Imaginary Locomotives

[CaledonianYank]

     I was just brainlessly wandering through youtube, came across a video about pannier tank engines and then a video about the Caledonian Single. And began thinking about pannier tanks that aren't 0-6-0's. So here is a list of pannier tanks I have yet to see, but would like to see on the internet

• 2-2-2Pt
• 2-2-0Pt
• 0-2-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 4-2-2Pt
• 4-2-4Pt
• 4-4-0Pt
• 0-4-4Pt
• 4-4-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 2-2-0+4Pt
• 4-4-0+4Pt
• 0-4-2+4Pt
• 0-4-2+2Pt
• 4-6-2Pt
• 2-6-4Pt
• 4-2-2+2Pt
• 0-6-0+0-6-0Pt (Garratt)
• 0-4-0+0-4-0Pt (Farlie)
• 2-4-4-2Pt (LNWR uncoupled type locomotives, not a mallet)
• 0-4-0 Vertical Boiler Pannier Tank
• 2-2-0+0-2-2Pt (Garratt)
• 4-2-2+2-2-4Pt (Garratt)

Edit: Added a few more engines

 

Edit: Added picture of a 2-2-2Pt

 

Edit: Changed display of edit history on this post

Edited September 11, 2022 by CaledonianYank

[6990WitherslackHall]

13 minutes ago, CaledonianYank said:

     I was just brainlessly wandering through youtube, came across a video about pannier tank engines and then a video about the Caledonian Single. And began thinking about pannier tanks that aren't 0-6-0's. So here is a list of pannier tanks I have yet to see, but would like to see on the internet

• 2-2-2Pt
• 2-2-0Pt
• 0-2-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 4-2-2Pt
• 4-2-4Pt
• 4-4-0Pt
• 0-4-4Pt
• 4-4-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 2-2-0+4Pt
• 4-4-0+4Pt
• 0-4-2+4Pt
• 0-4-2+2Pt
• 4-6-2Pt
• 2-6-4Pt
• 4-2-2+2Pt
• 0-6-0+0-6-0Pt (Garratt)
• 0-4-0+0-4-0Pt (Farlie)
• 2-4-4-2Pt (LNWR uncoupled type locomotives, not a mallet)
• 0-4-0 Vertical Boiler Pannier Tank
• 2-2-0+0-2-2Pt (Garratt)
• 4-2-2+2-2-4Pt (Garratt)

2-6-2PT?

[JimC]

39 minutes ago, CaledonianYank said:

 So here is a list of pannier tanks I have yet to see, 

• 4-4-0PT

 

 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, CaledonianYank said:

     I was just brainlessly wandering through youtube, came across a video about pannier tank engines and then a video about the Caledonian Single. And began thinking about pannier tanks that aren't 0-6-0's. So here is a list of pannier tanks I have yet to see, but would like to see on the internet

• 2-2-2Pt
• 2-2-0Pt
• 0-2-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 4-2-2Pt
• 4-2-4Pt
• 4-4-0Pt
• 0-4-4Pt
• 4-4-2Pt
• 2-2-4Pt
• 2-2-0+4Pt
• 4-4-0+4Pt
• 0-4-2+4Pt
• 0-4-2+2Pt
• 4-6-2Pt
• 2-6-4Pt
• 4-2-2+2Pt
• 0-6-0+0-6-0Pt (Garratt)
• 0-4-0+0-4-0Pt (Farlie)
• 2-4-4-2Pt (LNWR uncoupled type locomotives, not a mallet)
• 0-4-0 Vertical Boiler Pannier Tank
• 2-2-0+0-2-2Pt (Garratt)
• 4-2-2+2-2-4Pt (Garratt)

 

You've missed the GW rebuild version of the Rhymney Railway K class 0-6-2, built as an outside framed saddle tank but rebuilt post-grouping as a pannier with a Swindon standard parallel Belpaire boiler, and a very handsome beast IMHO...  There was also apparently a proposed Hawksworth 0-8-0PT, think 94xx with an extra axle, presumably for heavy (hump?) shunting or perhaps South Wales coal trips.

 

The reason that the GW adopted the pannier format was that they wanted to rebuild rather than scrap their plethora of Victorian saddle tanks with Belpaire boilers, which required replacment of the saddle tank, and it was necessary to preserve the saddle tank's ability to allow access to the motion between the frames, something which limited the capacity of side tanks. 

 

Not until the 57xx of 1929 was there a GW loco designed as a pannier tank from it's inception and that loco can be regarded as a development of the 1854/2721 group of 'heavy panniers' that had originated as saddles.  Similar updates of pannierised saddle tanks occured with the 54/64/74xx, derived from the 2021 class, and eventually the 16xx, from the 850.  The Hawksworth panniers, 94xx and 15xx, were completely new designs, though the 94xx uses the frames, engine, and boiler of the 2251 Collett Goods. 

