Imaginary Locomotives

[rodent279]

Changing the subject, and going back to 4-8-0's, what about enlarging a Royal Scot into a 4-8-0? A 3 cylinder, 8 coupled Scot would look impressive, and be pretty sure-footed.

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But there is absolutely no difference in terms of the steam circuit between this and a conventional steam engine. I'm christening it the "Double Nellie":

 

 

Bot the C14 and the Bavarian / Hungarian locomotives are attempts to produce a compact locomotive by placing the cylinders amidships; there is possibly some improvement in stability - a conventional outside-cylinder 0-4-0T with cylinders in line with the smokebox will necessarily have shorter wheelbase and, with the reciprocating parts outside the wheelbase, a greater tendency to waddle. The Bavarian / Hungarian locomotives gain in adhesion compared to the C14 but that's the only advantage I can see to set against the increased mechanical complexity - and the greater adhesion could be achieved simply with the inside coupling rods. 

These locomotives were 2-2-0's converted from railmotor units.

 

[Niels]

28 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Changing the subject, and going back to 4-8-0's, what about enlarging a Royal Scot into a 4-8-0? A 3 cylinder, 8 coupled Scot would look impressive, and be pretty sure-footed.

 

Six feet nine drivers is not beneficial on three or fourcylinder locomotives in revenue work and having four in a row makes for a very long rigid wheelbase.

Chapelon 4-8-0s were six feet and if five are enough, a modified 9F with a V2 boiler  can I think look the part.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Niels

[Gibbo675]

12 minutes ago, Niels said:

 

Six feet nine drivers is not beneficial on three or fourcylinder locomotives in revenue work and having four in a row makes for a very long rigid wheelbase.

Chapelon 4-8-0s were six feet and if five are enough, a modified 9F with a V2 boiler  can I think look the part.

Hi Niels,

 

The above locomotive would be a much better engine if the con rods drive the leading intermediate wheel set rather than the leading wheel set with regard balancing of the masses involved.

It otherwise looks the business.

 

Gibbo.

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

These locomotives were 2-2-0's converted from railmotor units.

 

 

The ten Class C14 locomotives were built in 1907 as stand-alone locomotives, based on the power units of the railmotors they were intended to replace (of which there were, I think, fifteen); they were not conversions from the railmotor units. A further two were built with as 0-4-0Ts with larger cylinders conventionally-mounted - Class S14. If I've got this right, for C14s were rebuilt to S14 form, two just before the Great War and two more around about the Grouping. Three of these survived into BR days; most of the class were sold to the Ministry of Munitions or the Admiralty during the Great War. My source is the Wikipedia article on the class but since that mostly cites Bradley it's probably not too far from the truth...

 

These small purpose-built railmotor / motor train engines were never a success - only the Great Western seems to have made a significant success of railmotors and even they quickly moved on to auto trains using existing branch passenger engines. If you want to do the job properly, use a proper engine:

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Niels,

 

The above locomotive would be a much better engine if the con rods drive the leading intermediate wheel set rather than the leading wheel set with regard balancing of the masses involved.

It otherwise looks the business.

 

Gibbo.

But still pointless in a world where 9Fs already did the work.

[rockershovel]

51 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

But still pointless in a world where 9Fs already did the work.

 

But a lot of neverwazzers are like that; possible alternatives that, for one reason or another, didn’t make the cut. 

[DavidB-AU]

8 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Inside coupling rods? Really?

 

"These locomotives had two external cylinders each with opposing pistons that were positioned between the two axles. The axles were linked via coupling rod on the inside."

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

"These locomotives had two external cylinders each with opposing pistons that were positioned between the two axles. The axles were linked via coupling rod on the inside."

So were they true opposed piston engines, as in two pistons sliding in the same cylinder, or were they two separate cylinders and pistons in one casting?

[rodent279]

13 hours ago, Niels said:

 

Six feet nine drivers is not beneficial on three or fourcylinder locomotives in revenue work and having four in a row makes for a very long rigid wheelbase.

Chapelon 4-8-0s were six feet and if five are enough, a modified 9F with a V2 boiler  can I think look the part.

That does look an impressive machine, but didn't V2's have round top fireboxes?

