Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

Is there a rule that ideas in this topic have to be practical?

 

Cheers

David

 

 

No, but I think ideas in this topic should ideally be either practical or so completely impractical that they have merit for that alone; almost but not quite practical doesn't cut if tor me.

 

'Course, that's just me, and nobody made me boss of ideas in this or any other topic!

[DavidB-AU]

Crikey!!!

 

A Pushme-Pullyou!

 

With an 08 plant under each bonnet, it'd make a...   a...

 

Well, it'd raise some eyebrows!

There was a similar locomotive built by BTH with twin Paxman 12-RPHL engines for New South Wales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_41_class_locomotive

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

almost but not quite practical doesn't cut if tor me.

That describes many of the real diesels ordered under the Modernisation Plan.

 

Cheers

David

[Ramblin Rich]

Again not saying it would be practical...

 

18-2.jpg

 

Cheers

David

It's an EE version of a Clayton, without the improved visability

 

 

There was a similar locomotive built by BTH with twin Paxman 12-RPHL engines for New South Wales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_41_class_locomotive

 

Cheers

David

I knew I'd seen something along these lines in Australia

[Pacific231G]

As indeed it has in the last 25 years or so here in the UK.

 

But to go back to the point of 10 different suppliers of the 339 locos that form the class - would differences of detail (apart from the builder's plate) be noticeable to the mechaniciens?

I am also thinking of locomotives like Stanier Black Fives or LNER B1s built both in-house and by outside contractors.

dh

 

Edit and I see, also the case with the Johnson 0-6-0s in the above post (a question for rivet counters)

It's a good point. I'm not aware of differences but that doesn't mean they didn't exist and I suppose it's down to how detailed the plans they were built to were. I wonder if that changed as production techniques developed over the history of the steam loco. In the nineteenth century there were probably significant differences between locos from the same builder or am I underestimating our Victorian ancestors ?

 

SNCF's massive order for  1340 141R Mikados immediately after the war went to six N.American builders. There were differences within the class, such as the use of boxpok wheels on the later built locos and coal or oil firing  but that doesn't seem to have related to who built them. There would in any case have been a need for interchangeability of parts but whether that was more like whether your car was assembled in one factory or another or there was rather more fitting involved I don't know.

 

During the war American manufacturers were perfectly capable of producing different sections of liberty ships in different places and bringing them together for final assembly and launch and aircraft were certainly assembled from parts produced in many different factories. I've no reason to think that steam locomotive production was very much different except that workshop practice was perhaps more tradiitional. Steam loco builders don't seem to have done very well when they tried to move over to diesel production.

 

Since even model wagons built from original drawings can be different from the actual prototype I wonder.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Pacific231G

[runs as required]

Thank you for an interesting answer to that question - and for the reference to the 141Rs (which I was always disappointed to be hauled by rather than a real Gallic machine).

I suppose If I were a Mech Eng I would always be pushing for minor variations to be incorporated as they were fed back from the fitters or the running department (probably something much easier to effect 'within house' rather than with an outside contractor who might want to sting you for it PFI style)

 

dh

Edited September 28, 2017 by runs as required

[Compound2632]

I suppose If I were a Mech Eng I would always be pushing for minor variations to be incorporated as they were fed back from the fitters or the running department (probably something much easier to effect 'within house' rather than with an outside contractor who might want to sting you for it PFI style)

 That may be reflected in Johnson's time at Derby - small batches of passenger engines, each with variations and gradually getting a little bit bigger (until the radical break of the Belpaires) - Joy gear tried once and not again, leading bogies, singles, piston valves, drumhead smokeboxes... Whereas the goods engines were simple and proven. Of course on the Midland passenger engines were the icing on the cake not the bread and butter.

[Niels]

Here's a non-divided drive pacific...

a2-2-non divided drive.jpg

 

I am composing my Tombstone and it is going be this Faboluos picture of Corbs frontwheel drive 4-6-2 NE locomtive lasered on swedish diabas or dolerit with the words more or less:

Thanks for having seen the ligth.

Where on web can I find a higher resolution  original picture? One of the women around here is graphic worker.

[laurenceb]

Truth can be stranger than fiction. I have just received the October edition of Railway Bylines. On page 526 is a locomotive that I couldn't imagine in my wildest dreams. Its an 0-6-0F with the cab mounted about ten feet above the running plate making it about twenty feet high. It was built to operate in the NCB coking plant at Glasshoughton.

