Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Weren't the roll on roll off train ferries used to transport the ROD locos and stock. 

 

Yes, but they had the coupling and connecting rods removed, and because of loading gauge restrictions on the SECR, the outer chimneys were also removed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

In the vast majority of 4-6-0 designs, the trailing coupled axle is under the firebox, generally with a sloping grate and often with a divided ash-pan; it's the best way to get a long enough firebox.

 

The GER Clauds had the firebox between the middle and rear driving axles, which made for a long cab, and possibly the reason those transferred to Scotland where known as 'Hikers'

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

8812663E-BE15-4B44-AF50-33FC071BFE6A.jpeg

DE32AD7B-5844-4526-A2C9-3EC7ED49F5BE.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

8812663E-BE15-4B44-AF50-33FC071BFE6A.jpeg

DE32AD7B-5844-4526-A2C9-3EC7ED49F5BE.jpeg

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...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

. 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...

Or another Hecate? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

 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...

The last two members of the E6 class 0-6-2 tanks were intended to be built as 0-8-0s, for shunting Brighton goods yard. The plan changed when Marsh took over from Billinton.

Best wishes 

Eric 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

The GER Clauds had the firebox between the middle and rear driving axles, which made for a long cab, and possibly the reason those transferred to Scotland where known as 'Hikers'

B12s, not the Clauds, but yes, the "hiker" nickname comes from the fireman having to take a step between tender and firedoor, rather than just turning round. Locomen's nicknames rarely had anything to do with appearance, how they did the job was what mattered to them. Another misconception amongst enthusiasts was "toffee apples" for the first Brush type 2s - nothing to do with the stripes on the loco but the control handle which had to be carried from one cab to the other. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another edit I made is this probably incredibly impractical 4-10-0 “Super Mastodon” Hush-Hush. I call it “The Humpback.”

Again, not sure how this one would work, but I imagine it would be a nightmare to clean and maintain, would accelerate like a lambo, and would burn through coal like a fat guy at a buffet. On top of all that, it’d probably also be difficult to drive because of its acceleration, novice crews snapping couplings like with the GER Decapod

36C647DD-8673-4F09-897C-39522953DFA0.jpeg

Edited by 11ty12
Hump
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

Another edit I made is this probably incredibly impractical 4-10-0 “Super Mastodon” Hush-Hush. I call it “The Humpback.”

Again, not sure how this one would work, but I imagine it would be a nightmare to clean and maintain, would accelerate like a lambo, and would burn through coal like a fat guy at a buffet. On top of all that, it’d probably also be difficult to drive because of its acceleration, novice crews snapping couplings like with the GER Decapod

36C647DD-8673-4F09-897C-39522953DFA0.jpeg

 

There's a photo of the Hush Hush boiler here - it was quite different from the usual locomotive type boiler.  If you raised the rear drums to give a continuous lower edge to the boiler your design might fit together, though I think the cab needs to move back a bit to give room for the crew's feet. I've no idea whether the revised boiler design would work at all but at least you could get all the wheels on.

 

Your perfomance estimates are probably optimistic as the real loco wasn't an outstanding success and you certainly wouldn't want it to be heavy on coal as fuel efficiency was the whole point of the exercise.  If you're pitching it to the board, give it a six wheel tender and claim it will do Kings Cross to Edinburgh on 4 tons.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Corbs said:

the driving wheels are going through the firebox

Presumably its a shallow grate and a somewhat convoluted ashpan. A challenge for the fireman and a very complicated layout of dampers I expect.

We are after all in the realms of imagination. I'm sure that plenty of the imaginaries I've posted here, if examined by a trained steam engineer, would turn out to have some comprehensive flaw to render them inoperable. 

 


BOX.jpg.017b99fe6c7d44298fb42383a324975c.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2021 at 01:52, tythatguy1312 said:

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...

 

On 08/11/2021 at 07:39, burgundy said:

The last two members of the E6 class 0-6-2 tanks were intended to be built as 0-8-0s, for shunting Brighton goods yard. The plan changed when Marsh took over from Billinton.

Best wishes 

Eric 

 

Not so unlikely when one considers the monsters Urie built for the LSWR to work coal trains in the London area between the various hump shunting at Feltham. It's a mistake to suppose that the southern lines didn't have a large mineral traffic; it's just that it got dispersed rather quickly once sorted at Feltham, Hither Green, Norwood, etc. 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, JimC said:

Presumably its a shallow grate and a somewhat convoluted ashpan. A challenge for the fireman and a very complicated layout of dampers I expect.

