RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted October 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2017 I'm sure the GW would have found a use for some pacifics if they'd wanted to. After all the Southern/ BR(S) managed to build about 150 of them for a smaller selection of routes. Edit: though maybe they didn't need quite so many, given some of the duties they ended up on... Edit 2: on that note, didn't Mr Bulleid initially intend the MNs to be 4-8-2s? Those would have been quite something. Bullied's light pacifics were a different beast to the big Hawskworth/Mattingley engine, which was an out and out express passenger loco with 6'8"drivers. The Bullieds had 6'2" wheels and were in many ways more akin to the Britannias, conceptually fast mixed traffic locos; the big difference being the 3rd cylinder which reduced hammer blow and distributed power more evenly. Bullied was fundamentally unsatisfied with the steam engines he inherited and wanted to modernise by providing a small number of classes that would do everything outside the 3rd rail areas of his railway; under the influence of Gresley and Chapelon these were to be based on efficient steam raisers that were the biggest locos that would do the jobs and were intended, not always initially successfully, to be trouble free easy steaming locos that could perform any task. It is worth mentioning that at the end of the Second World War the Southern, with a reputation for cutting edge modernity in it's electrification programme, actually depended on a fleet of ageing 4-4-0s and 0-4-4s for much of it's steam work. The purpose of the 'Leader' was to replace M7s. The GW's attitude was different; it had undergone this sort of new broom thinking in the Churchward era and was happy to continue in that vein. The fact that it was the only railway to survive the grouping with it's loco policy and design traditions, and the rather good luck that in 1923 those policies and traditions had produced some very good engines by the standard of the time, heavily influenced it's thinking, which by 1945 was that the only thing it needed to do to Churchward's engines was to put more modern cabs and better superheaters on them. They would have insisted, as they were still insisting 20 years later, that this policy was all that was needed, though to what extent that was true or alternatively to what extent that mindset stifled any innovative thinking or possibility of improvement is another matter for a debate which might have been relevant in 1957 but is now purely academic. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Meanwhile in strong Pornography https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevepurves/7950223654/ 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 The purpose of the 'Leader' was to replace M7s. Which it would never have actually done had it not been a disaster.Thinking of that raises the question in my mind of what a Bulleid designed 2-6-2T might have been like, since that's what he actually needed. Probably more like a tank fitted Q1 than a pacific. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scots region Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Which it would never have actually done had it not been a disaster. Thinking of that raises the question in my mind of what a Bulleid designed 2-6-2T might have been like, since that's what he actually needed. Probably more like a tank fitted Q1 than a pacific. Ask and ye shall receive 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium cctransuk Posted October 10, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 10, 2017 Ask and ye shall receive Bullied Prairie.jpg I think that he said Bulleid 2-6-2T. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 On post #1284 I mentioned a MetroVick V set Double Decker, also a Sketchup model. I've also come up with an alternative front end slightly based on the class 312. I'm still considering the Destination Board and maybe a sunshade and conventional locomotive buffers too. PS-That photo is of a class 311, built by cravens. The 312 were based on mk2 coaches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Very interesting indeed: I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Caledonian also designed a 2-8-0 and two Pacifics..... And speaking of Moguls, here's my Mogul as it looks right now! I hope you folks like it as much as I did making it! 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) PS-That photo is of a class 311, built by cravens. The 312 were based on mk2 coaches. Whoops! They do look very much similar, if not the same! Sorry about that to any electric fans out there! Edited October 10, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) *Update!