Imaginary Locomotives

[TT-Pete]

On 04/02/2022 at 12:46, Compound2632 said:

 

And it's not just any old tender but, just to rub salt into the wound, very clearly a Derby tender (Midland, LMS, or Southern).

 

LOL.

[Johnson044]

On 04/02/2022 at 14:38, Compound2632 said:

 

Nah. Cab is wrong.

...but it will always be a B12 to me - I saw the immediate resemblance not long after I opened the Tri-ang box in the early '70's.

[Johnson044]

On 04/02/2022 at 18:17, mccormackpj said:

These Mogul proposals are very interesting indeed. What year(s) were they drafted? I'm guessing sometime 1910 - 1922, and possibly post-war.
There seems to have been a period of "Mogul Mania" about that time, not only the ARLE, Caley and GCR proposals, the Maunsell locos on the SECR, but also these GNoSR examples.
However, so far I've not seen any mention of the Cambrian's effort under GC McDonald's tenure at Oswestry. Does anyone have access to vol 2 of the David & Charles history of the Cambrian by Christiansen & Miller? IIRC, there's an outline of the proposed 2-6-0 in there.

I think 1910-1922 probably about right. The drawings are, frustratingly, un-dated and the book acknowledges this. The only reference to date in the chapter is an explanation that there were a number of proposals made for new locomotive designs after the locomotive department moved from Kittybrewster to Inverurie in 1902.

[Johnson044]

On 04/02/2022 at 10:38, Compound2632 said:

 

The very best of Derby, thanks to James Clayton, and designed under the superintendency of Maunsell, who was from from Co. Dublin and trained at Inchicore before moving to Horwich. The engines were a notable success in Ireland, too.

 

But even further from James.

Well - yes - not quite so Jacobean but still on-topic for this channel, I think. The GNofSR drawing office came up with a number of never-were locomotives that could inspire some wonderful models. 

[JimC]

Whenever I'm approaching Didcot and see the above sign, I get this urge to creep up late one night and alter it so it looks like the version underneath... Fortunately, perhaps, I live too far away and have got too old for that sort of game!

[tythatguy1312]

If I had to give a guess I'd say those are GWR 517's, unrebuilt and rebuilt. The wheel arrangement is wrong but the rest of the loco is a match, particularly the awkward cab

[Flying Pig]

27 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

If I had to give a guess I'd say those are GWR 517's, unrebuilt and rebuilt. The wheel arrangement is wrong but the rest of the loco is a match, particularly the awkward cab

 

They're obviously the 0-6-2t that the DN&S would have acquired if it had had any cash, before and after Swindonisation. Presumably the large dome would have been used to transport dinner to outlying stations.

[Murican]

I remember that Youtuber The Unlucky Tug based his James model off of the GCR 9J.

[eldomtom2]

32 minutes ago, Murican said:

I remember that Youtuber The Unlucky Tug based his James model off of the GCR 9J.

Also the D16 with an N class tender and Manor funnel for Edward! A worthwhile series to watch if you want to see what model railways are like for the "young" - repainting is not a dead art!

[Corbs]

On 06/02/2022 at 13:36, Johnson044 said:

Well - yes - not quite so Jacobean but still on-topic for this channel, I think. The GNofSR drawing office came up with a number of never-were locomotives that could inspire some wonderful models. 

 

Love that 4-4-0T design.

[rockershovel]

On 06/02/2022 at 13:30, Johnson044 said:

I think 1910-1922 probably about right. The drawings are, frustratingly, un-dated and the book acknowledges this. The only reference to date in the chapter is an explanation that there were a number of proposals made for new locomotive designs after the locomotive department moved from Kittybrewster to Inverurie in 1902.

