tythatguy1312

3 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'd imaginea 9F or Thompson Pacific would have its work cut out, even at lower speeds.

oh they did, the Thompson pacifics were reportedly worked fairly hard on them. Luckily the more prominent & numerous of the lot, the A2/2's and A2/3's, supposedly retained the P2's enormous reserve of power.

2 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

As for 'theft', I've little knowledge of copyright law, its application here, or the extent of Midjourney's compliance with it. However, if the algorithm were only trained on images in the public domain (or with sufficiently liberal licencing conditions) then surely there would surely be no risk of theft.

my stance that it counts as theft comes from the fact that I've seen AI outright mimicking the watermarks of freelance artists. Although my stance is different for corporations, theft of the artwork of active freelance artists without so much as credit to them is mildly disgusting on a moral level. Whilst that key clue isn't present on this specific case, I've seen dozens of cases of artwork like that being made by real people.

5 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

I asked Midjourney AI to create a picture of a "Bulleid pacific steam locomotive"

 

that's not real art. You're not an artist. As someone who's close friends with at least 2 real artists, it's frankly insulting seeing this wretched theft of the real artwork of numerous people. Not only that, but it's merely shoved through an algorithm and passed off as "your" "art".

55 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

I often watch the container trains on the GN/GE joint and wonder how 9f's or Thompson Pacifics would have managed these trains?  My gut feeling is not ever so well!

I'd be hopeful for the Thompson Pacifics' ability considering their routine employment on fast freights but the wheelslip can't help them. They could give it a good try though

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Just an idle thought- the foregoing discussions suggest to me that streamlining of the frontal area, and the rear, is likely to have more effect on shorter trains, such as 2-3 car DMU's.  Reason being that the proportion of the total power absorption due to wind resistance at the front (and rear) is higher than with a long train such as an 8 car + loco Coro/SJ set, or a twelve car normal unstreamlined set.

this is also the logic behind why freight trains cause more turbulence. As a train gets longer and requires more couplings, the gaps between the vehicles add up quickly and cause huge amounts of air resistance. On a 4 car train streamlining the front end will make a significant difference, but a 16 coach train requires between-coach streamlining to deal with the most significant parts of air resistance... which raises the question as to if an Unstreamlined A4/A1/1 could match Mallard on Stoke bank with just the Coronation rake, ignoring the massive drag causer which is the Dynamometer car.

14 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

A propos cleaning smoke boxes, US locos made much use of devices like rocker grates and self-cleaning smoke boxes long before they were usual over here. 

self cleaning smokeboxes were unpopular because they didn't mesh well with 3 cylinder designs, a type which were extremely popular in the UK.

8 hours ago, John Besley said:

 

How did the empty the smokebox char or where they oil burners 

on most streamliners there was an access door in the casing which would be opened to reveal the actual Smokebox door. The J3A's had 3 of said doors, though most streamliners had 2.

2 hours ago, 62613 said:

Looking at those drivers, do solid wheels have any advantage over spoked ones. I think Porta mentioned somewhere that they did.

They do. They typically have better structural integrity and smoother running compared to spoked wheels.

scratch that maybe we should de-streamline an A4 just to see how effective that'd be. Even then both the Peppercorn and Thompson A1's, which are both quite close to the A4's mechanically, showed less capability for speed, implying the A4's streamlining would've helped in that regard.

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

A Peppercorn A1, then?

I think Thompson's modifications to Great Northern are a bit closer. If the A4's lost their streamlining they would've likely ended up with Witte deflectors

3 hours ago, Corbs said:

 

 

On the subject of Duchesses, A.N. Wolstenholme sketched out what a semi-streamlined Coronation might have looked like:

 

 

 

For completeness, here was a sketch of a streamlined Thompson pacific from the same series:

 

I'd call the designs rather visually unpleasant but I've seen what the French got up to.

32 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I think something like this would sit rather well on a Duchess or on a Bulleid Pacific.

 

 

 

I do believe something similar was tried on a GWR King, though without the central headlamp. The results are certainly a sight to behold.

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The running plate is not structural and could easily be replaced with something more like a Peppercorn A1.  I doubt the smokebox would survive long in "semi" form either.  You'd probably end up with a Gresley-Peppercorn hybrid in terms of styling: an A3 with a wedge cab and straight running plate open in front of the cylinders.  Having lost the smoke-lifting effect of the streamlining it would probably gain smoke deflectors sooner rather than later.

you know, with all the extended complications, I'm starting to see why it was easier to just leave the streamlining on. But it is an interesting aesthetic possibility.

10 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

Ugly as sin.

I imagine removing the "ribs" and painting it properly would allow it to look substantially better

11 hours ago, Captain_Mumbles said:

Gday.

I always thought a non streamlined LNER P2 would look smart.

A peppercorn A1 body might have fit without too much work but I really wanted it to look more Gresley.

Here is my Hornby/Bachmann remix so far.

 

ah nice, a P1 which wouldn't try to murder the poor fireman. Frankly it looks brilliant, but it does raise the question of what an unstreamlined A4/W1 would look like

I do suspect that there was room for an 0-8-0t based on the 56xx, but I can't imagine what it could do. The 56xx needed its trailing bogie for the additional stability when running through the valleys, something an 0-8-0 wouldn't have. It could work as a banking engine but the GWR didn't have enough suitable inclines to warrant a new design, and a heavy shunter is out of the question because GWR doctrine saw locomotives as large as Castles being used in the role.