* I've made a decision for the front end of my model! Screenshot 2017-10-10 at 11.41.03 AM.png EDIT: There's potential for a roller blind inside the destination indicator, like those old double decker buses you see in the LT Museum. P.S. See the link attached below for the sounds of my train (actually a red rattler!) I'm also considering motorising one of the carriages of my model using a black beetle bogie, and also sprung buffers at the front end. (Don't know whether I should make my own or buy Bachmann ones though). And also does anyone know how those bus destination blinds work? I'm one of those stupid people who are amazed when you see those things change, and that's when it makes you wonder how they work. I have a vague idea of how they work (I've seen some of them hanging from the roof in the LT Museum) but I'd like to know how I can make a changeable one into my model. I've already made the destination indicator box removable (I'll post that later) and now I just need to know how it all works so I can find a way to incorporate it into my model. Edited October 10, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted October 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2017 And speaking of Moguls, here's my Mogul as it looks right now! I hope you folks like it as much as I did making it! Top imagineering! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) Paint scheme has been (nearly) completed. I've chosen the Electric Blue colour scheme, like some of the BR electric locomotives like the class 83. I've also put in sockets for sprung buffers and I've included other buffing gear. As well as that I've started adding the components (the MetroVick electrical equipment) that will determine how it will operate. EDIT: How about completely Electric Blue??? Any takers? (No, this won't be how I paint my model!) Edited October 11, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 EDIT: How about completely Electric Blue??? Any takers? (No, this won't be how I paint my model!) Hypothetically it could have been painted PTC Blue. Cheers David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) Hypothetically it could have been painted PTC Blue. Cheers David True, maybe if they had made the V sets to the original specifications. They were intended to be stretched and air conditioned versions of the Tulloch Double Deck Suburbans, however the specification wasn't quite right due to the placement of the aircon. If these were to go ahead I'm pretty sure the motor cars would have to have been Single Deck. So that's when Comeng redesigned the train, hence coming out as what we see today. Edited October 11, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 And speaking of Moguls, here's my Mogul as it looks right now! DSC08869.JPG DSC08870.JPG DSC08871.JPG DSC08872.JPG DSC08873.JPG DSC08874.JPG DSC08875.JPG DSC08876.JPG I hope you folks like it as much as I did making it! An interesting engine, well done! However... The front end looks awkward, as if it would be bearing too much load on a single axle, rather in the manner of the Dean class 3001 singles with the wheel arrangement 2-2-2, which were rebuilt into the 3031 "Achilles" class with a leading bogie after an accident to one of the class blamed on the overweight at the front. Thing is, if yours were similarly treated, it would look rather like a Whale "Experiment" or Bowen Cook "Prince of Wales" 4-6-0.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 11, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 11, 2017 An interesting engine, well done! However... The front end looks awkward, as if it would be bearing too much load on a single axle, rather in the manner of the Dean class 3001 singles with the wheel arrangement 2-2-2, which were rebuilt into the 3031 "Achilles" class with a leading bogie after an accident to one of the class blamed on the overweight at the front. Thing is, if yours were similarly treated, it would look rather like a Whale "Experiment" or Bowen Cook "Prince of Wales" 4-6-0.... True, and Whale's engines were intended to be bigger and better Jumbos in reaction to the compounds. But this 2-6-0 is very much in the Webb tradition, being a mash-up of a Greater Britain 2-2-2-2 and a Jumbo 2-4-0 (though I think the photo is pure Jumbo). Webb, patentee of the radial axle, was very reluctant to use a leading bogie, only giving way with the final compound 4-4-0s of the Jubilee and Alfred the Great classes and the Bill Bailey 4-6-0s - where presumably he had to concede that the weight of the cylinder block was too much for a single axle. This 2-6-0 only has two inside cylinders, so weight shouldn't be a problem. I've never read that there was any problem with stability at speed with the leading radial axle engines - the radial axle should have had the same effect as a well-designed bogie of leading the engine into a curve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelpara Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Paint scheme has been (nearly) completed. I've chosen the Electric Blue colour scheme, like some of the BR electric locomotives like the class 83. I've also put in sockets for sprung buffers and I've included other buffing gear. As well as that I've started adding the components (the MetroVick electrical equipment) that will determine how it will operate. Screenshot 2017-10-11 at 1.27.24 PM.png EDIT: How about completely Electric Blue??? Any takers? (No, this won't be how I paint my model!) Screenshot 2017-10-11 at 1.50.15 PM.png I'm liking this design, however have a feeling it won't fit on my 3D printer as is! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 I'm liking this design, however have a feeling it won't fit on my 3D printer as is! Thanks! I'm glad you like it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelpara Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Thanks! I'm glad you like it! What are the dimensions, I'm assuming your doing it in 00? