Imaginary Locomotives

[Flying Pig]

3 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I thought the steam pipe looked a little odd, but didn't notice the difference between the two pictures.

 

It's no good, though. How do the engine crew get up on to the running board? An Austerity only has 4' 8½" drivers. This thing's got 5' 8" drivers, and inclined cylinders to boot.

 

The Ivatt 4s and last two Caprotti Black Fives had an intermediate footstep attached to the frame.

[SteamedLyons]

I'm gonna be honest it was a bit of a rush-job just to see how it looked, but I'm pleasantly surprised it's good enough to fool. (Sorry Northmoor!) Glad folks here have found some joy in it! Good point about the steps though, probably should be some at the front. Mainly I was looking at the post-war Ivatt stuff, but I suppose I forgot to add them! 

 

 

Edited March 24 by SteamedLyons

[Bluebell Model Railway]

Hello,

 I've been lurking for a little while, mainly watching people pinch photo's off my website and post them here without even asking... lovely...
Anyway I have decided to post one of a few models I have built, or modified or designed and 3D printed..

This one is a few years old, and was a design which has been hidden at the NRM in York.
This a Bulleid, austerity pacific, dubbed the Q1 Pacific in one magazine which I managed to buy a few years ago (Steam world 1982), shows the wooden model as displayed at the NRM.
Some debate on when or what it was for, was it an early Merchant navy or a light pacific...

The model has recently been upgraded, and new details added which I occasionally sell.. as its a bit more straight forwards.

So here's a few photos:

 

Thanks

[Gilwell Park]

Darth Vadar?  The new Star Wars class?

[AlfaZagato]

Funny, doesn't look like a Buick to me.  (So many layers to that joke)  

 

Unrelated, a thought I've had recently that may have already been brokered here.   Would have combining a high-pressure boiler, like the Yarrow on 'Hush-Hush,' with a turbine-drive arrangement as on Turbomotive have improved the performance of either?

[The Johnster]

I like the telescopic boiler; presumably the idea was to assist rapid steam-raising by shortening it and then restoring it to the proper length once pressure was reached.  Or it's a compound, the entire boiler assembly doubling as the low-pressure cylinder moving about a static piston, with the advantage of the movement being able to counteract the effect of both piston surge and hammer-blow...

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Would have combining a high-pressure boiler, like the Yarrow on 'Hush-Hush,' with a turbine-drive arrangement as on Turbomotive have improved the performance of either?

 

Debatable.  They both sound like good ideas, but have drawbacks in day-to-day railway use; remember, the idea isn't just to build things that work, enny fule can do that, but that work profitably.  HP marine-type boilers are a little delicate for the rough'n'tumble of railway work, and therefore are only practicable on duties where the profitable income offsets the increased maintenance and down-time; the LNER could not find such a duty.  Turbines work most efficiently at full chat, and are not suited to the constant throttle setting changes of railway work up hill and down dale, though Turbomotive successfully worked the 10.00 Liverpool Lime Street-Euston and return, one of the heaviest jobs in the country and often loading to 16 bogies, for many years.  It was rebuilt into conventional form when the boiler needed replacing in 1952, suggesting that it was not worth continuing with in turbine form in post-war conditions.  The problem with constantly changing throttle settings on turbines was mechanical, and not to do with steam-raising.

 

By the late 30s, and certainly as built under Bullied, Ivatt, and Riddles' direction, boilers had become very efficient indeed as steam passages were improved, and there was probably little need to consider hp.  Turbines had a place in railway work, but nowhere proved to be ideal for general duties.  By the end of WW2, the need was for easily and quickly prepped locos with high availability that could be used with poor coal and limited shed staff, and the design problems were around hammer-blow and forward visibility.  The obvious way forward was with diesel and electric traction, but in the UK the war-damaged economy prevented electrification and the lack of generators of suitable small size and high power restricted the development of diesel-electric traction for at least another decade.

