Imaginary Locomotives

[Satan's Goldfish]

Are we back round to a mallet yet?...

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Here's something I found - it's been in the back of my mind I'd seen a UK sized modern 4-8-0 somewhere... 

 

 

From J B Snell's Britain's Railways Under Steam, originally published in 1965.  This is from my copy of the 2nd edition from 1977 - would be interesting to know if this was in the 1965 edition.

 

 

[DCB]

 That 4-8-0 boiler looks horribly like the GWR Kreuger monstrosities. With cylinders angled like that they could have used the GW Castle valve gear with 4 X King size cylinders, for a decent amount of grunt. In fact they could have used a King boiler with lengthened firebox and shortened barrel, or a King boiler with a mechanical stoker 

 

 

Are we back round to a mallet yet?...

 

No of course not, we would need to consider a streamlined 4-8-2 +2-8-4 Fairlie first, or a 4-6-2 + 2-6-4 version of the Gresley Garratt  before we start hitting things with a Mallet

Edited January 27, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Corbs]

Haha! Challenge accepted!

[rockershovel]

Here's something I found - it's been in the back of my mind I'd seen a UK sized modern 4-8-0 somewhere... 

 

480.jpg

 

From J B Snell's Britain's Railways Under Steam, originally published in 1965.  This is from my copy of the 2nd edition from 1977 - would be interesting to know if this was in the 1965 edition.

The last paragraph of this, appears to answer the questions above regarding the nature of traffic, and consequent requirements. British railways could, and should have embarked on a programme of re-Engineering the national wagon fleet, after the First World War

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

version of the Gresley Garratt  

 

 

oh wait a minute, you said Gresley Garratt

[jjb1970]

How about an EMD BL2 squashed to fit UK loading gauge in Bristol green? Or a Nohab in Bristol colours?

[Hroth]

528875540.jpg

 

oh wait a minute, you said Gresley Garratt

Hmmmmmm...  Only just fits in the loading gauge too.....

 

But ver' nice!

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

There are some terrifying visions over on DeviantArt

 

[Hroth]

The last paragraph of this, appears to answer the questions above regarding the nature of traffic, and consequent requirements. British railways could, and should have embarked on a programme of re-Engineering the national wagon fleet, after the First World War

I think the GWR built some larger coal wagons* after WW1 to modernise the transport of minerals, but the Private Owners wouldn't have anything to do with it - it would have meant scrapping all their stock and buying new, and there wasn't that much profit in coal at the time.

 

* I thnk mechanical handling might have been possible too.  Just think MGRs with a 28xx at the head in the 1920s!

[Hroth]

There are some terrifying visions over on DeviantArt

 

_river__the_gwr_garratt_by_no1thomasfan2012-dbrsu1a.jpg

Looks like a Dean Goods boiler slung between two 43xx chassis.  There'd be no puff to drive 'em!

 

What would make more sense would be a Saint boiler and firebox, or even the Great Bears monster...

[Compound2632]

... and how do you get to open the smokebox door and shovel the ash out?

[Ohmisterporter]

Most of the railways built in British colonies operated freight wagons with higher capacity than at home, even on narrow gauge tracks. We are entering into imaginary freight wagon territory though. Is it time for a separate thread?

[Ohmisterporter]

... and how do you get to open the smokebox door and shovel the ash out?

 

What is not obvious on the picture is the cut out on the back end of the front water tank that allows the door to swing open, a feature on many Garratts unless a sufficient gap is left between smokebox and water tank; as on the LMS Garratts and others. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Ohmisterporter

[Hroth]

... and how do you get to open the smokebox door and shovel the ash out?

You could go the whole hog and have it oil-fired.

 

Or a self-cleaning smokebox supplemented with smaller access hatches on the sides of the smokebox.... 

[Satan's Goldfish]

528875540.jpg

 

oh wait a minute, you said Gresley Garratt

 

Nice buffers....

[rockershovel]

Most of the railways built in British colonies operated freight wagons with higher capacity than at home, even on narrow gauge tracks. We are entering into imaginary freight wagon territory though. Is it time for a separate thread?

Not really, no. U.K. based suppliers were building equipment for overseas customers, so far ahead of British specifications by the 1930s that there is no point; just look at practice in USA, Canada or South Africa...

Edited January 27, 2018 by rockershovel

[Budgie]

There are some terrifying visions over on DeviantArt

 

_river__the_gwr_garratt_by_no1thomasfan2012-dbrsu1a.jpg

There seems to be an awful lot of wasted space between the engine units in that picture.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

This all seems to indicate that the British loading gauge tended to prevent effective utilisation of the increased firebox size permitted by four-wheeled trailing bogies.

 

So, although the principles and much of the detail were known by the early 1930s, the LMS decided that such designs were not viable, no one else seriously investigated them (the LNER having demonstrated that 2-8-2 types were only marginally effective compared to the usual 2-8-0 designs...

