tythatguy1312
-
Posts
269 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Everything posted by tythatguy1312
-
not that I'm aware of. the 9F's were never designed with passenger work in mind, simply being an evolution of the WD 2-8-0's. The fact that they were better express passenger locos than the Britannias, A3's and Clans, particularly on straighter & shorter routes, was a happy accident.
-
yeah this is Britain, nobody discriminates against speech impediments because half of them are indistinguishable from genuine accents
-
with the Standard 5's I suspect that was to keep its parts in common with the 4mt, Clan and Britannia. As for the Black 5's, I'm inclined to believe the sheer, daunting scale of rebuilding over 800 locos that were already perfectly fine is why the Caprotti black 5's remained a Minority.
-
Speaking of the 9F's, I've actively looked into what COULD be done to edge out even more improvement, and I'm left believing all you could do is slap roller bearings on every single rotation point outside the cab, allowing them to run faster and further without risking a hot box. As for the Franco-Crosti 9F's, I doubt they offered much more efficiency for their additional costs.
-
going by tractive effort and sheer size, the single biggest was the LNER U1, followed up by the LMS' own Garratts and the BR Standard class 9F. Although the other ones are all undeniably large, they're not really in the same ballpark as those monsters
-
I've always felt 4-8-0's were an avenue most feared to tread. America only built ~25 of them, and they absolutely adored engines twice the size of whatever Britain was doing. With high quality coal or oil, you could probably end up with a monstrous freight/passenger loco, as the French did.
-
I feel like Baldwin might’ve had to scale the design down in some areas, as 3ft Gauge locomotives could get rather large in their own rights. I also don’t exactly know what it would do, as whilst mineral trains on the GWR and LNER sound tempting, both had their own designs for the job. Using off-the-shelf locomotives was exceedingly rare for the Big 4 before WW2.
-
They say 1 End was 3 towns over from the next
-
Some Obscure Belgian prototype locomotive for the Franco-Crosti boiler, an utterly bizarre 0-6-2+2-4-2-4-2+2-6-0 locomotive with 2 Boilers, 2 Cabs bisected by the Dual Firebox and the preheaters on separate units to the boilers, surrounded by the water tank. To think that they say Quintuplexes were merely a dream of Union Pacific. courtesy of the guy who compiled seemingly all the commonly known info on that thing, http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/francocrosti/francocrosti.htm#b
-
strictly speaking, nobody's saying you can't have 2 boilers...
-
I’m inclined to doubt the GWR would need anything bigger than a 4-6-2 for anything short of banking (even then that’s dictated by axle loads) but even then a large mallet would be fun to see, especially as the type was surprisingly unpopular in the UK on longer narrow gauge lines
-
in that case, a 2-8-2 or (heaven forbid) a tender 0-8-2 might've been a better solution. For the sake of the Night Owl remaining a fast freight engine I'm leaning more to the former, as the GWR did build a number of 2-8-2T's
-
so for starters, WE'RE BACK BABY Futurama quotations aside, I'm rather intrigued by the possibility of a 4-8-0 operating on British metals for fast freights. Might've helped the Night Owl's axle loading
-
First concept has a flaw that I can also see on the "absurdly heavily modified Class E2" seen on Thomas the tank engine, in that you'd need to be smaller than a water main to access the motion. Mechanical lubricators could solve it, but I'd still be impressed if anyone could access it
-
Something that has intrigued me with the 56xx's is why they weren't tried on the China clay trains. They seem powerful enough, and they're certainly physically flexible enough to get past the monstrously tight curve at Saltash.
-
I honestly suspect that 2-6-2 makes more sense as an evolution, as a 56xx was adequately powerful but suffered rough riding and smokebox door clearance issues. Of course, the GWR had hundreds, but I do see why.
-
For as... limited as this would be, I must say it looks stunning. But, in the opposite direction, I can think of a few locos that would've benefited from outside cylinders
-
not this time. Asbestos was used as fireproofing for a lot of things, including DMU's... and had just been made illegal due to extreme carcinogenic properties. This explains why BR withdrew and replaced a lot of rolling stock in the 80's
-
At this point, in the desperate interest of finding something that hasn't been tried by British rail, how about a British Cab forward? Not something like a J70 or the Leader in which they have 2 cabs, a thoroughbred Cab Forward like those seen on Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane and Southern Pacific.
-
you've gotta be kidding me. Well, in the interest of using the mock-up I designed of such a machine, could a powered/cab version of the coach seen there have worked? The small capacity loss would be offset by a much better ride and possibly higher passenger numbers as they wouldn't hate it.
-
Alright thinking of a Proposal that hasn't been discussed here yet, I'm intrigued by an option regarding the Pacers. Given the abundance of Mk1 coach frames, either as spares or flatbeds, could a version of the Pacer have been constructed on these instead? It would require some longer bus bodies but that's reasonable.
-
I am getting somewhat intrigued by the possibility raised by Awdry of a GNR 4-6-0, particularly as the Great Northern rather notably didn't build or own any
-
at least this isn't a 48xx/58xx situation
-
I feel like a tender-tank design might be a viable option given the size of the bunker, a couple standard gauge pugs used that arrangement
-
I honestly suspect that, if a King could cross the Royal Albert Bridge without spreading the rails on it apart, that they would've tried a King on the China Clay trains.
