Imaginary Locomotives

[The Lurker]

As a child I was given Railways in the Years of Pre-Eminence  by OS Nock. IThe Golsdorf "masterpiece" was always one of my favourites in it.

Edited January 5 by The Lurker
I found the book…

[rodent279]

I know BR considered but then dropped plans for a Crosti boilered 5MT. Has the possibility of a Crosti boilered 8F been raised on here yet?

Edit:- while we're on the subject of 8Fs, how about an 8F crossed with a 47xx, i.e. an 8F with 5'8" drivers?

Edited January 5 by rodent279

[JimC]

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

how about an 8F crossed with a 47xx, i.e. an 8F with 5'8" drivers?

With 5'6 between the first two pairs of driving wheels that would be a bit of a challenge! Like 47xx against 28xx it would need to be a major redesign.

[rodent279]

11 hours ago, JimC said:

With 5'6 between the first two pairs of driving wheels that would be a bit of a challenge! Like 47xx against 28xx it would need to be a major redesign.

Maybe a better starting point would be a class 5 re-imagined as a 2-8-0,  with 5'8" wheels instead?

Edited January 6 by rodent279

[Buckfire]

Is there anyway to find the images people have posted of imaginary locos? I’ve looked at earlier pages and the links to the images show up as either a blue square with a question mark or a white page with Access Denied repeated twice and a series of letters and numbers. 

[Ben Alder]

1 hour ago, Buckfire said:

Is there anyway to find the images people have posted of imaginary locos? I’ve looked at earlier pages and the links to the images show up as either a blue square with a question mark or a white page with Access Denied repeated twice and a series of letters and numbers. 

Back up disaster a couple of years ago.. they are all gone  bar those few individuals who reloaded lost images, I'm afraid.

[Buckfire]

33 minutes ago, Ben Alder said:

Back up disaster a couple of years ago.. they are all gone  bar those few individuals who reloaded lost images, I'm afraid.

I see, $&@? It. Well, thanks for letting me know, is there is at least anything least of those hypothetical lms castles that someone made? Those sounded pretty neat 

[tomparryharry]

Some years ago I was sorely tempted to build a Garret-type loco, based upon 2 fireless locos chassis, and an 18" Austerity-sized boiler. A lot of design work on the frames to convert the valve gear from Stephenson's launch-link to Walshearts. I think I've still got the drawings somewhere...  Cylinders 12" x20". The boiler was based on the 18" Austerity type, but 15" longer to improve the steaming rate. Pressure @ 180 PSI.  12"- foot scale..

 

The idea of cab-forwards have moved on since the 1940's, with improved quality of lubrication, and things like better quality hoses. I'd guess there is nothing (other than money)  to realise the dream. A cab- forward, with 6 cylinders (3 each end) and a Baltic 4-6-4 arrangement. 5'8" drivers. The cab arrangement would look suspiciously like a GWR appearance; possibly with an A&B cab.. 

 

 

Edited January 6 by tomparryharry
More information.

[NZRedBaron]

Touching on the original post of this thread, I have been considering the idea of adding an extra LNER Peppercorn Pacific, named after Agnes Randolph, the Countess of Dunbar and March, who is better known as "Black Agnes"; she is a Scottish folk hero famous for her defence of Dunbar Castle against a six month long English siege during the Second War of Scottish Independence.

 

My only quibbles are that I can't decide if it should be an A2 or an A1, and what would be the most appropriate name to apply- her formal name and title, or her epithet.

 

What's everyone's thoughts on that?

[Buckfire]

1 hour ago, NZRedBaron said:

Touching on the original post of this thread, I have been considering the idea of adding an extra LNER Peppercorn Pacific, named after Agnes Randolph, the Countess of Dunbar and March, who is better known as "Black Agnes"; she is a Scottish folk hero famous for her defence of Dunbar Castle against a six month long English siege during the Second War of Scottish Independence.

 

My only quibbles are that I can't decide if it should be an A2 or an A1, and what would be the most appropriate name to apply- her formal name and title, or her epithet.

 

What's everyone's thoughts on that?

I personally think A Peppercorn A1 would work, and I personally think Black Agnes would be appropriate to name the engine, Agnes IS a folk hero, and having the engine named Black Agnes would lean into that theme of her being a well known figure 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

3 hours ago, NZRedBaron said:

Touching on the original post of this thread, I have been considering the idea of adding an extra LNER Peppercorn Pacific, named after Agnes Randolph, the Countess of Dunbar and March, who is better known as "Black Agnes"; she is a Scottish folk hero famous for her defence of Dunbar Castle against a six month long English siege during the Second War of Scottish Independence.

 

My only quibbles are that I can't decide if it should be an A2 or an A1, and what would be the most appropriate name to apply- her formal name and title, or her epithet.

 

What's everyone's thoughts on that?

Epithet. Look at Wolf of Badenoch.

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Some years ago I was sorely tempted to build a Garret-type loco, based upon 2 fireless locos chassis, and an 18" Austerity-sized boiler. A lot of design work on the frames to convert the valve gear from Stephenson's launch-link to Walshearts. I think I've still got the drawings somewhere...  Cylinders 12" x20". The boiler was based on the 18" Austerity type, but 15" longer to improve the steaming rate. Pressure @ 180 PSI.  12"- foot scale..

 

The idea of cab-forwards have moved on since the 1940's, with improved quality of lubrication, and things like better quality hoses. I'd guess there is nothing (other than money)  to realise the dream. A cab- forward, with 6 cylinders (3 each end) and a Baltic 4-6-4 arrangement. 5'8" drivers. The cab arrangement would look suspiciously like a GWR appearance; possibly with an A&B cab.. 