 

The (standard no.10) boiler of this loco had been produced by Collett to replace the boilers of some South Wales 0-6-2Ts acquired at the grouping.  GW locos are like this, with sort of incestuous relationships to, from, and with each other, the result in part of Churchward's standardisation of components.

Edited September 10, 2022 by The Johnster

[John Besley]

Do Neilson Box tanks count?...

[The Johnster]

Don’t think so; a box tank (Nielson, Horwich works 18” gauge) is a variety of saddle tank, in that it is a single water-carrying container which covers the boiler from side over the top to side.  Pannier tanks, plural, are separated by the boiler between them (though they can be thought of as a single water space as they are connected by a balance pipe beneath the boiler).  This is visually obvious on 57xx/8750, 94xx, and 15xx, but less so on the smaller panniers which have continuous plate sheets across the top of the loco. 
 

Panniers tend to be understandably associated with the GW, their spiritual home, but were not unique to that railway.  I am aware of NCB Stephenson long boiler 6-coupled panniers in the Northeast of England, and there are no doubt other examples.  

Edited September 11, 2022 by The Johnster

[rodent279]

Weren't there some Belgian and French panniers as well?

[DenysW]

17 hours ago, CaledonianYank said:

• 0-6-0+0-6-0Pt (Garratt)
• 0-4-0+0-4-0Pt (Farlie)
• 2-4-4-2Pt (LNWR uncoupled type locomotives, not a mallet)
• 0-4-0 Vertical Boiler Pannier Tank
• 2-2-0+0-2-2Pt (Garratt)
• 4-2-2+2-2-4Pt (Garratt

You risk the wrath of the Garratt Fairlie and purists here.

 

The Fairlies are pretty close to panniers already, and Bachmann's 0-4-4-0 model of one in OO9 for the ffestiniog line is rather nice.

 

As for Garratts, tsk, tsk. To ensure that the product was covered by the patents, Beyer Peacock always made sure they had the water over the wheels (front and back) with none of this pandering to shortening the whole thing with tanks by the boiler. Plus, a lot of the sales pitch was about stubby, large diameter boilers, and here you want to narrow & lengthen the boiler to get panniers in. I repeat, tsk, tsk.

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, CaledonianYank said:

• 2-2-2Pt

 

As a former member of several bodies concerned with symbols and notation (though in physics and chemistry, not railways!) I am compelled to insist that the notation is PT, ST, WT etc. - although one writes pannier tank, in the Whyte system of notation the abreviation of both words is capitalised.

 

Please can I ask that you reconsider your sketch of a 2-2-2PT, giving some thought to the relationship between the outside cylinders and the leading wheels?

 

I've failed to find any examples of outside-cylindered single-wheeler tank engines. Of the type in general, the vast majority were well or back tanks, though I think there were a small number of Craven 2-2-2WTs rebuilt with side-tanks by Stroudley.

[JimC]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 I am compelled to insist that the notation is PT, ST, WT etc. - 

Tell that to my autocorrect! 

[Michael Edge]

Turn it off!

[JimC]

36 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Turn it off!

Trouble is it's like satnav. You turn it off and then find out that your short term memory ability to look at a map and memorise the next 10 turnings has atrophied. 

[Northroader]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As a former member of several bodies concerned with symbols and notation (though in physics and chemistry, not railways!) I am compelled to insist that the notation is PT, ST, WT etc. - although one writes pannier tank, in the Whyte system of notation the abreviation of both words is capitalised.

 

Please can I ask that you reconsider your sketch of a 2-2-2PT, giving some thought to the relationship between the outside cylinders and the leading wheels?

 

I've failed to find any examples of outside-cylindered single-wheeler tank engines. Of the type in general, the vast majority were well or back tanks, though I think there were a small number of Craven 2-2-2WTs rebuilt with side-tanks by Stroudley.

Psst! Have a look at the LSWR Beattie “Nelson” class, Stephen, built as tank engines.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Psst! Have a look at the LSWR Beattie “Nelson” class, Stephen, built as tank engines.

 

I can't find a photo of one of those three, but here's No. 44 of the the familiar 177 Class; very Gallic-looking engines:

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

 

This illustrates the point I was making about the 2-2-2 sketch. The leading wheels have to be clear of the outside cylinders. This leads to a short wheelbase and long, heavy front overhang, and hence unsteadiness in running. Compare an inside-cylinder 2-4-0T of otherwise similar proportions:

 

 

[Embedded link to LNER Encyclopedia.] 