 

Regarding the 4-8-0 Scot, I take the point about 6'9" drivers leading to a long rigid wheel base, so they could be reduced to between 6' & 6'3". This would ease the problem of getting a suitably proportioned boiler and firebox over the rear drivers.

[DavidB-AU]

Here's a 9 year old video of a party built miniature ML 2/2. Unfortunately the angle inside the frame is too dark to make out the gubbins. The stroke shows true opposing cylinders.

 

 

[rodent279]

5 minutes ago, DavidB-AU said:

Here's a 9 year old video of a party built miniature ML 2/2. Unfortunately the angle inside the frame is too dark to make out the gubbins. The stroke shows true opposing cylinders.

 

 

It so looks like it just shouldn't work!

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So were they true opposed piston engines, as in two pistons sliding in the same cylinder, or were they two separate cylinders and pistons in one casting?

 

That video suggests two pistons, with a central steam admission port - the crossheads are moving in opposite directions - whereas I had assumed a single piston (not having read the Wikipedia description carefully enough). The piston stoke is quoted as 0.28 m (11"), which fits with the cylinder looking to be no more than 3' long overall.

[Gibbo675]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That video suggests two pistons, with a central steam admission port - the crossheads are moving in opposite directions - whereas I had assumed a single piston (not having read the Wikipedia description carefully enough). The piston stoke is quoted as 0.28 m (11"), which fits with the cylinder looking to be no more than 3' long overall.

Hi Stephen,

 

I had thought that the locomotive was set up in the same way you describe from looking at only the photograph on the thread, what a contraption indeed !

 

Gibbo.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

15 hours ago, Niels said:

 

Six feet nine drivers is not beneficial on three or fourcylinder locomotives in revenue work and having four in a row makes for a very long rigid wheelbase.

Chapelon 4-8-0s were six feet and if five are enough, a modified 9F with a V2 boiler  can I think look the part.

 

The BR late steam 4-8-0 was pretty thoroughly worked out in this scheme I found in one of my elderly railway books.   Quite an odd looking beast...

 

[Niels]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

It so looks like it just shouldn't work!

There is a very good, illustrated describtion of the Maffei ML2/2 here starting on page 49.

https://shop.vgbahn.info/eisenbahn-journal/shop/ej+bayern-report+8-_2341.html

I have the complete magasin e as PDF 38 MB but do not know hove to cut out and it will surely also be illegal.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Niels

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Niels said:

There is a very good, illustrated describtion here starting on page 49.

https://shop.vgbahn.info/eisenbahn-journal/shop/ej+bayern-report+8-_2341.html

I have the complete magasin e as PDF 38 MB but do not know hove to cut out and it will surely also be illegal.

 

Even more weird machines in there - that 2-4-0T has surely lost at least one axle somewhere between the drawing office and the shop floor?

Edited February 9, 2020 by Compound2632

[RedGemAlchemist]

29 minutes ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

The BR late steam 4-8-0 was pretty thoroughly worked out in this scheme I found in one of my elderly railway books.   Quite an odd looking beast...

 

Indeed. An interesting beast. 

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:

 

The BR late steam 4-8-0 was pretty thoroughly worked out in this scheme I found in one of my elderly railway books.   Quite an odd looking beast...

 

 

Thats interesting, for a number of reasons 

 

- it explains why the possible 9F 2-8-2 wasn’t preferred

- it uses what appears to be, some sort of Engerth-style semi-articulated tender 

- it clearly identifies that the general state of the rolling stock fleet, was a primary constraint on motive power design, that as much power as could be effectively used, was available within the existing loading gauge

 

I’ve heard it said, more than once that steam traction was originally envisaged as ending in the 1980s, to achieve cost-effective service lives from the massive programme of building locos necessary to replace the worn-out, ageing Pre-War and in many cases, pre-grouping fleet inherited in 1948, as quickly as possible. 

 

[The Johnster]

Riddles, apparently, thought that all the trunk and suburban routes would all be electrified by 1980 on the 25kv UIC standard, and that those few lines that did not justify the cost would be dieselised by that time.  He saw his task as providing the nationalised railway with a fleet of standardised all-purpose low maintenance locos that could be easily prepared and disposed, and use low grade coal.  He was ousted in the management re-organisation of 1954 and different views pertained thereafter, at the same time as Treasury funding became less unquestionable, or presumably BR would have gone the way of other European state railways, some of which on the Eastern Bloc side retained steam into the 80s and even in the West into the 70s.

