Imaginary Locomotives

[Killian keane]

A L&Y 2-10-0 and a 4-6-0 midland compound

[Mr_Tilt]

That L&YR 2-10-0 is featured in the Barnes book, and a hefty thing it looks too. What a MONSTER firebox! 

[Compound2632]

That L&YR 2-10-0 is featured in the Barnes book, and a hefty thing it looks too. What a MONSTER firebox! 

 

Given that these two engines are about the same length, it looks as if the grate area will be about the same. 

[Regularity]

That L&YR 2-10-0 is featured in the Barnes book, and a hefty thing it looks too. What a MONSTER firebox!

 

Denis Allenden produces a fine model of this, using the Triang-Hornby 9F chassis, adding the Flamme boiler, etc. Brutish thing, not without its charms.

[LNWR18901910]

Sir, I believe you have a mogul addiction.

As of recent, I suppose I do. I confess that. Ever since I made the LNWR Experimental Mogul, I seem to have flirted with locomotives of such sort. I still have a place in my heart for the Black Fives, though.

[Killian keane]

Four more from the same source which I overlooked in my haste

[melmerby]

That L&YR 2-10-0 is featured in the Barnes book, and a hefty thing it looks too. What a MONSTER firebox! 

And so tall, nearly to the 13' 6" limit

Looks like the safety valves and whistle are off to the side! Even the GWR managed to get their valves on top!

 

Keith

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

A L&Y 2-10-0 ...

 A sketch anyway. It's in all sorts of trouble, just start thinking about how the inside cylinders are going to be arranged for a start. A little challenged on curves too, and there's more...

 

That L&YR 2-10-0 is featured in the Barnes book, and a hefty thing it looks too. What a MONSTER firebox! 

 The 50 sq ft grate is about right, proportional to the potential steam consumption of the cylinder volume. One location where it all goes wrong is the squitty little tender, all coal burned three hours after leaving the shed, if properly extended on work proportional to its power output. But then again the very restricted ashpan volume would probably see it requiring an ashpit after burning six tons of coal...

 

Denis Allenden produced a fine model of this, using the Triang-Hornby 9F chassis, adding the Flamme boiler, etc. Brutish thing, not without its charms.

 Everything Denis touched turned to gold!

[scots region]

I was always under the impression that the L&Y 2-10-0 was not a serious proposal, but more of an exercise in marketing for the L&Y. A prospective visitor to the drawing rooms at Horwick would see the drawing and presumably lacking in the technical knowledge required would walk off, impressed that the Railway would even consider building such a substantial machine.

[LNWR18901910]

A L&Y 2-10-0 and a 4-6-0 midland compound

I bet if they're worth making into working 00 Gauge models.

[LNWR18901910]

Four more from the same source which I overlooked in my haste

I think they're all wonderful models, really! Besides, making them may be a challenge, but it is kinda fun.

[Regularity]

I bet if they're worth making into working 00 Gauge models.

Erm, see post ”2742” above.

[melmerby]

I was always under the impression that the L&Y 2-10-0 was not a serious proposal, but more of an exercise in marketing for the L&Y. A prospective visitor to the drawing rooms at Horwick would see the drawing and presumably lacking in the technical knowledge required would walk off, impressed that the Railway would even consider building such a substantial machine.

The valve gear looks a bit clumsy and with 4 x 19" cylinders the width is going to be a problem to deal with as well.

 

Keith

[Flying Pig]

There's a fair amount on Wikipedia about the Horwich 2-10-0 and it does seem to have been a serious project. The Flamme Type 36 which inspired it appears to have had a divided drive with the inside cylinders set well forward, as well as a degree of articulation in the coupled wheelbase (which the Horwich sketch seems to have omitted in favour of a more compact wheelbase).

 

More on both engines in this excerpt.

[FPH 603]

Just thought I'd post something I've been working on over the past few days. Basically a modern (late 1980's) replacement for the Bulleid 4DD.

This is heavily based on the Sydney Trains Tangaras, but redesigned to be similar in size to the 4DD and also with some more 'British' features, such as reworked marker lights, Mk3 gangways, tightlock couplers, removal of side skirts and relocated guard's compartment. I do think I may need to reprofile the roof and maybe change the 4DD based bogies for more modern ones maybe without 3rd rail collecting shoes. Supposedly this would be a 'Dual Voltage' EMU but I'm also unsure where else other than the Charing Cross to Dartford line these could potentially run on.

 

EDIT: Livery is a work in progress.

Edited February 12, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[JDW]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.  One is that the guards compartment (I assume that's what it is) effectively cuts the train in half, as presumably passengers wouldn't be allowed in - that would defeat the object of it!  The other is that the profile is wrong for UK stock, it is too square too low doen, the sides need to step inwards to clear platforms etc or else it would be out of gauge.  I think that's one of the reasons that double deck stock hasn't taken off here, lack of width not just lack of height, as the lower deck would be too narrow for much more than 2+1 seating to fit within the existing gauge profile.  You definitely wouldn't fit 3+2 in!

 

Edit to add:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN41ohiW4AAebny.jpg

This image shows the problem well.  Narrower overall, plus the point at which the body can be wider is much higher.

Edited February 12, 2018 by JDW

[Compound2632]

What might work for the lower deck is longitudinal seating with strap-hangers down the centre - if we're going for high-density short-commute, tube style. 