This device gets my vote for the ugliest loco ever

[Corbs]

A veritable treasure trove unearthed right here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/album/93-alternative-railways/

[FPH 603]

(Temporarily) Going back to the subject of Double Deckers,

 

This one is an interurban (or intercity, however you like it) during the 1970's from NSW. I intend on making a modified version with good old Metropolitan Vickers electrical equipment, improved aircon and (maybe) lightweight plug doors. It will also include a buffet in one trailer (the bottom deck will be a kitchen and the top deck will be the buffet table) and bifold doors in the gangways (excluding the leading/trailing motor carriages which will have a semi permanently sealed door). I will give any further info about the history later (if anyone's interested). I am currently making a sketchup model of the train's carriages to 3D print in OO gauge. (It will be HUGE, about 31cm long, PER CARRIAGE!)

 

(Image credited to the owner)

[Pacific231G]

Thank you for an interesting answer to that question - and for the reference to the 141Rs (which I was always disappointed to be hauled by rather than a real Gallic machine).

I suppose If I were a Mech Eng I would always be pushing for minor variations to be incorporated as they were fed back from the fitters or the running department (probably something much easier to effect 'within house' rather than with an outside contractor who might want to sting you for it PFI style)

 

dh

If a 141R turned up at the front of a train now I'll hazard a guess you wouldn't be disappointed.

 

It's always seemed slightly ironic that the very last French steam locos in main line revenue service, 141R Mikados on their own metals until 1974 and the 140C Consolidations "rented " to the CFTA in Franche-Comte until 1975, were built in N. America and Great Britain respectively.

The very last "main line" revenue steam service in France was pulled by 140 C 287 on 24 September 1975 between Gray and Sainte Colombe and that loco was built in Glasgow by North British in 1917. Happily it was one of the eight 140Cs to be preserved, seven of them Glaswegian and the eighth built by Vulcan Foundry in Lancashire. . 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Pacific231G

[The Johnster]

That describes many of the real diesels ordered under the Modernisation Plan.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Exactly.  They didn't cut it for me.

[The Johnster]

Or BR, come to think of it.

[844fan]

A small point but these locos were built for the C.F.de l'Ouest not by it. The example in the Mulhouse museum was built by Fives-Lille but no fewer than ten manufacturers built batches of the 339 locos that formed this class between 1867 and 1885. 

Unlike in Britain where the larger railways built most of their own, it was more common elsewhere for railway operating companies to order their locos from specialist companies. I don't know how unusual the practice of French railways of ordering locos to the same design in batches from different manufacturers often over an extended timescale was but I suspect government industrial policy may have played a part in this.

Another factor that works is to cross reference her running number. Never understood the numbering scheme that France, Japan and a few Belgian railways use with the whole "Number.Letter.Number" thing. Keep it simple like 1001 or one of my personal favorites 4014. Just not sure why they made it complex is all I mean.

[DavidB-AU]

(Temporarily) Going back to the subject of Double Deckers,

 

This one is an interurban (or intercity, however you like it) during the 1970's from NSW. I intend on making a modified version with good old Metropolitan Vickers electrical equipment, improved aircon and (maybe) lightweight plug doors. It will also include a buffet in one trailer (the bottom deck will be a kitchen and the top deck will be the buffet table) and bifold doors in the gangways (excluding the leading/trailing motor carriages which will have a semi permanently sealed door). I will give any further info about the history later (if anyone's interested). I am currently making a sketchup model of the train's carriages to 3D print in OO gauge. (It will be HUGE, about 31cm long, PER CARRIAGE!)

 

 

Strange you should mention that! Tulloch wanted to use Metro-Vickers equipment for its double deck suburban stock, as it had used MV on its single deck stock since the 1940s. However NSWGR insisted on four prototype power cars using Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba and English Electric equipment. NSWGR decided they liked Mitsubishi best and it was used on subsequent double deck power cars. So imagine double deck interurban/intercity trains of the same dimensions as the Comeng double deckers (for the narrow loading gauge beyond Springwood) but looking more like Tulloch double deck suburban stock, and with MV traction.

 

Something else you may not know about the V sets, told to me by one of the engineers (sadly now passed on) who was in the design team. At the time the single deck interurbans (U sets) hauled mail/parcels vans to Lithgow and Gosford, in the latter case they were then DMU-hauled through to Newcastle. There were plans to extend the wires to Newcastle although this wasn't completed until 1984. Comeng designed a double ended mail/parcels power car, using the same frame and shell to save money but with a single deck at platform level and wide single doors with trademark Comeng "porthole" windows similar to the luggage doors on the Southern Aurora MHN van. They would have operated independently alone or in pairs, similar to the suburban electric parcels vans, or be attached to through trains to Lithgow and Newcastle. Attached to a standard V set, 3 powered vehicles out of 5 (6.4 hp/t) would have made it quite a rocket. I could only find a low res drawing to adapt but the plan I was shown about 15 years ago looked something like this.

 

 

Cheers

David

Edited September 29, 2017 by DavidB-AU

[FPH 603]

I've considered a DD parcel van before, but what I envisioned was different. I intended on using slow speed parcel lifts, but in reality they would have been expensive to maintain so I went with widened stairs.

