Niels

Look no further and enjoy the story here: http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/index-dh.htm

BR(W) was like Afghanistan never ruled by outsiders. The Germans made some very ligth diesel engines and mechanical gearboxes that almost made it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_V_200 But did not in the end. This was a technology choice suitable for the western tribes. They did not think much of 9Fs either.

The Cox paper is interesting as it includes details of the Caledonian 60 class. https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/c-r-pickersgill-hughes-class-60-greybacks.1168066/ The class had NO frame cracks after many years duty and very low repair costs. But maybe to wide over cylinders for use in England A 9F based 4-8-0 http:// The Hughes 2-10-0 proposal skech shows a wide firebox over the driving wheels.

Red wheels and framing is easy to inspect for cracks.

All british trailing truck tender engines were pure waste of adhesion. The USAF S160 proved that wide fireboxes could fit UK loading gate sitting over 4 feet 8 drivers. 9Fs upped that to 5 feet drivers and their boilers were the most effective of the big boilers tested by Rugby and Ells moving cirkus. If two cylinder five feet drivers could do 90 mph ocassionally three cylindered could do it every day. To fit 9Fs for mainline they can be rebuilt. ">http:// or ">http://

Coronations were constructed while Stanier made Indian Pacifics safe.The wheel enlargement was due to Riddles and a unnessecary retrograde step according to him self.

The LNER B16 proved that wheels can be 5 feet 8 inches on three-cylindered locomotives and run as fast as nessecary in UK. The BR standards could all have had five feet drivers . Three cylinders for the selected few asked to run more than 60-70mph regularly. A GWR 4-8-0 on five feet wheels would have been usefull and looked better than a great king-bear.

Only problem is that Saints were balanced in a way where wheels would lift at about 100 mph. https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/saint-class-135-ish-mph.923959/page-13#post-1815992

Timetabled Start to stop average with fare paying passengers as I have read it. If You can read german:https://www.ekshop.de/buecher/eisenbahn-geschichte/die-schnellsten-dampfzuege.html

The fastest regular passenger paying steam speed train was run by Chicago and Milwaukee in summer 1939 doing 126 km in 63 minutes;That is 119.8 km/h The Belgians then did 121km in 60 minutes;that is 121 km/h. The Americans then went 121,8 km/h in april 1940 were the Belgians were engaged in other sports.

The GWR 47xx had seven feet connecting rods and almost 30 tons piston force. When piston is midway this puts almost 6 tons more load on driven wheel. Going forward that is. Stationary load on driven wheel was ca 9 tons. At that time 14feet long connecting rods driving third big wheelset were thougth unsafe. The german P10 was designed at the same time and made three-cylindered for this reason. The 28xx had smaller wheels and drove third set of drivers The 28xx had longer connecting rods

How a three-cylinder BR standard pacific could have been made from superfluous 9F parts https://imgur.com/CTSJ70h

Gresley 6 feet nine pacifics look old fashined and slow compared to Thompsons 6 feet 2s.. The fastest ever european regular fare financed steam trains were belgian .. Most of the Thompsons were long and with small wheels and look much faster than Gresleys. Long and low looks fast. Just like ships

A Stirling 8 feet single had 18 times 28 inch cylinders.Let us rebuild it with five feet drivers and 18 times 17.5 inch cylinders and identical valve areas Performance and piston velocity is unimpared. The false idea was that big wheels rode better(Somehow true on uneven roads) and had better traction coefficient . If true,electric trains would have 2 meter drivers today.

There is one here: http://www.albert-gieseler.de/dampf_de/imageHtml/imagedet107168.shtml

The Raven and Gresley Pacifics were both open to improvements. Bulleid proved that well balanced three-cylinder engines with 6 feet drivers were more than fast enough for UK passenger trains. A six feet nine wheelset is at least 30% more heavy than a six feet two. It is unsprung and does a lot of no no to the track. One can maybe argue that even two cylinder Brittanias were fast enough. By going from B16 five feet eigth to A2 six feet eigth drivers Raven got at least six tons un-sprung as ballast and maybe some crankshaft trouble as well. Bigger wheels are much harder to cranks than smaller.. It is therefore interesting (to me at least ) if somebody know if the A2 crank changes has been described somewhere apart from Yeadon? Improving UK steam locomotive policy a sekel to late is just a hobby but I cannot help thinking that a B16 machinery with a bigger boiler and and wheelset under firebox could have been the only nessecary UK pacific solution?

I do not think the Raven A2s were failures. They were eliminated by Gressley who compared and found his own creations better. Surprise,surprise. They also had this nasty change of crankshafts . The B16s had not so Raven (my Hero) was in good faith and small details can have been the cause. A british journalist once wrote that british turners killed more british WW1 aviators than the enemy by putting sharp concave corners everywhere in engine parts. In 1926 ,when cranks had to be changed,Raven was out of LNER and must have felt very,very offended. Eigteen years later Thompson had to decide how to make P2s usefull. The easiest and simplest solution would have been to use Ravens front wheelset drive scheme as did mr Corbs, but he did not. The last picture is a comparison of wheelspacing for a A2 Raven pacific and how it would have been if he had kept machinery from B16s plus a trailing wheelset under a somewhat shorter A2 boiler

I do not know how to move it ,but thank You for comment. A picture showing how a S3 bastard could have been spaced compared to a Raven A2 https://imgur.com/a/pGRHIgq

Thompson did something to P2s https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/York_Locomotive_Yard_with_A2-2_Pacific_geograph-2827807-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg and mr Corbs did better. http://www.rmweb.co....-1505684845.jpg The B16 and A2 designs from Raven before 1924 was known to mr Thompson,son in law of mr Raven. The B16 earned their keep and the A2s did not really. A2s changed crankaxles within two years from new and the B16s never did according to Yeadon. Mental climate in the Raven house around 1926 (Son died WW1 and A2s indicating incompetence) cannot have been happy. Can that have influenced the bad choice Thompson made 1944?

A GWR look alike of this Bulgarian beast? https://www.farrail.com/bilder/bulgarien/for-2017/20160543-BDZ-46.jpg

If You look up CSD 486.1 it is almost there: adhesive mass,grate area and driver dia like a LNER A2

Giesel Gieslingen of ejektor and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB%C3%96_214#/media/File:Strasshof_2007_12.10.jpg fame stated that two independent six coupled locomotives were less sure footed than a single ten coupled. LMS Garratts versus BR9F prove the point. Being an imaginary site maybe couple the two power bogies like a Heissler and have high pressure cylinders at the cab end and low pressure at the front end.

S160 showed that wide firebox and five feet drivers were a possibility even within UK loading gauge.. My set of playing rules would the be five feet drivers, wide, round topped fireboxes and three cylinders for locomotives intended to go more than 60. I have tried but still Belpairing https://i.imgur.com/T7UcVMs.jpg

And longlived. ca 300 built 25 exist and 10 are running(Mainline sometimes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOapB_xbhHY