Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

Moderately related topic: I made a GWR 4-6-0T out of the 4600 tank. I’m aware the coal capacity looks small, but perhaps the boiler is just really efficient

A number of classes were given rear frame extensions for more coal and water capacity and the bunker could also go higher, so maybe those changes were made after a bit of experience with the prototype?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimC said:

 

Perhaps I can be of assistance? Does this help?
And for non-fictional GWR 4-6-0s may I recommend the link in my signature?

 

 

helpful-diag.jpg.a9a57f00096e25abe44fc0fd83752a2e.jpg

I can tell the difference, I'm just asking if we should use the grange with a Churchward cab, or Brown Trout, our more reasonable version of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Sorry, I can't tell the difference.

But then, all GWR 4-6-0s look the same....;)

 

All GWR 4-6-0s are the same, except for those that are different, which are still the same but not in the same way.  Those that are different are still the same, except for those that are the same, which are still the same but in a different way.  Clear?

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 3
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

Moderately related topic: I made a GWR 4-6-0T out of the 4600 tank. I’m aware the coal capacity looks small, but perhaps the boiler is just really efficient

DF6479DF-6378-4A78-A242-4F1635FD99FF.jpeg

Surely the answer's obvious: extend the bunker and put a radial truck under it, and you have the GWR's second Pacific.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 03/03/2022 at 00:40, Alex Neth said:

For the base look of our class should we use:

image.png.4432413819d9f51ff10ca499cdc9e471.png

This one ^,

image.png.dfa4ae027647296994ab07a58d78e097.png

Or this one ^?

 

Reread @JimC's original post.  The two versions reflect locos imagined to have been built at different times with the features then current.  Neither is more correct than than the other, especially as the loco never existed.  You could have both if there were multiple batches, with early locos subsequently modified to the later style as I believe actually happened with some Churchward designs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

All GWR 4-6-0s are the same, except for those that are different, which are still the same but not in the same way.  Those that are different are still the same, except for those that are the same, which are still the same but in a different way.  Clear?

I think what he's trying to say is that they're all the same, but some are more the same than others.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Reread @JimC's original post.  The two versions reflect locos imagined to have been built at different times with the features then current.  Neither is more correct than than the other, especially as the loco never existed.  You could have both if there were multiple batches, with early locos subsequently modified to the later style as I believe actually happened with some Churchward designs.

I mean, we could do that, have the pre-war loco (No. 181 Brown Trout) be the first of the class, then get rebuilt into the post-war version (No. 4800 Brown Trout), and when Collet becomes CME he gives Grange frames to about half of the worn-out Churchward 4-6-0s, and rebuilds the other half with Castle boilers as an successful experiment.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 05/03/2022 at 15:15, JimC said:

 

Perhaps I can be of assistance? Does this help?
And for non-fictional GWR 4-6-0s may I recommend the link in my signature?

 

 

helpful-diag.jpg.a9a57f00096e25abe44fc0fd83752a2e.jpg

Sorry, I was being a bit fatuous and also looking on a phone screen doesn't help. Thanks for the annotated version though. It's obvious the lower image is a more 'modern' looking build.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to sketch out an express Atlantic based on the GWRs notorious Krugers, but I just couldn't make it work. The grate on the Kruger is quite long even though its a wide box, and the whole thing was out of balance. I got this far before I gave it up as a bad loss...

 

442-kruger.JPG.7040f85a248aec62c391bf23440dea8c.JPG


You'll notice that various vital components are missing which I hadn't got to before I gave up. Thought I'd post the part complete anyway to provide, hopefully, a smile in times that need them...

One thing for sure, if anything its got even uglier!

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JimC said:

I've been trying to sketch out an express Atlantic based on the GWRs notorious Krugers, but I just couldn't make it work. The grate on the Kruger is quite long even though its a wide box, and the whole thing was out of balance. I got this far before I gave it up as a bad loss...

 

442-kruger.JPG.7040f85a248aec62c391bf23440dea8c.JPG


You'll notice that various vital components are missing which I hadn't got to before I gave up. Thought I'd post the part complete anyway to provide, hopefully, a smile in times that need them...

One thing for sure, if anything its got even uglier!

 

 

Ugly and retrograde!

 

Can't remember where I found this Atlantic, but its rather more impressive...

 

image.png.b159ca96c94627b0a1d91fe0dea124bc.png

 

And a stretched Atbara would have been more interesting than a Kruger

 

image.png.68abbf0c1884e97660272aed10620e30.png

 

Whats annoying me is that I started a kitbash of the above using two Dapol City of Truro kits, and I can't find the photos...