 

But it is highly questionable that steam development in the UK would have progressed much beyond the Riddles Standards anyway.  There was by the 1960s a palpable need for locos that would haul 1,000+ ton block trains at 60mph, but the 9Fs were up to this, with mechanical stoking.  Bogie tenders might have made an appearance as water facilities were 'rationalised', and oil firing would have probably been used, reverting to coal perhaps after the 1974 oil crisis.

Edited February 9, 2020 by The Johnster

[Northmoor]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Riddles, apparently, thought that all the trunk and suburban routes would all be electrified by 1980 on the 25kv UIC standard, and that those few lines that did not justify the cost would be dieselised by that time.  He saw his task as providing the nationalised railway with a fleet of standardised all-purpose low maintenance locos that could be easily prepared and disposed, and use low grade coal.  He was ousted in the management re-organisation of 1954 and different views pertained thereafter, at the same time as Treasury funding became less unquestionable, or presumably BR would have gone the way of other European state railways, some of which on the Eastern Bloc side retained steam into the 80s and even in the West into the 70s.

 

But it is highly questionable that steam development in the UK would have progressed much beyond the Riddles Standards anyway.  There was by the 1960s a palpable need for locos that would haul 1,000+ ton block trains at 60mph, but the 9Fs were up to this, with mechanical stoking.  Bogie tenders might have made an appearance as water facilities were 'rationalised', and oil firing would have probably been used, reverting to coal perhaps after the 1974 oil crisis.

 

I reckon you've hit the nail on the head there.  9Fs could achieve the haulage requirement with significant mods, but you still needed the infrastructure, even for larger tenders.  A 2000+hp diesel doesn't need "topping-up" every 100 miles or so.

 

If steam had survived into the 70s/80s for anything, it should have been for the traffics that diesels didn't offer a significant advantage, such as the substantial amount of coal traffic still handled in vacuum-braked or unfitted wagons and over short distances.  There were significant parts of the South Wales and Yorkshire coalfields and power stations which never converted to MGR operation, so a local fleet of steam locos could have been used productively in this area (had their no-more-effective replacements not been built anyway).  With watering done at the end of the trip workings, not part way, it removes some of the unproductive time inherent with steam operation and the steam infrastructure need only have been retained within a working radius around just a few depots, not the whole network.

[Ohmisterporter]

On 08/02/2020 at 13:16, Niels said:

The Main advantage was perfect mass balance.

Just like a BMW motorbike compared to british lesser breeds

 

Didn't BMW nick the flat twin engine from the British ABC company?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_motorcycles

[rockershovel]

36 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

Didn't BMW nick the flat twin engine from the British ABC company?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_motorcycles

 

The flat-twin engine dates from the earliest days of “clip-on” bicycle conversions. Douglas made flat-twin motorcycles as early as 1907. Harley Davidson and Indian also made motorcycles of this sort around 1910-15. 

 

ABC made limited numbers of a pushrod ohv engine mounted transversely, driving the rear wheel through a bevel gearset and rear chain. 

 

BMW made their first motorcycle in 1923, and appear to have originated the concept of a transverse mounted, sidevalve flat twin driving the rear wheel through a shaft. No part of this was new, but it was a new overall design. 

 

 

[Niels]

16 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

Didn't BMW nick the flat twin engine from the British ABC company?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_motorcycles

 

I have not found the outcome of the patent case and if BMW had to pay mr Bradshaw anything.

Can he have been the first who put a flat twin in a MC?

 I  have owned BMWs single and flat twins and tried some british Norton and BSA and was never tempted to change.

Vibrations do matter.

Also for steam locomotives.

[Signal Box Cat]

Hi,

the Bavarian 0-4-0T had NO inside connecting rods and NO oposing pistons! There was a single piston moving inside the cylinder but its rod was connected at each end to the drivers via coupling rods. That´s all.

 

Another topic, another Beyer Peacock projects:

Proposed Garratt engines, Cork Bandon and S Coast Rlwy,  Dec 1910
Proposed passenger Garratt engine, JP Hearne & Co, London, Jan 1911
Proposed Garratt Engine, Great Central Rly, Nov 1912

Can anybody help?

 

Cheers,

The Signal Box Cat