tythatguy1312

whilst I'm fairly certain almost every possible other option has been extensively studied in this thread, I've been left wondering if geared locos could've caught on more for heavy shunting and long coal trains. Theoretically such a machine would reduce the workload on the engine when not accelerating, leading to cheaper running costs and better speed control. Plus, such a locomotive might be able to do the work that makes most locomotives do burnouts. It's known Thunderer had a geared drive to try and mitigate it's... adhesive shortcomings but it could've probably been more popular if seen on a mainline engine that actually had weight on the driving wheels besides the wheels themselves.

43 minutes ago, JimC said:

surely a tender shouldn't be impossible if it were more articulated with the locomotive?

Those actually existed in Mainland Europe, and were known as Engerth locomotives. If I remember correctly, it was quite popular in the Alps, and a few are preserved.

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But they were buses and that's what buses are designed to do...

yeah but Buses are typically meant to last ~20 years in active service, compared to the 35 years that the Pacers achieved. That can't have been light on them.

The general philosophy of UK freight locomotives should generally be "how can we move 40 wagons at 35mph more efficiently", rather than "how do we get a 100 wagon train to 35mph". I'm rather surprised turbine & geared locomotives didn't flourish under those conditions, given their efficiency at design speed, although the more variable speeds on a railway and the "good enough" mentality towards 0-6-0's ultimately explain precisely why.

1 hour ago, 11ty12 said:

I’m sure y’all have seen the Hornby “Baby E2,” since every model train enthusiast starts with a ready-to-run 0-4-0, but why is it called the Baby E2? You don’t call the regular E2 the “Adult E2.”

So I decided to create the “Adult E2,” an 0-8-0T

it's mainly called the Baby E2 as it's far smaller than Hornby's regular E2 Model, gaining some features and proportions from Thomas. Alas, the idea of an LB&SCR 0-8-0T for short haul heavy freights is intriguing, if a little unlikely considering the nature of the railway. Maybe a wartime engine perhaps...

3 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

A dude in a Discord I’m in was gonna model this engine from the RWS, and said it was an N7. I pointed out it had extended side tanks, and he was disgusted at the thought.

 

Then I made an edit, and even he had to admit it looks good. Thoughts?

I doubt the work an N7 did would ever require an extended range, particularly as the larger water tanks and condensing equipment of the N2's allowed them to exceed the N7's in that regard. Whilst a nice looking locomotive aesthetically, I doubt such a niche existed for it.

As for if that particular locomotive even is an N7, I suspect it to instead be a freelance locomotive as there's no reason to believe the pre-NWR Railways wouldn't design their own rolling stock for their own needs. If you ask me it looks more like a 2-4-2T, a believable lighter locomotive for Sodor.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

but there were probably sufficient 8Ps in existence in 1954

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard the Duke was built to replace Princess Anne, the LMS Pacific destroyed in the Harrow & Wealdstone crash. Is there any truth to this?

2 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

How’s this for an improved privately-built Bantam Bristolian?

I must say, of all the designs in this thread, this certainly looks the most realistic. Wouldn't be surprised if a similar locomotive actually worked at an industrial location

13 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said:

What a fascinating locomotive! It looks more industrial, really. But for British Rail to own one, what classifcation would it have?

I suspect it would fit into the Class 13 designation, bumping those 08 fusions up, possibly to Class 16. 

1 hour ago, MikeOxon said:

What's the cost analysis for maintaining one basic type to cover almost all jobs, accepting that its full power is not needed for many of the tasks?  Does standardisation on one type bring more cost benefits in terms of maintenance, training, etc., than running an over-powered engine?  I suppose class 47 ended up something like this.

Having looked at this thoroughly, I feel like I have a decent answer. Looking at the costs, it just doesn't make sense. Yes something like a Class 47 can shunt at a forgotten quarry in North Wales, but it'll be chugging fuel at rates comparable to the pug it replaced, removing 1 of the benefits of dieselisation. Use of 1 large type over 5 types of scaling power also results in tracks system-wide having to be upgraded to handle such a machine, which quickly and heavily mounts up in costs. On top of this, a noted issue would be underutilisation of the locomotive. A Class 47 in work a Class 04 would do might actively be the definition of Overkill.

alright, as for the exercise in futility known as restarting this thread, what if the BR adopted a similar policy to American diesels, building weak diesels in both cabbed and cabless variety

alright as an alternative to my idea that, for once, was smart enough to have been built by my example railway, what if the LB&SCR had used the K class as their basis for their infamous 0-6-0T?

Ok, as I seem to mainly be good at bad, horrendous and insane ideas that have barely a sliver of a hope in a frozen hell of working... what if, say, the GNR developed an 0-4-2 for express trains?

On 08/09/2021 at 21:12, rockershovel said:

minor Belgian tramway

You mean the Great Western Railway around the turn of the century?

well I have a rather alarming, off-the-wall idea. What would a classic American 1850's 4-4-0 look like as a Pacific? Just for a laugh

speaking of Heislers, what would a British version of a classic American geared loco (Heisler, Shay, Climax, etc) actually look like? I do see them being useful as banking engines, slow goods engines and especially heavy shunters.

Hydrogen doesn't look like a good fuel for steam locomotives, being hard to store, easy to burn off by accident. I don't see it working myself.

Vegetable Oil on the other hand...

I've suddenly got my eyes on Hawksworth actually building the Cathedrals rather than the idea being abandoned at the blueprint stage

7 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I have often thought that when people talk about standard boilers they should really be talking about 'standard flanging blocks ' because of similar circumstances to the way the King boiler was designed. 

There is really no justification for the idea that the King was compromised by the need to adopt 6'-6" drivers. If anything,  the King was compromised by it not being a Pacific. The Lizzie was the engine the King should have been.

that's always been infuriating to me, as I live right at the start of the places a King feared to tread, with the Royal Albert Bridge being within visual range of my house. A 4-6-0 has great climbing power, yes, but a Pacific of the same weight can use that power in many more places. I always do wonder why the GWR didn't use the bear as a starting point for the Kings, as there was a lot of room to improve.

51 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

Parking on the White Cliffs of Dover to scare away the Nazis?

then they'd just bomb it harder, hell they might even aim long range artillery directly at it

10 minutes ago, DenysW said:

What if ...

 

To reduce ridicule of the consequences of their Light Engine Policy (formalised in 1907), the Midland Railway's marketing group decided shortly afterwards to re-brand it as a Lightly-Loaded Engines Policy (which it already was) and therefore to introduce classes of locomotive equivalent to double-heading two 2Fs, two 4Fs, and two 4Ps. As I crunch their classification system you get:

-

that's basically what Stanier did, but I'm having an... amusing time picturing a 4-6-0 version of the SDJR 7F's. Can someone with better editing skills and a less crash-prone editing software get on that?

alright so idea that I'm too inexperienced to try and visualise

LNER A1 4-6-0. 
nobody mention Henry

6 minutes ago, scots region said:

 

It would probably spend most of its time falling over, the boiler is way too high for a decapod, and the lack of a leading wheel would make the ride quality utterly miserable. 

I worked on that

still kinda questioning how that 9f 0-10-0 would go

yeah I threw together a fair few photoshops including 2 LNER Triplexes, a 9f 0-10-0, an LNER Mallet, an LNER Atlantic and a class 08 with bogies