tythatguy1312

29 minutes ago, 62613 said:

The G.E.R. 1500 class, (B12) was not an emlarged Claud, due to having to build an engine more powerful than them within weight limits. The boiler was larger, as were the cylinders.

who's saying that the S69's were simply enlarged clauds? Yes it's a direct evolution, but they are quite different. Generally I don't know why the S69's worked so well considering every 4-6-0 other that directly evolved from a 4-4-0 seems to have been either rather mediocre or a dismal, catastrophic failure of locomotive design.

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

Yes, but when did daManagement decide not to build any replacement boilers for these locos?

probably around the time of the 100th Stanier 4-6-0's completion, though Compound2632 did point out that the 5mt was directly intended to replace the Prince Of Wales. It just replaced anything which even smelled like a pre-grouping 2-6-0/4-6-0 as well

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The Prince of Wales class was introduced in 1911, with the last batch appearing in 1922. Barring a handful of survivors to 1946-7, withdrawal dates were between 1933 and 1937, with operating lives of between 15 and 26 years - really not very long by any standards.

that may have been partially due to a surplus of Black 5's. Other pre-grouping 4-6-0's on the LNER and SR made it to the early 50's (including 1 class designed by Drummond, no less), such as the already mentioned GCR 8Fs. The NER S Class is of particular note as the first was constructed in 1899 and the last didn't go until 1951. This can be neatly contrasted with the LMS, who had literally hundreds of Black 5's & Jubilees to replace pre-grouping 4-6-0's in every conceivable role. It wasn't due to the flaws with the locomotives but the sheer success of Stanier's designs, otherwise the comparatively successful Highland Railway 4-6-0's (namely the Clan & Clan Goods) would've made it to the 60's.

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

By rights, the two designs should have averaged out as 3-7-1s.

didn't know the Listowel & Ballybunion was on the table for imaginary machines but I know at least 3 people who believed that their locomotives didn't actually exist, at least until I elaborated. To be fair those contraptions are closer to my sleep paralysis demon than a locomotive.

Speaking of spam cans, it'll always amuse me how the Light Pacifics were repeatedly scaled up (IIRC they started development as 2-6-0's) whilst the Merchant Navy's were scaled down (I think they began as 4-8-2's), which raises the amusing idea as to how they would've gone had they been built to their original size and some terrifying thoughts involving The Leader.

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

the largest type in any country to have such gear.

considering that they're among the biggest rigid locomotives ever constructed, I doubt that needed to be said.

6 hours ago, sncf231e said:

It is not hard to go from a 4-6-2 to a 4-8-2:

That always did confuse me. The jump from 4 coupled to 6 coupled machines (barring 0-6-0's) seems to have been remarkably painful in comparison to the jump from 6 coupled to 8 coupled machines. The LNER P2's could be a good example of what not to do (overly rigid wheelbase, generally individualistic design, reliability issues and an unpleasant appearance) but the jump seems to have been a lot easier. That being said it's rather surprising that most 4-8-2's, at least in the US, were consigned to freight usage... which raises the question of how Union Pacific jumped from 2-8-2's to 4-12-2's with little issue.

6 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Dear All,

Gresley rebuilt the experimental 4 cylinder Ivatt large Atlantic with a high running plate and outside valve gear.  Another large Atlantic received a twin window cab when it’s frames were extended to accommodate a  Steam booster engine.  Combine these two together and this would be pretty close.

As for an Atlantic version of a V4, it’s a thought, but the boiler may look too small with large driving wheels.

 

Paul

I more suspect an Atlantic V4 may look rather close to a Klondike with outside running gear. However this raises an interesting issue due to the Klondikes being withdrawn due to lack of suitable work, which causes me to doubt that such work existed in enough quantity to warrant construction of a V4 Atlantic. Maybe it'd exist if the LNER adopted a Midland style "small engine" doctrine but that would be completely nonsensical early-on and easy to fill with DMU's by, say, 1945.

20 minutes ago, John Besley said:

 

Would look better with a 6 wheel tender I think

That reminds me, I've heard somewhere along the grapevine that one of the A1's (I think 4472 but don't quote me on that) was briefly assigned a 6 wheeled tender in 1925, though it luckily evaded photography. Given that the A1's may have been the biggest locos in all of Britain at that point I can't help but laugh at what it may have looked like.

So due to lack of space & money I don't have a physical layout RN, but I was able to visualise such a thing in a train simulator. This actually looks pretty good, at least better than I expected.

16 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

I have always wondered why the Stanier Coronations had the streamlining removed, but the A4s kept theirs. Was the cladding or framing more structural on A4s do couldn't be taken off? What would a completely de-streamlined A4 look like? An A3 with sloping smoke box...?

The A4's kept it because their streamlining, through a small indent behind the funnel, proved to be excellent at smoke deflection. The LNER probably decided de-streamlining them, with the associated R&D into finding a new deflector arrangement, was more trouble than it was worth.

As for what a de-streamlined A4 would look like, I imagine the front end would end up with a similar deflector arrangement to 10000 or 2001, with the locomotive itself retaining the A4's defining curved running board. It'd have a familial resemblance to the A3's, but still undeniably distinct.

29 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Streamlined

 

Streamlining was more trouble than it was worth, most locomotives were better off without it. Yes it was good for high speeds, but those speeds were almost never reached. You can only really justify it for the A4's and the American Hiawatha atlantics. Maintenance wise it was a pain and some locos actually suffered from it due to increased vulnerability to crosswinds.

