RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 25, 2012 I know beauty is a very subjective concept, but the 10100 Fell loco looks plain stupid to me. Such "streamlining"! I love diesels with a bit of a "snout", but nope, I hate the Fell (I'm sure 'CHARD will have something to say!!). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 25, 2012 This one looks a big big for the British loading gauge... http://www.rodneymatthews.com/hmhero.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 the spruce caboose from an episode of the simpsons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Try THIS site for some of the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold LH&JC Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm surprised this thread has run to 2 pages and no-one's mentioned Bulleid's Leader. Shame 36002 was never finished, just to see if 36001 was a bit of a dud or whether the design wasn't up to snuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 25, 2012 Try THIS site for some of the best. They may look silly but the engineering was sound as they spread the weight and had long lives I suppose the ultimate object of the OP was a silly idea that was totally useless in function too. Missing out basic elements of physics or railways requirements. Cyclopede was pointless as it wasted energy in transferring the horses effort to rotary motion rather than just attaching the horse to the front, gearing the treadmill up had potentially fatal results for the horses too! As Brian pointed out the Guiness brewery locos proved driving wheels off other wheels worked well if you needed to change gauge and save on having a rarely used loco of one gauge, but is pointless for any other purpose as you add weight and lose some traction at the interface so it's always going to be less efficient than using the direct driven wheels. Which loco engineer built the engine with two sets of individual driving wheels that could go in opposite directions? Sometimes needing a push start! Biggest application of the pot boiler Mamod principle!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony_S Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 25, 2012 Which loco engineer built the engine with two sets of individual driving wheels that could go in opposite directions? Sometimes needing a push start! Biggest application of the pot boiler Mamod principle!!! That would probably be Mr Webb of the LNWR. Though I'm sure I've got a picture in a magazine somewhere of some loco that looks like a single cylinder traction engine driving rail wheels. I suspect it was narrow gauge too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm not sure if this is silly or just too complex. The Beyer-Garret-Mallet (?) at the bottom would be most impressive. http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/quadruplex/quadrapl.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted April 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 25, 2012 Here's another >> http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/friction/friction.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 26, 2012 Though I'm sure I've got a picture in a magazine somewhere of some loco that looks like a single cylinder traction engine driving rail wheels. I suspect it was narrow gauge too. The Aveling Porter rail engines were actually very successful as industrial shunters and came in a variety of formats and gauges. Several are preserved too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Silliest loco ever built? No contest:- Gresley's V4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted April 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 27, 2012 "This is getting very silly" (Monty python) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Which loco engineer built the engine with two sets of individual driving wheels that could go in opposite directions? As mentioned below, the product of FW Webb on the LNWR. But an urban myth, I'm afraid, put about by people denigrating his work after his retirement. If they'd been as bad as is made out, the LNWR passenger service would have collapsed - but it didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Surprised no-one's mentioned the Beyer-Lungstrom turbine locomotive. I don't have a photo, but I believe that with the auxiliary chassis it needed to make it work, it was never going to be a success. As mentioned above, the product of FW Webb on the LNWR. But an urban myth, I'm afraid, put about by people denigrating his work after his retirement. If they'd been as bad as is made out, the LNWR passenger service would have collapsed - but it didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftbovine Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 There is a European loco called a Breuer shunter that looks like a wardrobe plonked on top of a bogie. It's probably not silly design wise and no doubt works very well but it always makes me smile. It must be a candidate for the shortest loco too. Regards Veronica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 ....available in HO from Rivarossi! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 The British Beyer Garratts. LNER version ruined by Gresley insisting on his three cylinder layout at both ends with associated complex gubbins. And you build one hugely expensive loco to do some of the banking at Worsboro - thus saving, at best, the massive expense of one crew's pay? That is, when the thing was not on Mexborough shed with a 'not to be moved' sign on it, which by all accounts it often was. LMS version ruined by having inadequate Midland small engine bits and pieces where it should have had Beyer Peacock standard parts. Big mistake. Both types could have been brilliant. Though whether it was worth the capital cost of a Garratt to do low-level banking work when second-hand RODs (O4s), standard with a large existing class, were freely available from the government at knock-down prices is highly questionable. The LNER was not really rich enough to waste money like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 There is a European loco called a Breuer shunter that looks like a wardrobe plonked on top of a bogie... That is by far the best description I've read of one of those rather charming little things. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted April 29, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 29, 2012 The British Beyer Garratts. LNER version ruined by Gresley insisting on his three cylinder layout at both ends with associated complex gubbins. And you build one hugely expensive loco to do some of the banking at Worsboro - thus saving, at best, the massive expense of one crew's pay? That is, when the thing was not on Mexborough shed with a 'not to be moved' sign on it, which by all accounts it often was. LMS version ruined by having inadequate Midland small engine bits and pieces where it should have had Beyer Peacock standard parts. Big mistake. Both types could have been brilliant. Though whether it was worth the capital cost of a Garratt to do low-level banking work when second-hand RODs (O4s), standard with a large existing class, were freely available from the government at knock-down prices is highly questionable. The LNER was not really rich enough to waste money like that. The Midland 0-10-0 Big Bertha was in the same category. I didn't do anything that 2 Jinties couldn't do and of course traffic was such that a fleet of Jinties were still required. If it was any good, the Midland would have built a couple more. Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 The Midland 0-10-0 Big Bertha was in the same category. I didn't do anything that 2 Jinties couldn't do and of course traffic was such that a fleet of Jinties were still required. If it was any good, the Midland would have built a couple more. Kevin Martin The Midland 0-10-0 Big Bertha was in the same category. I didn't do anything that 2 Jinties couldn't do and of course traffic was such that a fleet of Jinties were still required. If it was any good, the Midland would have built a couple more. Kevin Martin And why build a banker with a tender? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted April 30, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 30, 2012 That Baldwin was an interesting attempt but I prefer the next well known high power loco 10% more power 60% less weight - DELTIC. Fell and Leader were both failed attempts, but a good try. I personally think ANY single driver built after 1890 or so is very silly, Churchward proved this with the City class, and I would love to know what the single driver designers would have thought of a 9F doing 90mph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Creel Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 ....available in HO from Rivarossi! and in N from Ndetail... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Worsdell forever Posted May 1, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 1, 2012 Streamlined B17s, Ok, good locos, but! weren't the A4s bad enough? :no: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Natalie Graham Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Brunton's "Mechanical Traveller" of 1813 is a good one. Built with the belief that wheels would not provide adhesion on rails and on the principle that the horses that it was designed to replace had legs, this locomotive had four unpowered wheels and a pair of steam driven legs at one end. Apparently it successfully walked along at 3mph until the boiler exploded Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted May 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 5, 2012 Guinness used the 'loco running above a set of wheels of a differing gauge' quite successfully, Brian. For a photograph scroll about two thirds the way down. http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/22/Guinness.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.