The "mogul" is the obvious development of 0-6-0 types to cope with higher overall running speeds, and the trend to outside cylinders. just as the 0-8-0 developed into the 2-8-0. It's just that traffic patterns didn't develop to require faster traffic in train sizes suited to 6-coupled locos; so the 0-8-0 was entirely superseded over time  while the 0-6-0 soldiered on in its inside-cylinder form until replaced in the last days of steam by the 4MT rated 4-6-0  and 2-6-0 type with 2-6-0 types in 3MT and 2MT types for some applications, for reasons of standardisation of design. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by rockershovel

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

The "mogul" is the obvious development of 0-6-0 types to cope with higher overall running speeds, and the trend to outside cylinders. just as the 0-8-0 developed into the 2-8-0. It's just that traffic patterns didn't develop to require faster traffic in train sizes suited to 6-coupled locos; so the 0-8-0 was entirely superseded over time  while the 0-6-0 soldiered on in its inside-cylinder form until replaced in the last days of steam by the 4MT rated 4-6-0  and 2-6-0 type with 2-6-0 types in 3MT and 2MT types for some applications, for reasons of standardisation of design. 

 

I don't think running speeds come into it for ordinary goods and mineral trains, which, so long as loose coupled train remained the norm, could not be accelerated. The move to 2-6-0s and more particularly 2-8-0s in the first couple of decades of the 20th century has, I am sure, more to do with the increasing weight of the locomotive's front end, with larger and more cylinders, piston valves, and superheaters. I wouldn't say that 0-8-0s failed to soldier on any less than 0-6-0s; the G2s were there almost to the end (1964). The fast fitted goods train was always the province of the true mixed traffic engine or even moonlighting express passenger types. With hindsight, there was really no justification for the smaller BR standards: the pre-grouping types they replaced could easily have been kept going into the late 60s - certainly the more numerous classes. In terms of the pool of boilers etc., such classes were more standard than the Standards were!

Edited February 9, 2022 by Compound2632

[Nick Holliday]

On 04/02/2022 at 09:34, Johnson044 said:

The Great North of Scotland flirted with the idea of a mogul for a while. More than a hint of Derby there, too, I think.

 

 

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The "mogul" is the obvious development of 0-6-0 types to cope with higher overall running speeds, and the trend to outside cylinders. just as the 0-8-0 developed into the 2-8-0. It's just that traffic patterns didn't develop to require faster traffic in train sizes suited to 6-coupled locos; so the 0-8-0 was entirely superseded over time  while the 0-6-0 soldiered on in its inside-cylinder form until replaced in the last days of steam by the 4MT rated 4-6-0  and 2-6-0 type with 2-6-0 types in 3MT and 2MT types for some applications, for reasons of standardisation of design. 

Although this may be true elsewhere, on the Great North of Scotland they had no 0-6-0 types to develop.  All their tender locos were 4-4-0's, and the first designs had outside cylinders, so these Moguls might be considered enlargements of these, and nothing to do with higher speeds, as they all had relatively large wheels, but really for more power/adhesion. The GNoSR multi-purpose 4-4-0's had quite a long service career.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

nothing to do with higher speeds

 

The GNoSR had nothing to do with higher speeds!

 

But I agree that the 2-6-0 proposals are in this case likely to be "improved 4-4-0s", designed to operate within the same infrastructure constraints (turntable size) and operating requirements. 

[Johnson044]

48 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

 

 

Although this may be true elsewhere, on the Great North of Scotland they had no 0-6-0 types to develop.  All their tender locos were 4-4-0's, and the first designs had outside cylinders, so these Moguls might be considered enlargements of these, and nothing to do with higher speeds, as they all had relatively large wheels, but really for more power/adhesion. The GNoSR multi-purpose 4-4-0's had quite a long service career.

Possibly - I was thinking this too but by the time it is likely the mogul designs were being considered the most recent of the GN of S outside cylindered 4-4-0's - the Class C - were getting a bit long in the tooth. In the wider world the 2-6-0 seems to have co-evolved as an alternative to the 4-4-0, but not, I think, in the UK, where it seems to have developed as an enlargement of the 0-6-0 (in Sweden, too they made 2-6-0's which were enlarged IC 0-6-0's.).  The Scottish loco builders certainly made some 4-4-0 / 2-6-0 variants for export.