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 True, and Whale's engines were intended to be bigger and better Jumbos in reaction to the compounds. But this 2-6-0 is very much in the Webb tradition, being a mash-up of a Greater Britain 2-2-2-2 and a Jumbo 2-4-0 (though I think the photo is pure Jumbo). Webb, patentee of the radial axle, was very reluctant to use a leading bogie, only giving way with the final compound 4-4-0s of the Jubilee and Alfred the Great classes and the Bill Bailey 4-6-0s - where presumably he had to concede that the weight of the cylinder block was too much for a single axle. This 2-6-0 only has two inside cylinders, so weight shouldn't be a problem. I've never read that there was any problem with stability at speed with the leading radial axle engines - the radial axle should have had the same effect as a well-designed bogie of leading the engine into a curve. Thank you very much. I appreciate your kind thoughts. I haven't test-run it yet, but I will at some point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted October 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2017 (edited) An interesting engine, well done! However... The front end looks awkward, as if it would be bearing too much load on a single axle, rather in the manner of the Dean class 3001 singles with the wheel arrangement 2-2-2, which were rebuilt into the 3031 "Achilles" class with a leading bogie after an accident to one of the class blamed on the overweight at the front. Thing is, if yours were similarly treated, it would look rather like a Whale "Experiment" or Bowen Cook "Prince of Wales" 4-6-0.... The Dean 3001, IIRC, were not the same as a Webb's locos with a single leading axle as these were fitted with radial axles which were designed to 'lead' the loco into curvature by being given radial play which dragged the front of the engine in that direction with spring control. Dean's 2-2-2 simply had a fixed leading axle in the double frames to carry and distribute weight at the front end, unsuccessfully as it turned as the ride was poor and there was a derailment with one loco in Box Tunnel. Dean addressed the issue by cutting the frames back and installing one of his standard 9' heavy duty coach bogies, whose outside frames left room for the cylinders and stuff beneath them. This was the start of a recognisable evolution of lcoomotives, starting with Churchward's new boilers, that ended with the Saints and Stars within a very few years. Edited October 11, 2017 by The Johnster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted October 11, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 11, 2017 The Dean 3001, IIRC, were not the same as a Webb's locos with a single leading axle as these were fitted with radial axles which were designed to 'lead' the loco into curvature by being given radial play which dragged the front of the engine in that direction with spring control. Dean's 2-2-2 simply had a fixed leading axle in the double frames to carry and distribute weight at the front end, unsuccessfully as it turned as the ride was poor and there was a derailment with one loco in Box Tunnel. Dean addressed the issue by cutting the frames back and installing one of his standard 9' heavy duty coach bogies, whose outside frames left room for the cylinders and stuff beneath them. This was the start of a recognisable evolution of lcoomotives, starting with Churchward's new boilers, that ended with the Saints and Stars within a very few years. The Dean 2-2-2s, like Patrick Stirling's outside cylinder 2-2-2s on the Great Northern, suffered from pushing the design beyond its limits - as you say, the increasing weight at the front end as the engines got bigger was more than a single fixed axle could handle. When S.W. Johnson reintroduced singles on the Midland, eight years before Dean's 3001 class were built, he used a leading bogie from the start - having already established the superiority of a bogie four-coupled engine over a 2-4-0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Johnson was simply following the 4-2-2 Stirling Single of 1870, which was the first use of a leading bogie in a design for UK service. All the later UK 4-2-2s are very obviously based on Stirling's template, a locomotive which was the Concorde of the time. (Such was its fame in its day that I have been told that no class of locomotive before or since has appeared on more postage stamps: information received from a keen philatelist and railway enthusiast.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Top imagineering! Thank you very much. I can wish the best for you and your James model. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 What are the dimensions, I'm assuming your doing it in 00? Length: 31.5cm Height: 5.7cm Width: 3.8cm Specifications are per carriage in OO gauge. Also, I intend on running the set as a part of a test train, maybe with some of those coaches used to test new stock. Otherwise I'll run the two car set on its own or with an additional set to make a 4 car one. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 I've made some developments with the paint scheme since last post. I've finalised the scheme on the front end and now I'm considering the decals (things like the number and crests), I might even make number plates like various other electric blue locomotives. I've also made sheets for the interior sides using Google Drawings. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now