8-2, I could well imagine a 3 cylinder (Caprotti) 4-8-2, for the west coast traffic. Oil fired, as the firing rate is probably too high, or mechanical stoker.

 

Not too many in the class, so they are named after? Well, you decide.....

 

Regards,

Ian

[brightspark]

I think I'm confused

Do you mean the 2-8-2 in chapter 32, or the 4-6-4T in chapter 39? (or is there a 4-4-2 mentioned somewhere in the text that I've missed?)

I think I'd go for the 4-6-4T to be honest. I was thinking about it myself, but couldn't get a suitable body to hack about. [i'd have scratch built the bunker and the back of the cab.]

But yes, it's a really nice looking engine, and a big tank engine too. [so that's two reasons why I'd do it]

 

Doh!...yes I meant to say Baltic Tank.. Hmmm Atlantic...no no too silly.

If I recall the illistration showed it in Southern livery. I was thinking of a model as it was in 1960.

 

Hmm a 2-8-2...I will have to get the book out of the library again.

[vac_basher]

If we allow ourselves to create an imaginary world....

 

Do you have any evidence of the world I perceive being not imaginary?

 

And I think there's a possibility that an infinite number of parallel universes do exist, therefore what you're calling unprototypical or imaginary is in fact an absolutely reality in a parallel universe.

 

 

 

 

(I'm just messing with you by the way On a serious note, I think you've made an interesting point)