 

 Not proven. The 2-8-2 format was an immense success where well developed, both in Europe and North America. In the latter location the 2-8-2 was the general utility locomotive of the end of steam, much as the class 5 4-6-0 in the UK.

 

The enhanced haulage capability of both the P1 and P2 were never in doubt. The P1 was uneconomic with the wagon fleet in most slow mineral haulage, to the same extent as the BR 9F, which other than the iron ore movement from Tyne Dock in high capacity bogie wagons, was not fuily extended in this work.

 

Consider the P2 with 220psi and 6'2" wheel yielding a 43,000lb tractive effort estimate by the standard formula: thus well in excess of 50,000lb tractive effort is feasible with the proven UK use of up to 280psi and a smaller wheel diameter. That's sufficient to fully utilise the output of a mechanically fired 70 sq ft grate over a four wheel trailing truck: if the load case is present to use that much traction.

 

The answers will start to come in once a new P2 is on the rails and operating. Confident it will demonstrate the missed opportunity.

[tomparryharry]

... and how do you get to open the smokebox door and shovel the ash out?

A biiiig bucket of sand..... When the South African kit was working full bore, in went the sand. It cleans the tubes in an instant, and it takes a lot of the ash with it. Spectacular to see, and just as effective at night. too!. When stopped, the smaller smokebox door was used to clean the screens, and get the bigger stuff out. The ashpans are normally cleaned from the sides, across the grate area.

 

Before those less than politically-correct times, it was usual to see the 'locals' doing these menial sorts of work. There's no sexual discrimination when there are lots of people, all carrying wicker baskets of coal....

 

Ian.

[Ohmisterporter]

What is not obvious on the picture is the cut out on the back end of the front water tank that allows the door to swing open, a feature on many Garratts unless a sufficient gap is left between smokebox and water tank; as on the LMS Garratts and others. 

 

A water tank showing the cut out for smokebox door opening is on this link to a WHR Garratt page. I would post the picture but I am worried about copyright infringement.

 

https://www.whrsoc.org.uk/WHRProject/2008/jp-138-230908-3.jpg

[Corbs]

I started an imaginary rolling stock thread where we can find uses for our ridiculous creations.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130605-imaginary-rolling-stock/

[rockershovel]

Not proven. The 2-8-2 format was an immense success where well developed, both in Europe and North America. In the latter location the 2-8-2 was the general utility locomotive of the end of steam, much as the class 5 4-6-0 in the UK.

 

The enhanced haulage capability of both the P1 and P2 were never in doubt. The P1 was uneconomic with the wagon fleet in most slow mineral haulage, to the same extent as the BR 9F, which other than the iron ore movement from Tyne Dock in high capacity bogie wagons, was not fuily extended in this work.

 

Consider the P2 with 220psi and 6'2" wheel yielding a 43,000lb tractive effort estimate by the standard formula: thus well in excess of 50,000lb tractive effort is feasible with the proven UK use of up to 280psi and a smaller wheel diameter. That's sufficient to fully utilise the output of a mechanically fired 70 sq ft grate over a four wheel trailing truck: if the load case is present to use that much traction.

 

The answers will start to come in once a new P2 is on the rails and operating. Confident it will demonstrate the missed opportunity.

I’ll see your Not Proven, and raise you Deviation (FX MINUTE WALTZ)

 

Combining your answer with the posts elsewhere about cylinder size vs loading gauge, and the failure to implement proven advances in rolling stock design and cargo handling in the UK in the 1930s, the key question appears to be whether British loading gauge constraints would allow sufficient cylinder capacity to make proper use of such a firebox. The answer appears to be, if I understand you correctly?, that on the balance of probability, the 2-8-2 and 2-10-0 types provided as much usable traction capacity as could be achieved within the loading gauge and available paths?

 

The large and super-large mallet-type locomotives, and the highly successful 4-6-4 and 4-8-4 types built in the USA proved what could be achieved using very large fireboxes in conjunction with train weights never approached in the U.K. within a much larger loading gauge. That isn’t the question.

 

Even under American conditions, the 2-8-2 seems to have been a generally more useful locomotive. So the LMS appear to have been correct in their assessment, that these very large fireboxes were not productive in British conditions

Edited January 27, 2018 by rockershovel

[Corbs]

At the other end of the spectrum, I had another stab at a Standard 1F shunter.

 

EDIT: in fact it's too short to be an all purpose shunter like the class 08, so it'll have to stay as a dock tank.

 

This one uses the S100 as a basis. Most of the standard locos seem to have been existing types made using standard parts.

Proportionally I like this a lot more than the previous long wheelbase one.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Corbs

[RJD]

Corbs' 0-6-0 tanker looks like an Anglicized Southern Railway USA tank engine