[DavidB-AU]

I've considered a DD parcel van before, but what I envisioned was different. I intended on using slow speed parcel lifts, but in reality they would have been expensive to maintain so I went with widened stairs.

 

Elf'n'safety would have a fit with that.

 

Something that NSW did give some serious consideration was a van to carry mail, parcels and other high value items in standard air freight containers and palettes. The method of loading and unloading would have been pretty much identical to the cargo hold of an aircraft.

 

Cheers

David

[Pacific231G]

Another factor that works is to cross reference her running number. Never understood the numbering scheme that France, Japan and a few Belgian railways use with the whole "Number.Letter.Number" thing. Keep it simple like 1001 or one of my personal favorites 4014. Just not sure why they made it complex is all I mean.

You shouldn't need to cross reference the running number though the final number within the class often survived from the original company's own system.

 

SNCF's system of numbering steam locos was actually fairly simple, almost completely logical and tells you a great deal about a loco without looking it up. In modern parlance it contains a good deal of metadata.

 

So, to take my avatar 3-231G558. 

3 tells me it's a western region loco , 231 that it's a Pacific, G that it's from the penultimate class of ex Etat Pacifics (which were different from ex PLM 231Gs in region 5 some of which migrated to the North region 2) and 558 its number within that class.Sadly it is the only survivor from all the many Etat Pacifics. 

similarly 4-230G353 is a South Western region (ex Paris-Orleans)  ten wheeler (that appeared in numerous films including Murder on the Orient Express) . 

Class letters up to L were locos taken into SNCF stock from the former companies, P to U (missing out T) were SNCF locos like the 241P Mountains, the 141P Mikados, the N. American built 141Rs  while W-Z were foreign locos incorporated into SNCF's stock after the Second World War. These included a number of ex War Department Dean Goods sent back to Britain before actually getting their 030W SNCF number plates, some ex German locos and a number of German designs built in French loco factories.  For some reason the 77 ex USATC S100  0-6-0 tank locos bought by SNCF after the war became 030TUs. 

 

Compared to that, the BR numbering "system" for steam locos was a complete dog's breakfast.

 

Because I was WR oriented I knew, despite not being a spotter, that ex GWR and WR steam locos only had a four digit number but not that 1000 could be a County Class 4-6-0 but also an ex MR 4-4-0. I was and am very fond of Pannier tanks but couldn't have told you without looking it up  in my Observer's Book of Railway Locomotives of Britain,  that 1365 and 1366 were a saddle tank and a Pannier tank respectively, nor what the difference was between a 54xx,  64xx and 74xx (don't bother I have just looked it up!) . I did know that 97xx were condensing panniers but only because I once built a K's TT-3 body kit for one. 

After that there's a rather vague regional numbering system based on the former companies with the first of five digits telling you what region it would be if Scotland hadn't got its own but not always so 3 was ex Southern, 4 was LMS, and 6 was LNER  but 5xxxx could be ex L&Y, S&DJR, or Caledonian and in one case ex Midland. After that 7xxxx, 8xxxx,and 9xxxx were BR standard locos except 90000-90732 and 90750-90774 which were ex WD but  I suppose they were counted as "Standard". 

 

The only virtue I can see in the system was that Swindon got to keep its GWR numbers so never had to replace its lovely cast numberplates with new numbers painted on the side of the cab. This did emphasise the former GWR's continuing superiority over other British railways along with things like chocolate and cream coaches, signals that cleared in the proper direction and particularly elegant locomotives.  

Edited September 29, 2017 by Pacific231G

[DavidB-AU]

Since they often ran in pairs on the Condor...

 

 

Cheers

David

[844fan]

Since they often ran in pairs on the Condor...

 

BoCoBo.jpg

 

Cheers

David

My my that is a very neat Metrovick you have there.

[Zomboid]

A double 28 would probably have been symmetrical, most likely with the radiators at the outer ends.

At least that's my guess.

[Budgie]

My my that is a very neat Metrovick you have there.

but would it have been any better than the original Metrovicks?

[brack]

Since they often ran in pairs on the Condor...

BoCoBo.jpg

 

Cheers

David

The reason for the 6 wheeled bogie was that it's axle loading was too high if the weight was on 4 axles (I believe the heavy bits were concentrated in one end to some extent too). Given that your articulated version only has 7 axles instead of 10 I suspect the PW department mightn't be happy. You might get away with a C-C-C arrangement for 9 axles?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

A double 28 would probably have been symmetrical, most likely with the radiators at the outer ends...

We should really go for it, make it a triple 28 with loads of weight savings thanks to four fewer cabs and and only two six axle bogies. And yes, that's a FoFo.