 

 

Cab forwards? What for? The Woodhead Tunnel, single-headed? 

 

Don't forget that you STILL have the water tank in front of the cab..

[DenysW]

39 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Cab forwards? What for? The Woodhead Tunnel, single-headed? 

 

Don't forget that you STILL have the water tank in front of the cab..

Yes. As a one-off running on fuel oil/coking byproducts. Then it could mimic the Southern Pacific cab-forwards which towed the fuel and water rather than pushed them.

 

Not generally economic because this wasn't typically as cheap as coal.

[tomparryharry]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Cab forwards? What for? The Woodhead Tunnel, single-headed? 

 

Don't forget that you STILL have the water tank in front of the cab..

 Perhaps I should have made 2 posts, instead of one. The Garrett was-is, designed to take advantage of the surplus fireless  locomotives  in preservation. Yes, you do push the water tank, just like any other Garrett.

 

The cab-forward is a pure flight of fancy. Designed to overcome hammer blow; so it's got 3 cylinders at each end, and driving the same wheel arrangement. if you can imagine a valve event at TDC on cab  A, then there's a 180 degree valve event on cab B, or BDC.  5'8" drivers, or 6'2, depending on the principal requirements of use. The cab-forward means the crew can get away from the footplate, and a degree of comfort. A&B cabs means turntables aren't needed. 

[billbedford]

33 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

Designed to overcome hammer blow; so it's got 3 cylinders at each end, and driving the same wheel arrangement

 

It was the six cylinders that bu**ered up the U1. The boiler was designed for 4. The size of the firebox suggests that it was intended to burn colloid fuel. 

[Michael Edge]

The only other 6 cylinder Garratts (in New Zealand) were cut up into separate 4-6-2s so they can't have been much good either.

[tomparryharry]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

It was the six cylinders that bu**ered up the U1. The boiler was designed for 4. The size of the firebox suggests that it was intended to burn colloid fuel. 

 

Well, the locomotive was in service for 30 years, so from an accountancy view, it was quite acceptable. I'd suggest that wholesale renewal put the mokkers on it. Cheaper to buy another locomotive when you've got the money. When you don't have the money, well..... 

[billbedford]

But the reason these locos were planned was to take 100 wagon trains from Wath to Immingham. The U1 failed miserably on it first test run by running out of steam before it got to Woodhead. 

[tomparryharry]

Just now, billbedford said:

But the reason these locos were planned was to take 100 wagon trains from Wath to Immingham. The U1 failed miserably on it first test run by running out of steam before it got to Woodhead. 

I would suggest that it comes down to footplate experience. It's the same on preserved lines. it's OK with a little 0-4-0, going to a much larger mainline locomotive. "Oh dear! We're out of steam! Well, the coal & water is there, as is the fire...."

 

[billbedford]

6 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

I would suggest that it comes down to footplate experience. It's the same on preserved lines. it's OK with a little 0-4-0, going to a much larger mainline locomotive. "Oh dear! We're out of steam! Well, the coal & water is there, as is the fire...."

 

 

When who fired O4s for up to 10 years described working on the U1 as shifting two men's coal for one man's wages there is a good chance that there was something intrinsically wrong with the loco. The grate area was 56.5 sqft, just less than 40% more than the grate on an A1, and I believe bigger than any other on UK railways.

[DenysW]

36 minutes ago, billbedford said:

But the reason these locos were planned was to take 100 wagon trains from Wath to Immingham. The U1 failed miserably on it first test run by running out of steam before it got to Woodhead. 

Other direction. Possibly two anecdotes, both correct, telescoped into one?

 

7 minutes ago, billbedford said:

there is a good chance that there was something intrinsically wrong with the loco.

As with the LMS Garratts, what was needed was a from-first-principles design. What it got was a pair of 2-8-0 GNR engines put under a new boiler, probably before it was realised that the normal-duty sustained limit for a fireman is around 50 ft2, and that's pushing your luck. The LMS Garratts got a pair of Midland 0-6-0 engines, bodged to reduce axle loadings by adding a leading non-driving axle at each end. It is just soooo tempting to put existing engines to use instead of realising that a tank engine has to carry all its dead-weight, it can't delegate some of it to a (pair of) tenders.

[dave75]

4 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

It was the six cylinders that bu**ered up the U1. The boiler was designed for 4. The size of the firebox suggests that it was intended to burn colloid fuel. 

So true, if only Sir Nigel had left the Robinson/Beyer design alone.

[tomparryharry]

Yes, same problem with a 9F on haulage trials on the Western. 2 (knackered) firemen does not a working timetable  make!

 

The same sentiments as a Sturrock Steam Tender. I'm told that although it was essentially 2 locomotives, it only had one  tender. Little wonder the GMAM Garrets tow around with a bogie water cart, just like Scotsman. Add to that, the South African class 25, with a condenser tender, and underfeed stoker. 

[tomparryharry]

I would like to note that this post is for imaginary  locomotives. The 0-44-0 Garret was formulated (by me & others) to use up surplus railway assets on the preservation arena.  

 

One project which was looked at, was the 9685 class of Western panniers. These are essentially the 9600 pannier, but built to metric ISO fittings and measurements. One of the significant reasons was to maintain material quality. Sad to say, you can't always get the right fittings, and I can think of a lot of prestige locomotives going around with 12mm nuts & bolts, masquerading as   1/2" Whitworth. 

 

Rivet counter? Dead right; and that's what standards are there for.  

[rockershovel]

52 minutes ago, dave75 said:

So true, if only Sir Nigel had left the Robinson/Beyer design alone.

Surely that's the whole point of using a specialist supplier; that they know something you don't?