12 hours ago, relaxinghobby said:

0-6-2t

I got a cheap non-running Hornby L1 2-6-4 tank and thought I could use the chassis to be an old style 0-6-2. It was easy to get running, a wire had come off inside. But the motor was far to high for the job I had in mind and I had to do major hacksaw surgery on the chassis to tuck the motor down low and out of the way in the much smaller body of an 0-6-2t.

 

Now it does not look right under the M7 body the wheel spacing is far too short and towards the front but it does look good under the Wren 0-6-0 body that I have already extended to make an 0-4-4 t.

M7

 

 

Wren

 

 

Final picture M7 body on a Jinty chassis with longer wheelbase.

 

So folks which way to go long M7 body or short Wren body and on which wheels ?

 

to be completely honest the Jinty chassis-M7 Body combo looks far better. It certainly gives adequate space for the M7's firebox, though the cab would be rather cramped. Reminds me of how I used to privately swap bogies between models in Trainz: A New Era before they dropped the feature in Trainz 2019 onwards.

10 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I think the GWR had a handful of Sentinel chain-driven tanks, with vertical boilers.   I don't think anyone built any VBTs after 1900 with conventional drive.   There might have been some room for development, but not enough to compete with Stephensonian types.   I think the next development that happened with vertical boilers was Abner Doble's work.   Diesel traction was already maturing for yard work by then, though.

if I'm remembering correctly the LNER had roughly 60 Sentinels, though I was referring to simpler, more conventional types. They weren't exactly powerful but had enough for light jobs. That being said, Doble did have the right idea and a scaled up version of his automotive designs might've been exceedingly successful, at least as a rival to Sentinel & Atkinson Walker designs.

I understand that nobody may be active due to the holiday season (not that it matters to an Atheist like myself), but I can say that I believe vertical boilers represent an avenue avoided by the rail industry. Though undeniably underpowered and arguably resembling more coffee machines than locomotives, they did have fairly exploitable advantages (ease of maintenance being the single best of them, though they're also extremely light) which could've been used in the place of pugs. A railmotor based 0-4-0vbt might've been able to handily replace the Great Western Railway's fleet of inherited pugs

4 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Handsome beasts as well:-

 

I never want to see anyone complain about the aesthetics of the Thompson pacifics ever again after laying my eyes upon that

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

So, Gresley was aware that big express tank locos were viable and safe.  The LMS used them without issue, as did the GW.  A tank engine replacement for the B12s on the GE section would have had to have been a big 'un, though; the LBSCR had used them successfully on the 60-mile Victoria-Brighton service, but Norwich from Liverpool Street is a bit further, so larger tanks and probably a larger bunker would have been needed if non-stop workings were being considered.  The B17 now makes sense, a more powerful version of the B12 with 3-cylinders and a much bigger boiler.  I have no idea why this engine was not the success it should have been on paper, but it is interesting that the LMS had early troubles with their comparable 3-cylinder 4-6-0, the Jubilee. 

Well I suspect we've just found a use-case for a 4-8-4t in the UK, though it would've been an absolute titan (the closest equivalent, the Derry Northerns, were merely equivalent to 2-6-4t's). I'd suggest some flavour of Garratt but I'm unaware as to any successful passenger garratts.

I did successfully find a passenger garratt in the form of the TGR M Class, though I'm inclined to discount them as they had 8 cylinders yet only had the tractive effort of the LBSC Marsh H2 Atlantics post-1938.

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Nah, side tanks would do the job. In fact the whole thing could be a 4-8-4T and save the bother of turning at all. 

Ah, the Derry solution

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The tender needs to be shorter by as much as the loco is longer, to fit on GE turntables. So a 4-wheel tender?

I'm not gonna attempt to picture that but the mental image of a tender so hilariously small that it makes the one behind the TGOJ M3t look like a Gresley Corridor tender is possibly the funniest idea discussed.


Speaking of the most successful of the turbines, could the LNER have built a turbine-mechanical? Not saying it has to work but it could be a fun idea. Actually, thinking about this further, steam turbines are the perfect locomotives for the LNER's numerous long distance runs, though the idea of the Flying Scotsman whirring along emitting the noise of 1,000 vacuum cleaners is... peculiar.

you know what, just for fun, considering that the B12's are an evolution of the Clauds most prominent for their lengthening, imagine if that was taken to its logical conclusion

4 minutes ago, 62613 said:

S69 (LNER B12): bigger boiler, bigger cylinders, smaller driving wheels, big piston valves instead of slide valves. Superheated from the off Not really a development, but completely new design, with, in late LNER days a lower RA. I think the firebox was over the middle coupled axle. The firebox being in the postion it was led to the long cab.

the general layout of the S69 was based on the clauds though. Yes the boiler & cylinders were enlarged and 3 sets of smaller drivers were used instead of 2 sets of larger wheels, but the boiler, cylinder & frame designs were based on the Claud Hamiltons, as well as the general layout of the design. The LNER also modified the S69's and the Clauds in ways which were exceedingly similar, though said modifications were standardised.Whilst it's inaccurate to simply call the S69's "enlarged Clauds" it's also inaccurate to call them a clean-sheet design. The biggest giveaway that they're a proper evolution is simply looking at the 2 of them together. Notice the similar boilers, running boards and general appearance.