Niels

Compagnie Nord made something like it in1912 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nord_3.1151_–_3.1170_→_SNCF_2-231.A?uselang=fr#/media/File:Early_Nord_Pacific.jpg

Can You please also make a 2-8-4 t based on WD austerity and put it in same picture as the Baltic? A gentleman with driving expirience on another site stated that 2-6-4t s were best riding loco he had driven. 2-8-4 must be better still. Building costs would have been low and track damage from four sets of 4feet 8 would have been less than three 6 feet two

Hammerblow is not nessecary on three cylinder engines. Bulleid proved it by modifying a Schools

Nope Dutchmen in Indonesia rebalanced and revalved a class of 2-8-0 gauge 1067mm with 1105mm drivers sustaining 90 km/h earning money and doing 105 on test run before ww2 and after Chapelon.

Larger drivers are counterproductive when three-cylindered. The Schools class for example will be a better locomotive if rebuilt with five feet wheels and wide firebox. After Chapelon and mr Diamond it was common knowledge that power and speed was limited by valve area more than anything else. Just like car engines It is the poor balancing of two cylindered engines that made it nessecary to employ big wheels for going fast. Try to look at the power curve of the very succesfull SNCF 2-8-2 30 years small wheeled high power. And step 13 pages backwards Higher power at speed than any UK locomotive and 1550mm wheels and two cylinders. This was possible due to big Cossart valves and the two funny looking connecting rod look alikes. Try this link instead Caso masterpiece

There is another phantasy way. WD locomotives came around 850 as 2-8-0 and 150 as 2-10-0. They were built without reproci etc balancing and that is good on lousy tracks and tolerable at speeds below say 25 mph. Coming home they were not really liked. The distance between center of leading wheel and second driver was 13 feet and11inches. On a B16 (made by my Hero mr Raven) the distance between front boggie wheel and driver is 14 feet. Take the austerities and remove the first driver and leading wheels. Put in a three-cylinder compound machine over a boggie and drive unto the now first driver. It will now have balance and riding like an A4 and better fuel economy. After say 100 years of experiments the swedes found their ideal locomotive. Twenty of these three-cylindered beauties: Best Swedish lokomotive UK could have had almost 1000 for nothing. UK loading gauge makes drive unto first set of driver nessecary and connecting rods will be as short on A2/2s Photoshopping anyones?

Your american ligth is fantastic Formidable

Interesting this cut and weld. Try it on a LNER P2 and get something like: Surburban LNER P2

Interesting. Zasawzneck in Cornish meaning saxon speaking. Any relation to sassernach that I once heard in Scotland? It was no praise.

My morning claim was that Raven A2 (4-6-0),Q7(0-8-0) and B16(4-6-0) shared cylinder blocks. Bradley writes that Q7 and B16 had inter-changeable cylinders ,boilers and motion. That A2 used same cylinder casting is likely, but not confirmed. The B16 had conrods outside coupling rods as had A2s and Q7

If You look at pictures in Yedon for B16 it is not true.The connecting rods are further away from center than coupling rods It would have been a better arrangement reversed but was not possible due to using the complicated cast in one three-cylinder block from mineral Q7.

The common inside cylindered locomotive had two crankthrows and four eccentrics between frames. The A2 with one throw and six eccentrics sounds easier to me. Especially as they are more accesible due to front wheel drive

The A2 had outside connecting rods sitting outside the coupling rods at a centerdistance of ,let me guess 6 feet 9inch. If built as 100000 american front driven 4-4-0 with conrods inside coupling rods at say 6 feet three inch, there would have been no clearance problem. A2 and B16 and Q7 shared same cylinder block and on Q7 it was imposible to drive first wheelset so the idea of standartisation was the culprit.

And all the Midland compounds. One crankthrow and six eccentrics on leading driving wheelset

The B16s had same machinery and crankshaft .(more or less) Did a lot of revolutions during a very long life.

There is a picture of a Raven B16 https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/1/15/Im1921EnV131-p014bba.jpg and of a Raven A2 https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-LONDON-NORTH-EASTERN-RAILWAY/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-LNER-ORIGIN/i-72m2bMq/A. The ultimate Pacific in my universe is a shortened A2 boiler on B16 machinery with a trailing wheel or a set of driver more. It can surely be photoshopped but the A2 picture is copyrigthed. It will be of great value to mankind and keep me from mischief if readers here , who has built these two locomotives, will photograph them with long focal length lens and connecting rods in same position

Lovely locomotive that was deemed out by Gresley Machinery was like B16 that was better than Sandringhams. Sandringhams had same machinery lay out as Thompson/Peppercorn pacifics . These pacifics were built after Gresley pacifics and was better or management made an error. Same applies to the V2s that was built as A2/1. If the Raven Pacific had received same loving care that the Gresleys got after loosing to GWR 4-6-0s,some nice locomotives had resulted. It would have been even better if it had had 5feet8 wheels (B16) rather than the 6feet 9 it got. Just dreaming

Lovely and can it easily be made roundtopped?The trailing truck wheels need not be same size

Unite the leading single axle with the first driver in a Zara or Krauss-Helmholtz truck and it will be just as good at speed as a 2 axle . This means the first driver shal have 1 inch freedom side to side and this will only be possible within UK loading gauge if You use three or four cylindes. The 9F has cylinders one inch further out than Britanias. Bang went standartisation. New cylinder patterns. Reason was conflict between front coupling pin and croshead. Brittanias are 8 feet 8,25 inches wide and 9Fs 8feet 10.25 over cylinders.

Why not move the Coronation boiler a little forward ,omit aft 9F wheelset and put a boggie under firebox? A 2-8-4 that was more or less the swan song for american steam freigth

Very close to a real engine SJ E10

null You aint seen nothing yet. https://i.imgur.com/RqN3dGA.jpg

Steam locomotive drivers was sometimes more than five feet because two cylinder locomotives shake themself to death and destruction with number of rpm squared. Three cylinder locomotives are inherently well balanced so five feet drivers would have been big enough for most trains. Based on 9F wheels and boiler form tools.And was nice to dream on a rainy day like today. http://

Lovely,but can be even more extreme. Tests made by BR Rugby showed that 9F boiler was as least as effective as Brittania boiler (that compared very well with LNER V2) as long as it was at or under 3000 lbs coal per hour,one fireman limit. Narrow fireboxes would not have been worth the trouble on British railways if five feet drivers could have been made to turn fast enough. To make five feet drivers fast enough they can be three cylinder driven or by two and then some artificial balancing. With two outside cylinders and a crankshaft and a dummy conrod inside it will still be ligther than the moving parts of Kings,Royal Scotts and Class 5/B1 . And just as fast in daily use. To show it a Photoshop session from a WD 2-10-0 picture will be easy due to the cylindrical round top boiler. Is there sush a picture somewhere? Something like: WD 2-10-0 side picture

Maybe Leaders should have been Heislers. There is a lot of similarity between Hymeks and Heislers,and the Heislers did not need the hydraulics. A V2 compound steam engine is a very smooth engine.