18 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

All true, but Churchward's Stars and Saints were express passenger engines with 6'8" driving wheels and neither class appears to have had any problems with their ashpans.

that may be down to the GWR's use of a sloping ashpan design, something that became extremely common to 4-6-0's. From what I can find most 4-4-0's had a simple flat ashpan, whilst the type used on the saint sloped downwards just ahead of the rearmost axle. This is actually a really simple innovation.

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

What about an oil fired 9F with cab forward and a tender attached to the smokebox end? Also a cab could be accommodated in the tender to avoid turning the locomotive.

I'm starting to suspect that cab-forwards radiate an energy of "well, why not?" because I have yet to find a single good use-case for one in the UK, but the idea of a proper one (IE: not from a tramway in the countryside) is undeniably an attractive proposal, particularly for their increased forward visibility. I imagine that if everyone went sufficiently mad enough to build a truly modern steam locomotive, particularly one not of the Standard 5's lineage, then it'd be an oil-fired cab forward for that exact advantage.

As for whether it'd work with the 9f? IDK probably, but it may need a speedometer to actually keep the thing below the speed limit. Oil fired locos were notably better steamers and the cab would likely offer less air resistance than the front of a 9f, making it even more prone to fast running.

3 minutes ago, sncf231e said:

Regards

Fred

I swear everything circles back to the single most famous nonexistent locomotive, the early drafts of the A1's

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Intention and outcome are rarely the same!

 

I still don't get why the Midland never tried a light 4-6-0 based on the SDJR 7Fs, but their commitment to "small engine policy" seems to have exceeded common sense in a few areas. I guess the question isn't "why did they not build a 4-6-0" but "why did they build the Lickey banker".

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Are you sure that whatever mind-altering substance you imbibe is legal?

constant dehydration, sleep deprivation and stress may be taking a bigger toll than I initially believed

well, given that I'm now out of ideas which don't involve track gauge, there is the unexplored avenue of Britain (for some unknown and unknowable reason which I won't even bother trying to justify) adopting cape gauge for its railways whilst retaining the same loading gauge. Given that Japan seems to have gotten a fair bit of mileage with locomotives of similar size to Britain on that gauge I imagine it could lead to interesting proposals, though I imagine the standard 0-6-0t shunter would rarely vary from an appearance close to the Isle Of Man Railway's Caledonia.

Alternatively, there is an idea I've come up with in the last 30 seconds of Britain adopting the monstrous loading gauge of the United States with precisely zero other changes in terms of train lengths or siding lengths. This is admittedly out of morbid curiosity when it comes to imagining a bi-level GWR Steam railmotor and out of the questionable belief that such a machine could be made to work.

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Because, in the vast majority of cases, non-articulated locos were perfectly capable of handing the loads coupled behind them. Why, then, would you develop more complex motive power?

 

Longer trains could not be accommodated within the railway infrastructure and signalling.

 

So - if it works, don't 'fix' it; simple is good.

 

CJI.

OK Scratch that. Ignoring my many attempts to work out an articulated passenger locomotive which wasn't built by Southern Pacific, I feel an earlier GWR Electrification at least as far as London-Plymouth might've benefited them greatly, with increased speeds and better trains. Plus it would've potentially saved them money and boosted economies in the area, as power stations of the day would've probably been coal fired.

now that I suspect that virtually every avenue of ideas which could reasonably lead to changes in British locomotives have been explored bar the completely nonsensical, I have 1 idea left. How come American style "simple mallets" didn't catch on in the UK? Ignoring small class sizes, they could've done extremely well on the harsh grades of either the LMS main line or Scottish highlands, particularly on heavy passenger work. Frankly it still scares me that Union Pacific's Challengers were mixed-traffic designs.

6 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Honestly, it does only seem to be the UK and the US that tried to keep axle counts to a minimum.    Need we discuss the Soviet 4-14-4 again?

bold of you to assume we did. Let's be honest the LMS Garratts and the LNER J70's were overbuilt. The Garratts were absolutely gargantuan machines for work that a large 2-8-0 could do and the Wisbech & Upwell Tramway barely demanded a 6 coupled machine

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I like the idea of a 2-10-2T on metre gauge.

you should see what the Letterkenny & Burtonport railway got up to, though these titans are normally associated with the Londonderry & Lough Swilly Railway.

Just now, cctransuk said:

'Fantasy / Nightmare Railways'?

finally, somewhere to describe the horrifying implications of Sodor having a uranium mine

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Where this has been attempted it's been done on the HUMUNGOUS scale and has ended up inefficient and VERY heavy, but has not attempted to spread out the electrical motors.

 

Not saying it wouldn't work, just saying the odds are against it.

my perception may be altered by Ohio's attempt but the first version, the Heilmann, was hardly big by locomotive standards

45 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

The big problem with a steam tender, as touched on in the text of the link, is that the weight of the tender reduces as coal & water are used, so reducing the maximum tractive effort available.

(The first paragraph in the link is painful to read...!)

Funnily enough there was a way to get them working. Both the Listowel & Ballybunion railway and most large shay locomotives had successful powered tenders, connected by gearing to the main wheels. It's quite possibly the only thing the L&B got right.

11 hours ago, DenysW said:

Brunel's choice of a loading gauge the same 27" wider than the rails as Stephenson's loading gauge allowed mixed gauge to work properly: the wagons and carriages for the narrower gauge still fitted the platforms. Had Brunel followed Stephenson's logic (loading gauge width = twice rail gauge) then there would have been a big gap and much more bickering.

I frankly doubt the bridge at Saltash would've ever been constructed under this system, but it might've been truly gargantuan and left Britain with 2 separate rail gauges permanently