 

There might have been a case for turbines with hp boilers on the Tyne Dock-Consett, Port Glasgow-Motherwell, and Newport-Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, all consistently uphill loaded drags.  In the event Riddles-designed 2-10-0s proved adequate.

Edited March 28 by The Johnster

[AlfaZagato]

My thought had been that, to my knowledge, turbines offer negligible hammer-blow, and that hammer blow had been part of the 'rough and tumble' life of a railway.

[scots region]

18 hours ago, Bluebell Model Railway said:

Hello,

 I've been lurking for a little while, mainly watching people pinch photo's off my website and post them here without even asking... lovely...
Anyway I have decided to post one of a few models I have built, or modified or designed and 3D printed..

This one is a few years old, and was a design which has been hidden at the NRM in York.
This a Bulleid, austerity pacific, dubbed the Q1 Pacific in one magazine which I managed to buy a few years ago (Steam world 1982), shows the wooden model as displayed at the NRM.
Some debate on when or what it was for, was it an early Merchant navy or a light pacific...

The model has recently been upgraded, and new details added which I occasionally sell.. as its a bit more straight forwards.

So here's a few photos:

 

Thanks

 

I remember, I posted it without your permission some years ago, I'm sorry about that. I dunno if these would have gotten names, would the various Merchant Navy companies want their names attached to such a... unique locomotive. 

[MikeOxon]

5 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

 ...Unrelated, a thought I've had recently that may have already been brokered here.   Would have combining a high-pressure boiler, like the Yarrow on 'Hush-Hush,' with a turbine-drive arrangement as on Turbomotive have improved the performance of either?

Been there ;

 

[AlfaZagato]

I figured.

[pH]

On 28/03/2024 at 09:32, The Johnster said:

There might have been a case for turbines with hp boilers on the Tyne Dock-Consett, Port Glasgow-Motherwell, and Newport-Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, all consistently uphill loaded drags. In the event Riddles-designed 2-10-0s proved adequate.

There were no Port Glasgow-Motherwell iron ore trains. There were iron ore trains to Motherwell from General Terminus, Glasgow. (Which were powered by WDs, not BR 9Fs.)

Edited March 29 by pH

[The Johnster]

I stand corrected, but they were Riddles 2-10-0s just the same...

[pH]

27 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I stand corrected, but they were Riddles 2-10-0s just the same...

Usual power, according to published photos, were WD 2-8-0s. Not to say 2-10-0s weren’t used, but certainly not anywhere near as common.

[62613]

On 28/03/2024 at 16:32, The Johnster said:

 

Debatable.  They both sound like good ideas, but have drawbacks in day-to-day railway use; remember, the idea isn't just to build things that work, enny fule can do that, but that work profitably.  HP marine-type boilers are a little delicate for the rough'n'tumble of railway work, and therefore are only practicable on duties where the profitable income offsets the increased maintenance and down-time; the LNER could not find such a duty.  Turbines work most efficiently at full chat, and are not suited to the constant throttle setting changes of railway work up hill and down dale, though Turbomotive successfully worked the 10.00 Liverpool Lime Street-Euston and return, one of the heaviest jobs in the country and often loading to 16 bogies, for many years.  It was rebuilt into conventional form when the boiler needed replacing in 1952, suggesting that it was not worth continuing with in turbine form in post-war conditions.  The problem with constantly changing throttle settings on turbines was mechanical, and not to do with steam-raising.

 

By the late 30s, and certainly as built under Bullied, Ivatt, and Riddles' direction, boilers had become very efficient indeed as steam passages were improved, and there was probably little need to consider hp.  Turbines had a place in railway work, but nowhere proved to be ideal for general duties.  By the end of WW2, the need was for easily and quickly prepped locos with high availability that could be used with poor coal and limited shed staff, and the design problems were around hammer-blow and forward visibility.  The obvious way forward was with diesel and electric traction, but in the UK the war-damaged economy prevented electrification and the lack of generators of suitable small size and high power restricted the development of diesel-electric traction for at least another decade.

