Imaginary Locomotives

[Suzie]

528875540.jpg

 

oh wait a minute, you said Gresley Garratt

Built in Doncaster so very easy to mistake for a Gresley...

Edited January 28, 2018 by Suzie

[cctransuk]

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

 

That's because it is - as Corbs explains in the text accompanying the image; (S100 = USA tank).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[73c]

It looks as tho' if it stopped a bit to quick it would nose dive into the track. 

[Corbs]

Hmmm. A rethink needed.

Mum always told me it was better to sleep on an idea as it'll always look different in the morning!

Edited January 28, 2018 by Corbs

[Regularity]

I am reminded of the North Staff’s experimental 4-cylinder D class...

[Compound2632]

Rather longer wheelbase and hence more stable, if less useful in a dockside context. I don't believe the North Staffs was a major dock owner! - one of the more land-locked companies.

[Regularity]

They owned lots of canals, so plenty of docks!

It was intended to prove that rapid acceleration didn’t mean electrification. And like GER decapod, was a similarly unwanted singleton.

Built in Doncaster so very easy to mistake for a Gresley...

And such a smoothly curved front end, even more so...

[Compound2632]

True, the NSR owned the Trent & Mersey Canal, but where there any rail/canal interchanges laid out with particularly sharp curves? I would have thought it would just be alongside. Off to the NLS OS website to look at 25" maps...

[Northmoor]

I am reminded of the North Staff’s experimental 4-cylinder D class...

Is it just me or is that an LBSC E2 with two extra cylinders?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

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

Quite, there's no problem in loco design within the UK loading gauge for these large grate locos, but there needs to be integration with the freight rolling stock and the traffic management for the heavy hauls that make them economic to operate. There was no technical obstacle to moving to higher capacity all braked wagons in the UK, and indeed the railways from around the WWI period tried to persuade their customers of the merits of this, which was well proven elsewhere in the world. But this didn't happen until quite recently. Even BR made no major effort at all in this direction for its first dozen years, most noticeably in replacing the wooden mineral wagon with an obsolescent steel design, a significant missed opportunity. (Why have a command economy if you don't know what to command?)

 

It is very noticeable that the typical UK wide grate area, of designs entering service from the 1920s to the 1950s, is about 40 sq ft, a useful power advance on the 30 sqft typical of larger narrow firebox types, and these accounted for about 80% of what was constructed. At the 50 sq ft of grate typical of the largest pacifics, in all except the heaviest service it sometimes proved necessary to fire coal just to keep the firebars covered, as most fast UK routes had sections where well under a thousand horsepower was called for to maintain schedule.

 

But it remains fun to imagine the might have beens...

[Corbs]

Ok, ok. I had another stab at it. This one is based more on the 15xx, same height, same length, same wheelbase/wheel size. Chimney is same height.

 

Hopefully this one is less laughable!

 

 

Original images:

 

 

and

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Corbs

[73c]

That's amazing. Makes me think of a Z Class, bet it would go like whatsit off a shovel!

[talisman56]

I dunno, I keep wanting an extra set of wheels under the cab so it doesn't keel over backwards...

[Corbs]

Well since it's exactly the same size as the 15xx that's unlikely.

[73c]

Looks whole lot more balanced. 

[talisman56]

Well since it's exactly the same size as the 15xx that's unlikely.

 

I know, but to my eyes, the 15xx looks more balanced. The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason...

Edited January 28, 2018 by talisman56

[Corbs]

Looks whole lot more balanced. 

In the cold light of day the dock shunter is rather ridiculous by comparison!

[73c]

Hope it rides better than a Yank Tank 

[Corbs]

I know, but to my eyes, the 15xx looks more balanced. The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason...

I think if you did, you could extend the bunker back to the full length as I cut it down, or you could do what I did before and shorten the cab to only have one window and reduce the overall length.

 

Post it up here when you've done it!

 

EDIT in fact it, I did it myself and updated the image.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Corbs

[Budgie]

That's amazing. Makes me think of a Z Class, bet it would go like whatsit off a shovel!

 

The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason...

What would it be like if you lengthened it slightly and made it an 0-8-0 à la Z class?

[Corbs]

Hmmm. After talking to some people about the Mk.2, I wanted another go at a 'Steam Class 08'.

 

Dimensionally I've tried to make this have less of a cut down feel to it. The standard 2 was a better starting point as it seemed I'd made the rookie mistake of starting with a standard 3! This was mated with the Bagnall Victor/Vulcan running gear.
The boiler is parallel rather than tapered (although retains belpaire firebox - there is precedent for this though as the GWR fitted them to small locos like the 1366 class).
The boiler has been shortened and is a smaller diameter than the Std.2, the pitch is much lower than before.
As the boiler has been pitched lower, the cab roof can be raised for better visibility (taller and wider windows).
The bunker has been shortened to fit 'Vulcan's overall length - and to reduce rear overhang.

The tanks could be cut back, more like the Z class, for better forward view (especially if there is an ample water supply), but I haven't done that on this version.

Reference images:

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Corbs

[73c]

Looks the mutts nuts, corbs. Must take ages to do these, thanks for taking the time to do them.

[rockershovel]

the second one looks much more “rounded”, much more balanced overall

[JimC]

Also from the discussion on the other forum, this was my take with the (G)WR 1500 very lightly Riddlesized.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JimC

[Compound2632]

Riddles-ized or Riddle-sized?