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those have been posted here before, and may have even originated on this thread. 

 

I wish I had graphics chops.   Just had an idea for an 0-4-2+2-4-0 Beyer-Garratt with something like 12ft wheels.

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Can't remember where I found this Atlantic, but its rather more impressive...

 

image.png.b159ca96c94627b0a1d91fe0dea124bc.png

I can somehow imagine that thumping along at 90+ on BG track.

 

19 minutes ago, Hroth said:

And a stretched Atbara would have been more interesting than a Kruger

 

image.png.68abbf0c1884e97660272aed10620e30.png

Certainly a truckload more visually appealing!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Both of those have been posted here before, and may have even originated on this thread.

 

I know, the Atlantic "Rover" was posted somewhere on RMweb and I created the stretched "Atbara" picture, which was probably previously posted in this thread.

 

I've just found my Dapol City smashup in a thread concerning the real-life origins of various Airfix/Dapol kits from 2018.

 

City 4-6-0 1.jpg

 

As a model, you can see why it would be impractical...

 

(Looking at it, it might look more practical if the boiler were shortened at the smokebox end by half a ring, and the firebox extended forwards by a foot and a half. Perhaps I'll get another couple of Dapol City kits and try that out...)

 

Edited by Hroth
Thorts...
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2022 at 06:19, Hroth said:

(Looking at it, it might look more practical if the boiler were shortened at the smokebox end by half a ring, and the firebox extended forwards by a foot and a half. Perhaps I'll get another couple of Dapol City kits and try that out...)

 

 

Perhaps get the first two driving wheels as close together as possible and aim for something like an inside cylinder Saint?

269668071_460-outsideframeinsidecylSaint.JPG.ba54a61e0b934726592d434051f116e9.JPG

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 11/03/2022 at 18:46, tythatguy1312 said:

I am getting somewhat intrigued by the possibility raised by Awdry of a GNR 4-6-0, particularly as the Great Northern rather notably didn't build or own any

 

That rings bells and I've a feeling it has been discussed on RMweb before - perhaps you'd like to browse the entirity of this thread :D Meanwhile a google search brings up this on Pinterest, clearly derived from the small Atlantic.

Edited by Flying Pig
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright thinking of a Proposal that hasn't been discussed here yet, I'm intrigued by an option regarding the Pacers. Given the abundance of Mk1 coach frames, either as spares or flatbeds, could a version of the Pacer have been constructed on these instead? It would require some longer bus bodies but that's reasonable.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
53 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Alright thinking of a Proposal that hasn't been discussed here yet, I'm intrigued by an option regarding the Pacers. Given the abundance of Mk1 coach frames, either as spares or flatbeds, could a version of the Pacer have been constructed on these instead? It would require some longer bus bodies but that's reasonable.

It was.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/44330-leyland-experimental-coach/

Edited by rodent279
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

It was.

you've gotta be kidding me.

Well, in the interest of using the mock-up I designed of such a machine, could a powered/cab version of the coach seen there have worked? The small capacity loss would be offset by a much better ride and possibly higher passenger numbers as they wouldn't hate it.

Pacerailcar.png

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It definitely existed. I've been in it on a cross country service back in about 1984/5. It wasn't popular with passengers, I think mainly because of the unidirectional seats, and because it wasn't as quiet as a normal Mk1 (which says something). I don't think Commonwealth bogies would be an improvement over the B4's that the real thing had. As for a powered version-well a class 153 is effectively just that- Leyland National bodywork on a powered chassis, with a cab at either end.

Nothing new under the sun!

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, in the desperate interest of finding something that hasn't been tried by British rail, how about a British Cab forward? Not something like a J70 or the Leader in which they have 2 cabs, a thoroughbred Cab Forward like those seen on Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane and Southern Pacific.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It would be easier and cheaper to upgrade and re-purpose existing DMU and EMU stock. This has been amply demonstrated by the rebuilding of the former London Transport D78 units. There is even some interest from the USA where a demonstrator is operating.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

At this point, in the desperate interest of finding something that hasn't been tried by British rail, how about a British Cab forward? Not something like a J70 or the Leader in which they have 2 cabs, a thoroughbred Cab Forward like those seen on Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane and Southern Pacific.

Only problem is the fireman will need a very long shovel. Unless they also had oil firing which at the time was very expensive compared to coal.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

It would be easier and cheaper to upgrade and re-purpose existing DMU and EMU stock

not this time. Asbestos was used as fireproofing for a lot of things, including DMU's... and had just been made illegal due to extreme carcinogenic properties. This explains why BR withdrew and replaced a lot of rolling stock in the 80's

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...