Imaginary Locomotives

[Corbs]

I don't think a garratt would need a taper boiler either?

Edited March 27, 2018 by Corbs

[sir douglas]

i would have prefered a garrat style boiler but i wanted to use as much gwr parts as possible, and that i just threw it together on a whim in about 5 minutes

[Compound2632]

it took 3 minutes to throw together this midland compound 4-6-0, i stuck in the nice round number of 3000 since i cant see anything on the midland loco wiki inbetween the 2899 of the 240 class and the 3845 4F

MR compound.jpg

 

That's not so far off Deeley's compound 4-6-0, drawings of which have been posted either earlier in this topic or nearby (but I can't find), though the proposed engine had a rather shorter coupled wheelbase; I'm afraid your sketch is a bit too long for a practical 4-6-0 - check it out alongside a real product of the LMS drawing office, especially the 3-cylinder designs such as the Patriot and Jubilee. (The point being that the Compounds were the progenitors of the LMS 3-cylinder layout.)

 

Numbers 2900-3834 were taken by the Johnson standard goods 0-6-0s and their H-boiler successors, mostly eventually rebuilt as the well-known 3F class. How could you possibly overlook the mainstays of the Midland's locomotive fleet!

 

EDIT: I see how this oversight occurred. There's a lacuna in the numbering information in the table on the Wikipedia page on Locomotives of the Midland Railway and you have to realise you should click the link to Class 2 & 3 goods.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Compound2632

[sir douglas]

probably could remove brake cylinder and bring in the rear wheel and have all 3 braked from the front, i know it does look too long as well, probably better to bring in the cylinders and bogie and connecting rod tot he centre wheel, but means more work and would be better to do by drawing from scratch which i cant be bothered with for now

 

what number would you suggest?

[Compound2632]

what number would you suggest?

 

Logically, they should go between the most powerful passenger tender engines, the compounds (1000-1044), and the passenger tank engines (1200 onwards). There's not all that much room but a series starting at 1100 would seem the best bet. These wouldn't be a very numerous class; their limited route availability would see to that (and was why they never appeared in fact).

[Satan's Goldfish]

That motivated me to look at the GWR Garrett too. Based mine around a 2800 (middle), stretched it to a 2-10-0 which created a slightly longer firebox and cab (top), which was then used to create the Garrett (bottom).

 

Pivots are between the 2 inner drivers at each end. Front 'tender' is based on a shortened 2800 tender (coal removed) and the rear is slightly taller than standard. I suspect my firebox isn't low enough, but my excuse is I finished it in a rush earlier!

 

[LNWR18901910]

That's not so far off Deeley's compound 4-6-0, drawings of which have been posted either earlier in this topic or nearby (but I can't find), though the proposed engine had a rather shorter coupled wheelbase; I'm afraid your sketch is a bit too long for a practical 4-6-0 - check it out alongside a real product of the LMS drawing office, especially the 3-cylinder designs such as the Patriot and Jubilee. (The point being that the Compounds were the progenitors of the LMS 3-cylinder layout.)

 

Numbers 2900-3834 were taken by the Johnson standard goods 0-6-0s and their H-boiler successors, mostly eventually rebuilt as the well-known 3F class. How could you possibly overlook the mainstays of the Midland's locomotive fleet!

 

EDIT: I see how this oversight occurred. There's a lacuna in the numbering information in the table on the Wikipedia page on Locomotives of the Midland Railway and you have to realise you should click the link to Class 2 & 3 goods.

I find that very interesting! If it's one locomotive that we should make a repliace of, it's the Midland Railway 3F 0-6-0 tender locomotive. Too bad none were preserved, but just think how nice it would be to see one again even if it's built from scratch. That's the sort of engine you'd see running on heritage railways in the UK, if one would've survived. That itself is almost similar to the L&YR Class 28, but if you made it a 2-6-0, you've have yourself an inner-cylinder 2-6-0 for mixed-traffic work.

[melmerby]

That motivated me to look at the GWR Garrett too. Based mine around a 2800 (middle), stretched it to a 2-10-0 which created a slightly longer firebox and cab (top), which was then used to create the Garrett (bottom).

 

Pivots are between the 2 inner drivers at each end. Front 'tender' is based on a shortened 2800 tender (coal removed) and the rear is slightly taller than standard. I suspect my firebox isn't low enough, but my excuse is I finished it in a rush earlier!

 

Hornby-r3106-gwr-2-8-0-2807-class-2800-28531-p.jpg

 

Your take on a GWR Garratt looks really nice but I doubt a "Western Garratt" would look much like that.

IMHO compared to other Garratts, the boiler is too long, not fat enough and it also has a narrow firebox.  (There would be no need for fenders on the "water truck" at the front but they aesthetically balance the loco)

 

If the Garratt had got beyond the discussion stage at Swindon,  I suspect, apart form the 28XX machinery most of the rest would have come from Beyer-Peacock's drawing office in the same way the LNER's U1 was conceived.

 

Cheers

 

Keith

[Satan's Goldfish]

I agree. My drawing abilities are limited by what images I can find to chop around, I would have preferred a short fat boiler with wide firebox, I do have a couple of other ideas in my head for it though...

[Zomboid]

A GWR Garratt would most likely have looked like most other Garratts, with the usual accoutrements - brass safety valve cover, copper topped chimney, green paint...

[Corbs]

A GWR Garratt would most likely have looked like most other Garratts, with the usual accoutrements - brass safety valve cover, copper topped chimney, green paint...