[JimC]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

With hindsight, there was really no justification for the smaller BR standards: the pre-grouping types they replaced could easily have been kept going into the late 60s - certainly the more numerous classes. In terms of the pool of boilers etc., such classes were more standard than the Standards were!

No argument that they either built too many standard classes or not enough standard locomotives, take your pick. Classes of 20 and 30 were [redacted]. But although pre group crocks could have been kept on until the end of steam - and as late as 1961 the WR planners* seem to have envisaged 1970 for the end of steam  - how much would it have cost? The pre group stock was worn out, expensive to maintain and even more expensive to overhaul. How many years did it take for a modern replacement to pay for itself in increased availability and reduced overhaul expense? Not a whole lifetime, that's for sure. 

 

*source : lecture to WR London lecture debating soc 1961 by David Pattison, who was deeply involved in the planning.

 

 

 

 

[JimC]

With 2-6-0s, aren't we failing to note the spectacular success of the GWRs 43s as an influence?

[Johnson044]

57 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

 

 

Although this may be true elsewhere, on the Great North of Scotland they had no 0-6-0 types to develop.  All their tender locos were 4-4-0's, and the first designs had outside cylinders, so these Moguls might be considered enlargements of these, and nothing to do with higher speeds, as they all had relatively large wheels, but really for more power/adhesion. The GNoSR multi-purpose 4-4-0's had quite a long service career.

Corbs: Your little Beyer 4-4-0 would look rather well as a mogul....

[Johnson044]

2 minutes ago, JimC said:

With 2-6-0s, aren't we failing to note the spectacular success of the GWRs 43s as an influence?

Well - yes - fine machines and much better looking than the Kruger 2-6-0, which was something of an ug bug. Mind you the 4-6-0 version wasn't much better.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

With 2-6-0s, aren't we failing to note the spectacular success of the GWRs 43s as an influence?

Possibly an influence, but Britain was remarkably late in adopting mogul 2-6-0s. There were plenty of examples abroad.

In the US, the earliest (?) 2-6-0, with a leading Bissell truck to provide the flexibility of wheelbase, was built in 1864 for the Louisville and Nashville.  It combined flexibility with increased adhesion over  the standard American 4-4-0.

In mainland Europe, the Prussian railways first built an outside cylinder 2-6-0 in 1892 as a way to improve speed over the dignified waddle that could be achieved by contemporary outside cylindered 0-6-0s. 

I believe that British loco builders had been building Moguls for overseas customers since the 1870s.

Inside cylindered 0-6-0s were less inclined to yaw, but with the penalty of inaccessible valve gear.

Best wishes 

Eric

[JimC]

3 minutes ago, burgundy said:

Possibly an influence, but Britain was remarkably late in adopting mogul 2-6-0s. There were plenty of examples abroad.

The 43 was a direct result of Holcroft seeing 2-6-0s used as multi purpose locomotives on Canadian lines. Holcroft had reported back, and when a Churchward idea for inside cylinder standard classes for secondary lines proved impractical he had Holcroft draw up a 2-6-0 with as many std parts as possible. The result was effectively a tank version of the 3150 2-6-2T, but Holcroft tells us that was more due to common use of the same parts than a deliberate plan.

[tythatguy1312]

hey, that's basically how Gresley revolutionised the express locomotive as seen in Britain, so it counts

[Alex Neth]

Since we are talking about whyte notation, I'm going to make a tech tree of the wheel arrangements. But should I start it at the very beginning or start at 0-4-0?

[rockershovel]

51 minutes ago, Alex Neth said:

Since we are talking about whyte notation, I'm going to make a tech tree of the wheel arrangements. But should I start it at the very beginning or start at 0-4-0?

... from the beginning, surely? 0-2-2, 2-2-0 and 4-2-0 types were common in early days; also the 6-2-0 Crampton 

[Alex Neth]

1 minute ago, rockershovel said:

... from the beginning, surely? 0-2-2, 2-2-0 and 4-2-0 types were common in early days; also the 6-2-0 Crampton 

Got it, thanks.