 

One of the problems was to do with load changes on the boiler. There was apparently a lot of expansion and contraction, which led to tubes leaking (where they were fixed to the drums?). Marine boilers will do best in steady load conditions, after all they would steam at maximum capacity for weeks at a time. It was the same with diesel generator engines; they weren't adequately tuned to the duty cycle they were expected to perform. 

 

No problem with low cylinder power diesels; just multiply them up (double heading, etc.). One remembers seeing that m.v. Georgic and Britannic, built for White Star Lines in the late 1920s, had 2 - off 10 - cylinder double - acting diesels, for 20,000 bh.p. 10 years later q.s.m.v. Dominion Monarch (Shaw Savill & Albion) had four 5 - cylinder Doxfords. I'm just trying to remember the name of the one which post - war suffered multiple crankcase explosions while on trials after her post - war refit which had four 8 - cylinder trunk piston engines. Wouldn't Melbourne Star have been twin - screw in order to reach the required power to drive her at 16 knots?

Edited Sunday at 20:50 by 62613

[The Johnster]

The 'performs better under a steady load/throttle setting' syndrome also apparently affected the Crossley 2-stroke power plant in the Class 28 Co-Bos.  The Vickers part of the Metropolitan-Vickers combine had apparently built a highly successful series of diesel- electric submarines for the Royal Navy, and considered that this power plant was ideal for the Modernisation Plan Type 2 diesel-electric, right power output and about the right physical size and weight so they put in a tender which was acceptted, but the generator was a bit of a lump hence the Co-Bo arrangement.  A feature of these locos inherited from the submarines was that the engine bay roof doors were large enough for the entire power plant to be lifted out in one go, something not repeated until the HST power cars.  Of course, on the railway, two things were radically different in service practice to the submarines; firstly, the locos needed constantly changing throttle settings in traffic which the engines didn't like, and secondly the locos did not have experienced and highly capable Naval Engine Room Artificers on hand in the engine room to mollycoddle them in service to keep them running, or clean up the oil leaks that caused the fires.

 

The torpedo tubes and conning tower were apparently removed before the locos entered service...

Edited Sunday at 22:52 by The Johnster

[62613]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 'performs better under a steady load/throttle setting' syndrome also apparently affected the Crossley 2-stroke power plant in the Class 28 Co-Bos.  The Vickers part of the Metropolitan-Vickers combine had apparently built a highly successful series of diesel- electric submarines for the Royal Navy, and considered that this power plant was ideal for the Modernisation Plan Type 2 diesel-electric, right power output and about the right physical size and weight so they put in a tender which was acceptted, but the generator was a bit of a lump hence the Co-Bo arrangement.  A feature of these locos inherited from the submarines was that the engine bay roof doors were large enough for the entire power plant to be lifted out in one go, something not repeated until the HST power cars.  Of course, on the railway, two things were radically different in service practice to the submarines; firstly, the locos needed constantly changing throttle settings in traffic which the engines didn't like, and secondly the locos did not have experienced and highly capable Naval Engine Room Artificers on hand in the engine room to mollycoddle them in service to keep them running, or clean up the oil leaks that caused the fires.

 

The torpedo tubes and conning tower were apparently removed before the locos entered service...

And the Mirlees engines in the Brush type 2s as well. They were great in trawlers, apparently. For reasons already discussed.

Weren't the Deltic engines removed in one piece? At least they weren't Paxmans😬

[Flying Pig]

10 minutes ago, 62613 said:

At least they weren't Paxmans😬

 

If you follow the Rock Family Trees histories of Napier and Paxman, by the mid 70s they almost were. It was all Poached Paxman Diesels in a White Wine Sauce at that point, before the inevitable split.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, 62613 said:

Weren't the Deltic engines removed in one piece?

 

I believe so, but the Class 28 Crossleys came out in one lift as a complete power plant, with generator, a feature inherited from the submarines.  When the HSTs were introduced on the WR, we were told that a complete power plant exchange could be accomplished in about 20 minutes with an overhead gantry crane.