I had an idea for using a photo of one of the LMS garratts and photoshopping these bits on. That's the dream, anyway.

[Satan's Goldfish]

On the plus side, nobody's raised issues with the 2-10-0

[Ohmisterporter]

If daydreaming about GWR Garratts and so forth why continue with the inside valve gear? The point of imaginary locos is that they get away from what the railways already produced. In the case of the Garratt I don't think BP built any with inside cylinders.

[Corbs]

If daydreaming about GWR Garratts and so forth why continue with the inside valve gear? The point of imaginary locos is that they get away from what the railways already produced. In the case of the Garratt I don't think BP built any with inside cylinders.

The LNER U1 had 2x 3 cylinder engine units.

[melmerby]

The LNER U1 had 2x 3 cylinder engine units.

With the bits straight from Gresley's 3 cylinder 2-8-0s

 

Keith

[Satan's Goldfish]

Plus from the Dean Goods, we get the Dean Garrett. Inside cylinders as well as valves!

 

[The Johnster]

How about a Sturrock steam tender Dean Goods? Or Wainwright C? Or any 0-6-0 goods.

[runs as required]

... That's the sort of engine you'd see running on heritage railways in the UK, if one would've survived....

What a wonderfully open brief for a full size Imaginary replica .

Fowler's Ghost might attract the punters... oh, and what about

Drummond 2-2-0T + railcar

Holden Decapod

Trevithick's 'Catch-me-who-Can' in Euston Square: to mark the opening of HS2 Euston to Curzon St (cheaper than rebuilding the Doric Arch)

[Compound2632]

I find that very interesting! If it's one locomotive that we should make a repliace of, it's the Midland Railway 3F 0-6-0 tender locomotive. Too bad none were preserved, but just think how nice it would be to see one again even if it's built from scratch. That's the sort of engine you'd see running on heritage railways in the UK, if one would've survived. That itself is almost similar to the L&YR Class 28, but if you made it a 2-6-0, you've have yourself an inner-cylinder 2-6-0 for mixed-traffic work.

 

I'd want two: yes, a 3F as some folk a good bit older than me might remember them, hard at work still in the 1950s, but also a replica of a Johnson engine as built, in full 19th century lined red livery - a Class M for instance, as they were fitted with the vacuum brake so were truly mixed-traffic engines.

[brack]

In the case of the Garratt I don't think BP built any with inside cylinders.

Yes, but Hanomag built an inside cylinder garratt for the ltm tramway in Holland, inside cylinders with water tanks as panniers outside the wheels. All others were outside cylinder machines so far as I know.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 If it's one locomotive that we should make a replica of, it's the Midland Railway 3F 0-6-0 tender locomotive. Too bad none were preserved...

 'Untank' a 3F 0-6-0T. Or just leave as is, has ample range and speed for preservation operations.

[Compound2632]

 'Untank' a 3F 0-6-0T.

 

I'm afraid that's no good. The G7 boiler fitted to the 3F rebuilds of the Johnson standard goods engines was an altogether larger affair than the G5 1/2 boiler of the reboilered 2441 Class tank engines and their younger brothers the LMS standard 3F tank engines. Most of the tender engines had 5'3" diameter driving wheels, though some (ex 1142 and 1698 Classes) had 4'11" drivers; the tank engines had 4'7". Frames are different. Cylinders and motion might be the same.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 'Untank' a 3F 0-6-0T...

 

I'm afraid that's no good. The G7 boiler fitted to the 3F rebuilds of the Johnson standard goods engines was an altogether larger affair than the G5 1/2 boiler of the reboilered 2441 Class tank engines and their younger brothers the LMS standard 3F tank engines. Most of the tender engines had 5'3" diameter driving wheels, though some (ex 1142 and 1698 Classes) had 4'11" drivers; the tank engines had 4'7". Frames are different. Cylinders and motion might be the same.

 Detail, detail. The engine and valve layout and boiler characteristics are all from the same Derby design tradition, and the 3F 0-6-0T was a good locomotive. At the 25mph limit applicable to preserved lines it will do all the 3F 0-6-0 was capable of, aided by not having to drag a tender about. (They were very well regarded on the Broad Street inner suburban runs with 6 or 7 standard LMS non-gangwayed behind, outperformed (and thus preferred) over the Fowler and Stanier 3P 2-6-2T which had been tried in this location.)

[Compound2632]

 They were very well regarded on the Broad Street inner suburban runs with 6 or 7 standard LMS non-gangwayed behind, outperformed (and thus preferred) over the Fowler and Stanier 3P 2-6-2T which had been tried in this location.

 

Both the 2-6-2T classes just look as if they're dragging far too much baggage around with them for their boiler size. The Fowler engines had the G6S boiler which was a superheated version of the boiler used to rebuild the oldest Johnson 0-6-0s to Class 2F, so with the same sized cylinders (17.5" x 26"), it's no surprise they failed to justify their 3P classification. Compare the Class 2P 4-4-0s, which had G7S boilers - the superheated version of that fitted to the 3F 0-6-0s, and larger cylinders (19" x 26"). 

 

The Stanier engines didn't look quite so weedy, the taper boiler and bigger firebox giving them a bit more oomph, but when compared with the contemporary succession of enormously successful 4P 2-6-4T designs, one has to wonder what was going on.

[melmerby]

The crew's opinion of the Fowler 2-6-2Ts was along the lines of "Can't even boil enough water for tea"

The Stanier version wasn't held in much higher regard either.

 

Keith

Edited March 29, 2018 by melmerby