 

Here it is only the leading axle that needs to be just to the rear of the cylinder block - the wheels, being outside the cylinders, can overlap them. 

 

This applies not just to 2-4-0Ts but to pretty well all 19th century locomotive design, the exception being 4-4-0s and 4-4-2Ts, where the bogie pivot can be below the steam chest and the outside cylinders between the bogie wheels:

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

 

 

 

[Lochgorm]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As a former member of several bodies concerned with symbols and notation (though in physics and chemistry, not railways!) I am compelled to insist that the notation is PT, ST, WT etc. - although one writes pannier tank, in the Whyte system of notation the abreviation of both words is capitalised.

 

Please can I ask that you reconsider your sketch of a 2-2-2PT, giving some thought to the relationship between the outside cylinders and the leading wheels?

 

I've failed to find any examples of outside-cylindered single-wheeler tank engines. Of the type in general, the vast majority were well or back tanks, though I think there were a small number of Craven 2-2-2WTs rebuilt with side-tanks by Stroudley.

You mentioned Stroudley.  You should have checked the Highland Railway!

 

Charlie

 

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Lochgorm said:

You mentioned Stroudley.  You should have checked the Highland Railway!

 

Ah yes, that was at the back of my mind. But the same point is made - wheels to the rear of the cylinders, otherwise the cylinders are held in place and supplied with steam by magic.

[JimC]

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah yes, that was at the back of my mind. But the same point is made - wheels to the rear of the cylinders, otherwise the cylinders are held in place and supplied with steam by magic.

But interesting, because with high set angled cylinders and small leading wheels the weight of the cylinders on that Stroudley must be a few helpful inches further back than they would be otherwise. 

 

This is congruent to some thinking I've been doing about the (G)WR 15xx outside cylinder pannier tank. With exactly the same issues of clearance and weight distribution, I've come to the opinion that rather than designing it deliberately with a short wheelbase they had given it the longest wheelbase that was compatible with the desired outside cylinders. 

 

[Miss Prism]

 

[Neil]

On 10/09/2022 at 17:57, CaledonianYank said:

     ....

 

22 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

.... Please can I ask that you reconsider your sketch of a 2-2-2PT, giving some thought to the relationship between the outside cylinders and the leading wheels?

 

I've failed to find any examples of outside-cylindered single-wheeler tank engines. ....

 

On 11/09/2022 at 09:26, rodent279 said:

Weren't there some Belgian and French panniers as well?

 

Not just Belgium and France ....

 

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

 Exactly. The Bug illustrates my point out a leading bogie with outside cylinders. 

 

 

[MikeOxon]

51 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

 

 

Not just Belgium and France ....

 

I would have put something like that firmly in the 'imaginary' category if I hadn't seen the photo.  What on earth was it for?   With only around a third of its weight on the single drivers, it must have had difficulty pulling anything.  Is that an oil tank on top?

[Compound2632]

56 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

I would have put something like that firmly in the 'imaginary' category if I hadn't seen the photo.  What on earth was it for?   With only around a third of its weight on the single drivers, it must have had difficulty pulling anything.  Is that an oil tank on top?

 

From an adhesion point of view, I don't see that it can have been any worse than the typical 2-2-2WT, such as worked the Bray suburban service out of Westland Row into the 20th century.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

Not just Belgium and France ....

 

 

Apart from any other oddity about this engine, does anyone recognise the valve gear?

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

But interesting, because with high set angled cylinders and small leading wheels the weight of the cylinders on that Stroudley must be a few helpful inches further back than they would be otherwise. 

 

That arrangement is the Crewe Type. I believe the tank engine may be  rebuild of one of these

 (or an earlier version thereof) but @Lochgorm will doubtless know for certain.  

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

That arrangement is the Crewe Type. I believe the tank engine may be  rebuild of one of these

 (or an earlier version thereof) but @Lochgorm will doubtless know for certain.  

 

P. Tatlow, A History of Highland Locomotives (OPC, 1979) reports that this is No. 12 Strathpeffer following withdrawal from service c. 1898. It had achieved this form and name after reboilering in 1885 and being put to work on the Strathpeffer branch. It started out as one of a pair of 2-2-2s with 4-wheel tenders, built by Hawthorn in 1862 for the opening of the Inverness and Ross-shire Railway, named Belladrum. It was rebuilt as a 2-2-2T in 1871 and worked the Aberfeldy branch until 1879, being named Bredalbane.

 

No. 32 Cluny, a painting of which was linked to, was a slightly later engine, coming from Neilson in 1863 as a member of the Glenbarry class. It was originally named Sutherland, with No. 55 of the same class named Cluny; it was the only engine of the class not rebuilt as a 2-4-0 but when No. 55 was rebuilt, in 1874, the two engines exchanged names.