[Mike 84C]

CIE also chose that same Crossley  2 stroke for their Metro Vic diesels. Years of unreliable  running  brought GM locos to Ireland and a re-engine policy. Transforming the locos reliability. WAGR of Australia also fitted the Crossley into I think the X class with the same reliability problems. The Aussies stuck with it and I believe did over a thousand mods; to them. I think I found that lot out by following citations from WiKI but all interesting stuff.

[PhilJ W]

10 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

CIE also chose that same Crossley  2 stroke for their Metro Vic diesels. Years of unreliable  running  brought GM locos to Ireland and a re-engine policy. Transforming the locos reliability. WAGR of Australia also fitted the Crossley into I think the X class with the same reliability problems. The Aussies stuck with it and I believe did over a thousand mods; to them. I think I found that lot out by following citations from WiKI but all interesting stuff.

This April's edition of Backtrack has details of British diesel locomotive exports. Makes fascinating reading.

[The Johnster]

It does on the face of things seem strange that a power unit so universally unsuccessful in locomotives should have had such a good reputation in submarines.  After all, the last thing you want in a submarine is an unreliable power plant!  The difference, aside from the constant throttle and load changes of railway work compared to the hours of constant revs and load at sea, is of course the ERAs.  And, possibly, the culture of the Royal Navy, in which officers expected performance from the men, and the men strove to provide it.  It may be that the Crossleys were rubbish in the submarines, but that in order to have a quiet life, the ERAs coped without complaint, so the officers were not ever fully aware of any significant problem.  They therefore reported up the line that the power plants in the submarines were performing perfectly and can we have some more like this, please...

 

Rum, , and the lash.

[Northroader]

one factor in favour of seagoing diesels is that the cooling system, drawing seawater in, through heat exchanger and out, is far more reliable than some of the fan air cooled locomotive setups, the Serck system in particular.

[Deeps]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

…..The difference, aside from the constant throttle and load changes of railway work compared to the hours of constant revs and load at sea, is of course the ERAs.  And, possibly, the culture of the Royal Navy, in which officers expected performance from the men, and the men strove to provide it.  It may be that the Crossleys were rubbish in the submarines, but that in order to have a quiet life, the ERAs coped without complaint, so the officers were not ever fully aware of any significant problem.  They therefore reported up the line that the power plants in the submarines were performing perfectly and can we have some more like this, please...

 

Rum, , and the lash.

Having spent 30 years as an ERA in the Submarine Service (although, by the time I joined up, we were known as MEA’s) I feel qualified to state that complaining about problems, significant or otherwise, was usually a waste of time and. Having to do the maintenance and repairs we had a better appreciation of the specifics than the officers, but they were shackled by the constraints of the bean counters further up the chain of command. 

 

I had little experience of Crossleys as all of my boats were equipped with Paxmans. The main problem with these was that they weren’t, usually, run for extended periods as we had the more powerful Rolls Royce power plant (a reactor) for propulsion. The diesels were generally only required as a back-up and were usually only run up for test and training purposes, which meant they spent little time properly loaded. Consequently they suffered fouling up from exhaust soot. The Paxmans were of a similar design to those used on BR’s HST’s but ours needed to be serviced far sooner than those on the HST’s.

 

Anyway, the rum ration had been stopped before I joined up and on a submarine there is no room to swing a lash! Other than that, I would say we never had a ‘quiet life’.

[The Johnster]

Most interesting and an illuminating comment, thanks Deeps.  I’m assuming that the reactor, once commissioned, runs more or less continually until it is decommissioned at the end of the boat’s service, and supplies all the electrical needs of the boat once it is at sea, and that the backup diesel powerplant drives a generator in the same way as on a loco of it is ever needed, but surely that would compromise the boat’s ability to stay submerged and quiet (don’t answer if any of this skirts the boundaries of Official Secrets!)?