Imaginary Locomotives

[Corbs]

Thanks! It does take time but I hope every time I do it I get a bit better.

 

Here's another version taking on board some of the operating requirements of the 08/Z etc.

Front steps added.
Boiler shortened again and cab extended forward.
Tanks cut down and with sloping front so the crew can see the buffers.
I'm afraid I don't know what a power reverser looks like so I haven't been able to incorporate one. Ditto removing the superheater.
Overall the length is still about the same as Victor and Vulcan, should be more within the weight limits than the oversized one from yesterday.

 

and the long tank version for the sake of completeness......

Edited February 1, 2018 by Corbs

[Northroader]

There’s still the push pull bits left on the smokebox.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I'm afraid I don't know what a power reverser looks like so I haven't been able to incorporate one. Ditto removing the superheater.

 

 A very successful pattern of power reverser was the cataract type, which at a glance looks much like a Westinghouse air pump. On the footplate just in front of the tank would be the location  - there would be a mechanical linkage to the lifting link in the expansion link -  and I suppose in best BR fashion the pipe feeds would have to run across the tank top or boiler cladding to reach the cab.

 

The superheater is purely internal so 'disappears' all of itself. No need for any removeable cover plate(s) on the smokebox for superheater header access, or a pipe to the anti-vacuum valve coming out of the smokebox side, as far as eliminating external associated bits and pieces is concerned.

[Corbs]

There’s still the push pull bits left on the smokebox.

 

Is that the diaphragm looking thing? If so I can remove it.

 

 A very successful pattern of power reverser was the cataract type, which at a glance looks much like a Westinghouse air pump. On the footplate just in front of the tank would be the location  - there would be a mechanical linkage to the lifting link in the expansion link -  and I suppose in best BR fashion the pipe feeds would have to run across the tank top or boiler cladding to reach the cab.

 

The superheater is purely internal so 'disappears' all of itself. No need for any removeable cover plate(s) on the smokebox for superheater header access, or a pipe to the anti-vacuum valve coming out of the smokebox side, as far as eliminating external associated bits and pieces is concerned.

 

Thanks, I'lll have a look for pictures of cataract type power reversers.

 

So just to confirm - do I need to remove/replace anything to get rid of the superheater?

[73c]

They are great bits of image magic, as eric said ernie ' you can't see the join'

[rockershovel]

As I understand it, the introduction of superheaters led to a general lengthening of smokeboxes, and the smokebox needs to be airtight - so is there a technical value in reducing the volume of the smokebox, if superheating isn’t fitted?

 

The high bunker is presumably a “Standard” design feature - but is it useful for a shunting locomotive? Or would increased rear visibility be preferable?

[Corbs]

There’s still the push pull bits left on the smokebox.

 

Think this has been removed now and I've updated the pics.

 

As I understand it, the introduction of superheaters led to a general lengthening of smokeboxes, and the smokebox needs to be airtight - so is there a technical value in reducing the volume of the smokebox, if superheating isn’t fitted?

 

The high bunker is presumably a “Standard” design feature - but is it useful for a shunting locomotive? Or would increased rear visibility be preferable?

Ah, like the way the Class 700 were rebuilt with long smokeboxes when converted to superheat? I have now shortened the smokebox and updated the images above.

 

Aye I wanted it to retain 'standard' features with the bunker, but the J94s had extended bunkers fitted so at least there is precedent. The coal capacity is so small without it.

 

They are great bits of image magic, as eric said ernie ' you can't see the join'

Thanks mate I like this one. The other 2 that came before are quite out of scale but this one feels better.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On the shunter, I would recess the running plate above the steps to provide a safe refuge for anyone riding the steps.  

 

 

You could even have an extended area front and aft to provide a safe platform for the shunter to ride on.

 

Of course, our imaginary alternate universe BR has autocouplers and radio comms between the guy riding the stepwell and the driver...

[rockershovel]

On the shunter, I would recess the running plate above the steps to provide a safe refuge for anyone riding the steps.

 

15853137271_0ff0335297_c.jpg

 

You could even have an extended area front and aft to provide a safe platform for the shunter to ride on.

 

Of course, our imaginary alternate universe BR has autocouplers and radio comms between the guy riding the stepwell and the driver...