We are after all in the realms of imagination. I'm sure that plenty of the imaginaries I've posted here, if examined by a trained steam engineer, would turn out to have some comprehensive flaw to render them inoperable. 

 


BOX.jpg.017b99fe6c7d44298fb42383a324975c.jpg

Decapod-style?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2021 at 09:44, Michael Edge said:

B12s, not the Clauds, but yes, the "hiker" nickname comes from the fireman having to take a step between tender and firedoor, rather than just turning round. Locomen's nicknames rarely had anything to do with appearance, how they did the job was what mattered to them. Another misconception amongst enthusiasts was "toffee apples" for the first Brush type 2s - nothing to do with the stripes on the loco but the control handle which had to be carried from one cab to the other. 

I would think those extra steps fairly added up in the course of a shift...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JimC said:

Or "What if Gresley had been succeeded by Bulleid?" [grabs coat, runs for the door]

If I remember my reading correctly, 10000 didn't have a traditional 'firebox,' per se.   More of a continuous furnace for direct heat on the watertubes.   Though you would lose efficiency, and probably exceed the loading gauge, you could have the rear couple of axles run between the lower drums and the furnace.

 

Can't imagine the wheels would do well, surrounded by that much heat.   The rest of the locomotive didn't work, so I doubt too much difference would matter.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Or "What if Gresley had been succeeded by Bulleid?" [grabs coat, runs for the door]"

 

Anticlimax I believe. Bulleid was hired by Southern to shake them out of a rut and he did, with a mixture of successes, failures, and why-bothers. LNER seemed much less in need of a shake-up, and it was wartime, so Bulleid would probably have done engineering improvements rather than radical change.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As an afterthought, Bulleid might well have decided to out-Ivatt LMS, and pro-actively embrace the incoming diesel era at LNER immediately post-war. After all, Gresley had produced the right express steam for the London-Edinburgh route, and adequate express steam for the Edinburgh-Aberdeen route, so what is left? Better goods steam locomotives - not sexy at all.

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Better goods steam locomotives - not sexy at all.

 

But perhaps more relevant to the railway's needs. The board would not have been primarily interested in indulging the CME's ego, especially in the tight financial circumstances of the immediate post-war years. (Yes, we all know what Bulleid got away with on the Southern.)

 

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Bulleid might have carried on with the electrification had he taken over from Gresley. 

 

Again, really not his call.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, DenysW said:

"Or "What if Gresley had been succeeded by Bulleid?" [grabs coat, runs for the door]"

 

Anticlimax I believe. Bulleid was hired by Southern to shake them out of a rut and he did, with a mixture of successes, failures, and why-bothers. LNER seemed much less in need of a shake-up, and it was wartime, so Bulleid would probably have done engineering improvements rather than radical change.

As too, but to a lesser extent, did Thompson when he succeeded Gresley. Trained at various times under the pro-electric Raven, became CME of a company with pre-war electrification proposals in hand and part built/built stock for them, but no money available post-war to wire up over the Pennines or out into east-London & Essex. He didn't get everything right but, that said, changes were needed to rectify issues with some of the Gresley features and designs and they were made.

 

I suggest anyone who doubts the foregoing reads the excellent recently published biography by Tim Hillier-Graves. Read and reviewed by me for the SLS Journal (publication expected for the Jan/Feb edition) with the recommendation reading - Definitely a recommended title If you have any interest in the former LNER; other readers will also find the descriptions of the changes in the early twentieth century railway workshop and engineering scene interesting..

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 hours ago, DenysW said:

As an afterthought, Bulleid might well have decided to out-Ivatt LMS, and pro-actively embrace the incoming diesel era at LNER immediately post-war. After all, Gresley had produced the right express steam for the London-Edinburgh route, and adequate express steam for the Edinburgh-Aberdeen route, so what is left? Better goods steam locomotives - not sexy at all.

Adequate express steam for the Aberdeen run is questionable for the P2s given high quoted rates for their unavailability generating the need for them to be rebuilt and (Alleged - is it proven?) inflexibility of their 8-coupled chassis to cope with the sinuous route. It has been suggested that, for the duration of WW2 at least, they would have better working very heavy loaded services out of KX. Perhaps a case of right engines for heavy medium-fast passenger trains and fitted freight like the fish trains - given the wrong route at the wrong time due to wartime maintenance standards.

 

If the 2-8-2s were seen as too long in the wheelbase then @11ty12 's*  4-10-0 NO. 10001 definitely so. 

 

*Corrected contributor - see @JimC's later post.

 

Edited by john new
Correction as shown.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...