Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives

28XX
 Share

Recommended Posts

brack

brack

Posted
Posted

Oh, ok... so, originally with the front axle driven from the inside, LP cylinder, then the middle and third axle spanning the firebox, driven from the outside, HP cylinders?

Found this for you too:

 

http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/80724/myst11a.jpg

 

Its a train sim model, but the creator (goes by the name Jefran) makes well detailed, well researched models - I've seen a few of his other ones so I'd trust it as being pretty much as accurate as he can get it based on dimensions and photos he can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rockershovel

rockershovel

Posted
Posted (edited)

Found this for you too:http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/80724/myst11a.jpg

Its a train sim model, but the creator (goes by the name Jefran) makes well detailed, well researched models - I've seen a few of his other ones so I'd trust it as being pretty much as accurate as he can get it based on dimensions and photos he can get.

That really is rather splendid. The "conversion" to 4-6-0 apparently involved moving the cylinders, then? Big job!

 

Why imagine locos, when you can find things like that in existence?

Edited by rockershovel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Compound2632

Compound2632

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Indeed, if it hadn't existed, can you imagine what many people would say about it's plausibility when you announce you're building a 2'6" gauge 3 cylinder compound tank for you several hundred mile long international railway.

 

Well, they'd become accustomed to 4' 8 1/2" gauge 3 cylinder compound tender engines for ditto...

 

(Well, OK, they didn't actually work north of Carlisle Citadel but the LNWR was one of only two companies to own lines in all four countries of the Union.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hroth

Hroth

Posted
Posted

Well the Kato DD51 will go around 216mm radius. :)

 

Cheers

David

Thats about 8.5 inches - must be the N gauge version!  But a picture of the HO model shows an alarming lateral excursion of the central bogie!

 

post-21933-0-58746700-1506324377.jpg

 

Good thing they didn't photograph it from the other side....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
cheesysmith

cheesysmith

Posted
Posted

The article about the proposal by the RTC for double deck trains for the SR was in the June 1965 issue of modern railways. As I don't know where my copy is, IIRC it was a articulated design based on the cartic-4 with one saloon between the bogies, a second above, wide entrance doors over the bogies and was intended to be used push pull with the SR 71 locos. It would have fitted into the BR loading gauge but with limited headroom (less than 6ft) on one deck.

 

Of course, the SR said no, welded to old idea as they were (for example, look at the PEP derived trains, or the 455, which cannot multi with anything else, but still had manual MU couplings when other units for BR at the time had automatic couplings).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

The article about the proposal by the RTC for double deck trains for the SR was in the June 1965 issue of modern railways. As I don't know where my copy is, IIRC it was a articulated design based on the cartic-4 with one saloon between the bogies, a second above, wide entrance doors over the bogies and was intended to be used push pull with the SR 71 locos. It would have fitted into the BR loading gauge but with limited headroom (less than 6ft) on one deck.

 

Of course, the SR said no, welded to old idea as they were (for example, look at the PEP derived trains, or the 455, which cannot multi with anything else, but still had manual MU couplings when other units for BR at the time had automatic couplings).

 

I think that's a little unfair on the SR management. There are not too many routes on the SR, with their frequent stops, where the station dwell times of such a set-up would not more than negate the extra capacity of each train.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hroth

Hroth

Posted
Posted

According to OS Nock in his book "LMS Steam", Beames proposed a rebuild of the Prince of Wales class inside cylinder 4-6-0s with a high running plate and inside Caprotti valve gear.  Apart from looking rather odd, with an expanse of frame where you'd expect to see big lumps of iron, the loco looks more like a parallel boilered BR Standard class 4/5, minus all the extraneous ironmongery below......

 

Sounds like a good bodgers Neverwozz!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BernardTPM

BernardTPM

Posted
Posted

The article about the proposal by the RTC for double deck trains for the SR was in the June 1965 issue of modern railways. As I don't know where my copy is, IIRC it was a articulated design based on the cartic-4 with one saloon between the bogies, a second above, wide entrance doors over the bogies and was intended to be used push pull with the SR 71 locos. It would have fitted into the BR loading gauge but with limited headroom (less than 6ft) on one deck.

 

Of course, the SR said no, welded to old idea as they were (for example, look at the PEP derived trains, or the 455, which cannot multi with anything else, but still had manual MU couplings when other units for BR at the time had automatic couplings).

 

I think that's a little unfair on the SR management. There are not too many routes on the SR, with their frequent stops, where the station dwell times of such a set-up would not more than negate the extra capacity of each train.

 

I found my Modern Railways. Below is a photo of the two drawings, the top one (which was the one I was remembering) was actually a proposal by BAC* for a Heathrow service and was in the June 1969 issue, the lower is the BR for Southern Region proposal in the June 1965 issue. Interestingly dwell times in the SR schedules were just 20 seconds per station.

post-1877-0-57088800-1506340841_thumb.jpg

 

* British Aircraft Corporation

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloodnok

Bloodnok

Posted
Posted

That design for a Heathrow service would have been a disaster. No space for luggage!

Not only that but they've bitten the "aircraft inspired" bug rather too much. The seating plan is straight out of an aircraft, quite possibly literally. And all the seats face the same way. Did they imagine turning all the coaches at the end of the run, or possibly even turning the seats within the coach?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloodnok

Bloodnok

Posted
Posted

I found my Modern Railways. Below is a photo of the two drawings, the top one (which was the one I was remembering) was actually a proposal by BAC* for a Heathrow service and was in the June 1969 issue, the lower is the BR for Southern Region proposal in the June 1965 issue. Interestingly dwell times in the SR schedules were just 20 seconds per station.

 

The SR proposal is very interesting.

 

Four cars of that is the same as three non-articulated Mk1s for length. Each one has 92 seats per car in 2+2 throughout layout, with two wide doors per car and a large vestibule. 13 cars like that, plus two end cars which would presumably be extended with standard SR looking cabs over the other half of the bogie, plus a loco, is about the same length as twelve Mk1s. That's ~1380 2+2 seats. Compare that to a 3x 4-CIG at what, 624 standard class plus 108 first class, if I've counted seats correctly. It'd probably unload better, too, as there's more door width per unit length than a 4-CIG, too.

 

Even if you assign a couple of those double deck coaches (at 75% capacity) to first class, and find a space for a guard, it's still about twice the capacity.

 

Likely a better comparison is a set of 4-VEPs. I'd suspect these were built for much the same traffic considered for the double deck trains. Then you're looking at a seated capacity of what, 798 standard and 108 first? Something like that. The difference is in load/unload speed. The 4-VEP is legendary for that though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Budgie

Budgie

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Not only that but they've bitten the "aircraft inspired" bug rather too much. The seating plan is straight out of an aircraft, quite possibly literally. And all the seats face the same way. Did they imagine turning all the coaches at the end of the run, or possibly even turning the seats within the coach?

Maybe you moved the seat backs like you do with some old-style trams.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...