I don’t believe that anyone would ride on the steps during shunting operations, they would be alongside using their shunters pole

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by rockershovel

[73c]

Are those 3 link couplings the special glow in the dark ones for night shunting? 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

But we're going to do away with 3 links in our parallel universe.  Ridiculous things.

[Budgie]

But we're going to do away with 3 links in our parallel universe.  Ridiculous things.

I hope they are not going to be replaced with tension-locks :-)

[Ramblin Rich]

I hope they are not going to be replaced with tension-locks :-)

Choppers! Aka Norwegian couplers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_coupling

[Corbs]

Edited February 1, 2018 by Corbs

[scots region]

std-7MT-tank-2.jpg

That’s going in the diagram book.

 

Mr Corbs I am in need of jaw-reattachment surgery

[73c]

Really like that, tho did take a second or 2 for the penny to drop!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... did take a second or 2 for the penny to drop!

The 'Stanier' equivalent has been done in model form on at least one exhibition layout, and looked so 'right' that most viewers just 'gave it a pass'. For modelling purposes the  8F chassis literally drops in, replacing the '2-6' portion. In LMS or BR form likely to have proven a very successful class, had there been a need for it

[Corbs]

Ah that's interesting, on this one I ended up moving the rear bogie back and extending the bunker so I wonder if that would work in model form (as the two images I blended together are different scales).

The water tank was also extended to give it only 1 curve 'up' rather than 2 as on the Std.4

Edited February 2, 2018 by Corbs

[73c]

I'd buy one, it just look's so 'right'

[JimC]

Supposing Churchward had become enamoured of wide fireboxes and atlantics, and instead of Stars built this.

Shortened Std 6 (Great Bear) boiler, on chassis developed from the 4-4-2 Star prototype.

I think most likely it would be more than a little overweight, and be close to King route restrictions.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by JimC

[Corbs]

The squat-ness is reminiscent of the LNER and Southern Atlantics I think!

 

Not quite imaginary but a photoshop request from another forum so I'll stick it up here:

Edited February 2, 2018 by Corbs

[JimC]

The previous was one I did a while back, but I felt like doing an imaginary tonight.

and thought, supposing the GWR had needed a more powerful Auto tank than the 48/1400s, but which was more flexible and kinder on track than the 0-6-0s. So, I made a 2-4-0 version of the 5400 pannier tank.
 

 

I moved the leading wheels forward slightly so that there would be a bit more weight on the drivers and a bit less on the leading wheels. Even so it was so comically quick and easy that it rather defeated the object of a bit of fun. Also the weight on the leading wheels worried me a bit.

So, what about a side tank version. This pulls the weight back a bit, so is probably better balanced.



It is, I suppose, really as much an updated version of the Metro as the 48 is an updated version of the 517. Funny how the logic repeats. 

Might have been good for the Wenford Bridge line...

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Supposing Churchward had become enamoured of wide fireboxes ...

Enamoured or not, he was reputedly not best pleased when his successor had the only one he designed and got constructed 'discontinued'.

[LNWR18901910]

Ok, ok. I had another stab at it. This one is based more on the 15xx, same height, same length, same wheelbase/wheel size. Chimney is same height.

 

Hopefully this one is less laughable!

 

BR-standard-shunter-3e.jpg

 

Original images:

 

 

and

 

Nice model, that! Is it worth an attempt in 00?

Supposing Churchward had become enamoured of wide fireboxes and atlantics, and instead of Stars built this.

Shortened Std 6 (Great Bear) boiler, on chassis developed from the 4-4-2 Star prototype.

I think most likely it would be more than a little overweight, and be close to King route restrictions.

 

442-LittleBear..jpg

Nice Atlantic, that! Worth an attempt in 00 Gauge, I hope.

[LNWR18901910]

Thanks! It does take time but I hope every time I do it I get a bit better.

 

Here's another version taking on board some of the operating requirements of the 08/Z etc.

Front steps added.

Boiler shortened again and cab extended forward.

Tanks cut down and with sloping front so the crew can see the buffers.

I'm afraid I don't know what a power reverser looks like so I haven't been able to incorporate one. Ditto removing the superheater.

Overall the length is still about the same as Victor and Vulcan, should be more within the weight limits than the oversized one from yesterday.

 

BR-standard-shunter5-2mt-1.jpg

BR-standard-shunter5-short-2.jpg

and the long tank version for the sake of completeness......

BR-standard-shunter5-long-4.jpg

I bet only one of these would've made it into preservation.