[FPH 603]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.  One is that the guards compartment (I assume that's what it is) effectively cuts the train in half, as presumably passengers wouldn't be allowed in - that would defeat the object of it!  The other is that the profile is wrong for UK stock, it is too square too low doen, the sides need to step inwards to clear platforms etc or else it would be out of gauge.  I think that's one of the reasons that double deck stock hasn't taken off here, lack of width not just lack of height, as the lower deck would be too narrow for much more than 2+1 seating to fit within the existing gauge profile.  You definitely wouldn't fit 3+2 in!

 

Edit to add:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN41ohiW4AAebny.jpg

This image shows the problem well.  Narrower overall, plus the point at which the body can be wider is much higher.

The image you have attached is indeed helpful, but I have a couple of questions.

 

1. The platform clearance width is 8' 8'', so wouldn't be as simple as making the entire thing narrower?

 

2. Despite the incorrect profile of the roof, it still fits the loading gauge when the width is reduced to 8' 8''. I trialled how it would look with a curved roof and it looks UGLY AS! Personally I'd prefer to leave the roof as it is.

As for the seating and guard compartment this is being corrected.

Edited February 12, 2018 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[cctransuk]

The image you have attached is indeed helpful, but I have a couple of questions.

 

1. In terms of height the loading gauge is more generous then I thought. The Bulleid 4DD is 12' 10 1/2'', whilst the loading gauge is 13' 6''. Does this mean I can make it taller?

 

2. The platform clearance width is 8' 8'', so wouldn't be as simple as making the entire thing narrower?

 

3. Despite the incorrect profile of the roof, it still fits the loading gauge when the width is reduced to 8' 8''. I trialled how it would look with a curved roof and it looks UGLY AS! Personally I'd prefer to leave the roof as it is.

Narrowed 331001.png

As for the seating and guard compartment this is being corrected.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

 

Having seen and sampled Sydney's DD interurbans, I would acknowledge that they are a very good solution to the transport challenges posed in Sydney; I would not accept that those particular challenges exist in London, or anywhere else in the UK.

 

The DD solution was tried and rejected in London for a particular set of challenges that existed there in the late 1940 / early 50s; I can see no evidence that those particular challenges exist today, or that there would be any benefit in reappraising the DD concept in today's circumstances.

 

Purely as an exercise in trying to shoe-horn a Sydney DD EMU into the British loading gauge you are producing some interesting sketches but, beyond that, I'm not sure why adapting Southern Hemisphere designs to presumed UK conditions hold such a fascination.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[cheesysmith]

The idea of double deck trains in the UK was actually raised by the RTC in the 60s. It was to be based on the cartic 4 design, with articulated coaches and 2+2 seating. The idea was rejected because the SR was welded to the idea of loading times, so the trains had to have a door to each seating bay and through gangways were disliked as they reduced the number of seats available and encouraged people to move to the front of the trains for rapid exit at the London terminus. The SR even rejected the idea of auto couplers on the 455s, keeping the need for shunters, even though these units were unable to multi with anything else.

[Coryton]

 

Purely as an exercise in trying to shoe-horn a Sydney DD EMU into the British loading gauge you are producing some interesting sketches but, beyond that, I'm not sure why adapting Southern Hemisphere designs to presumed UK conditions hold such a fascination.

 

 

Re-designing obsolete steam engines is also somewhat futile, isn't it?

 

And as for circumstances - what was the reason that a double deck design seemed attractive in the 40s/50s and isn't now? I thought that quite a few lines around London were up against the maximum number of carriages and struggling to cope with the number of passengers.

[FPH 603]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

 

Having seen and sampled Sydney's DD interurbans, I would acknowledge that they are a very good solution to the transport challenges posed in Sydney; I would not accept that those particular challenges exist in London, or anywhere else in the UK.

 

The DD solution was tried and rejected in London for a particular set of challenges that existed there in the late 1940 / early 50s; I can see no evidence that those particular challenges exist today, or that there would be any benefit in reappraising the DD concept in today's circumstances.

 

Purely as an exercise in trying to shoe-horn a Sydney DD EMU into the British loading gauge you are producing some interesting sketches but, beyond that, I'm not sure why adapting Southern Hemisphere designs to presumed UK conditions hold such a fascination.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

This merely came from a 'what if' thought if BR continued trialling Double Deck trains through the late 1980's into the 1990's. I come up with stupid ideas like this all the time, but when I drew this one up I was quite happy with it, so I thought I'd post it here. This is Imaginary Locomotives after all.

[Suzie]

With platform lengths not likely to be extended beyond 12x 20m cars, a solution that gets 18x cars worth of passengers in reasonably comfortably will be quite popular today. With the modern option of wider gangways between cars there is often no need at all for any doors on some cars (look at some German single deck EMUs for an example).

 

I don't see the UK loading gauge as making a double deck impossible - it just requires some imagination.

 

My first bit of imagination is to propose articulated pairs or triples of cars with double deck gangways so the cars can be shorter in length without losing all the seating capacity.

 

My second bit is instead of having the stairs at the ends of the cars they are in the middle, allowing the middle to be a bit narrower than the rest (bone shaped) so allowing longer cars.

 

Might be tricky to find places for all the gubbins that normaly go on top of a low roof or under the floor.

[DavidB-AU]

2. Despite the incorrect profile of the roof, it still fits the loading gauge when the width is reduced to 8' 8''. I trialled how it would look with a curved roof and it looks UGLY AS! Personally I'd prefer to leave the roof as it is.

Narrowed 331001.png

That will be fine until you meet the first curved platform.

 

Cheers

David

[BernardTPM]

Double decks have been discussed in this thread before. Here's a post I made with a couple of proposals from the 1960s.