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

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, JimC said:

5'8 wheels would be a struggle I think.

This is a Manor boiler, a 28 chassis and a standard bogie. Nearly 3 feet longer than a 72.

 

manortank284colour.jpg.385e68bf22c908ec65b32d1402c23c26.jpg

Thanks. A little bit more ungainly than I thought! Basically a 47xx in tank engine form.

Maybe, horror of horrors, deviating from the hallowed Swindon standard wheel size to something like 5'3", it could work.

(There. I've said it. Eternal damnation for me!)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, rodent279 said:

Thanks. A little bit more ungainly than I thought! Basically a 47xx in tank engine form.

Maybe, horror of horrors, deviating from the hallowed Swindon standard wheel size to something like 5'3", it could work.

(There. I've said it. Eternal damnation for me!)

Those are 4'7.5 wheels. There were 5'3 wheels on the second 3100 class, so your soul is safe for now - at least in that respect!


My only-lightly-educated guess is that going any bigger than the Manor boiler gets into weight problems unless it goes 8 or better 10 coupled. I can knock up fictionals fairly readily if I use a chassis that I already have drawn, but considering something more radical needs a fair bit of thought about what components could be combined, and is probably more effort than I want to put into a light hearted bit of fun! The 28 chassis/wheel spacing would put 5'3 wheels closer than the first and second drivers on a Saint, so probably too close, and there's also the struggle of finding somewhere to hang the brakes!
 

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

25 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

That looks quite plausible but you've put the bogie on back to front.

Hush! I changed it for you. But honestly I think that's the least of the problems in that area with my quick hack!

 

19 minutes ago, John Besley said:

Now if only the GWR had Walschaerts valve gear for two cylinder locos ... but kept everything else the same family style...

But what would have been the advantage in doing that? The GWR implementation of Stephensons arguably had better valve events for a freight locomotive, and preparation was a piece work task.

Edited by JimC
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

Where is this leading? Well an imaginary loco. What about the British doing similar experiments with wheel arrangements and our imaginary loco having an EM2 body but a 1-Do-1 (2-8-2) wheel arrangement?

 

British mainline dieselry actually began with the Armstrong Whitworth 1-Co-1 of 1933. The same website has a description of A1A-A1A locos for Siam - not sure if these are the ones you referred to.  All 20+ years before the modernisation plan.

 

BTW if we're styling a British 1-Do-1 can we copy that rather handsome Netherlands loco rather than the boxy EM2.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

British mainline dieselry actually began with the Armstrong Whitworth 1-Co-1 of 1933. The same website has a description of A1A-A1A locos for Siam - not sure if these are the ones you referred to.  All 20+ years before the modernisation plan.

 

BTW if we're styling a British 1-Do-1 can we copy that rather handsome Netherlands loco rather than the boxy EM2.

 Those Sulzer A1A-A1A were a different class bought at the same time. I found this pic of one of the Frichs locos heading a train at Bangkok

 

image.png.de6ccd404a7a9cab9e5d92ccd3d795d2.png

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

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, whart57 said:

People may choose to make the sign of the cross or chew on a clove of garlic now as we descend into the area of witchcraft and devil's work ......

 

 

 

image.png.07aa15765268664d9da16c5fc28465e0.png

 

 

 

Where is this leading? Well an imaginary loco. What about the British doing similar experiments with wheel arrangements and our imaginary loco having an EM2 body but a 1-Do-1 (2-8-2) wheel arrangement?

 

I have considered this for a simple layout project (no station just running lines) in N. There is a Shapeways producer doing EM1 and EM2 bodies which could be modified and put onto Tomix/Kato running gear to produce various forms of locomotive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, JimC said:

Hush! I changed it for you. But honestly I think that's the least of the problems in that area with my quick hack!

Wouldn't it be better with bigger bogie wheels, maybe the same size as those on the pont truck? But I think a 2-10-2 would look better, you know, for all those iron ore trains up to Ebbw Vale.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Budgie said:

Wouldn't it be better with bigger bogie wheels, maybe the same size as those on the pont truck? But I think a 2-10-2 would look better, you know, for all those iron ore trains up to Ebbw Vale.

But didn't the 2-8-2T suffer from leaking tanks and other complications resulting from it being simply too long for the curves? So a 2-10-2 would have been worse 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Would a Manor based 2-8-0 have any use? A smaller boilered version of a 47xx, lighter and with higher RA.

I can't get 4 sets of 5'8 driving wheels under a Manor boiler without giving it a smokebox ten feet long! I suppose in theory a boiler as long as a Std1and as thin as a Std 2 could be constructed, but I think something like that was abandoned in the Manor design studies, so presumably it has drawbacks. I don't know whether it would save enough weight to be useful either. Also my not very well informed guess is that a 47 with a smaller than std1 boiler would struggle to supply enough steam to take heavy loads at fitted freight speeds, so the loadings would need to be reduced, but if the loads were reduced then there is no need for a 2-8-0 and a 4-6-0 can do the job.

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

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

But didn't the 2-8-2T suffer from leaking tanks and other complications resulting from it being simply too long for the curves? So a 2-10-2 would have been worse 

Perhaps an artic. then, with extra boost for uphill work :)

1548256290_GWRartic.jpg.5ad729d6ffbe0b94770d6bacededeb87.jpg

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fairly preposterous Manor development - a 2-10-0 with 4'1.5 in wheels.  Just right for hauling very heavy mineral or ore trains up steep weight restricted lines. Don't bother me with technicalities like the awkward fact that the vast majority of the South Wales lines were red route restricted so there wouldn't have been any work for it. Ideal for the uranium mine that somehow failed to be discovered on the Cambrian system...

 

Manor2100.JPG.5022f1e69095d60d108dfcd262444e4f.JPG

I left little details like suspension or any form of engine brakes off because I couldn't be bothered!

  • Like 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A problem associated with the Western Valley line, Newport to Ebbw Vale, which has some fairly serious curves along it' length.  The 2-8-0s suffered as well.  The frames flexed as they were designed to but strained the joints in the tanks, especially at the bottoms of them, so the locos sort of dribbled as they progressed along the route.  High mileage engines were worse of course

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

  • RMweb Gold
41 minutes ago, JimC said:

Here's a fairly preposterous Manor development - a 2-10-0 with 4'1.5 in wheels.  Just right for hauling very heavy mineral or ore trains up steep weight restricted lines. Don't bother me with technicalities like the awkward fact that the vast majority of the South Wales lines were red route restricted so there wouldn't have been any work for it. Ideal for the uranium mine that somehow failed to be discovered on the Cambrian system...

 

Manor2100.JPG.5022f1e69095d60d108dfcd262444e4f.JPG

I left little details like suspension or any form of engine brakes off because I couldn't be bothered!

Is that a Manor boiler?

How about putting a 47xx boiler, or even a King boiler, on it, and making a GWR 9F twenty years before Riddles got there?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A problem associated with the Western Valley line, Newport to Ebbw Vale, which has some fairly serious curves along it' length.  The 2-8-0s suffered as well.  The frames flexed as they were designed to but strained the joints in the tanks, especially at the bottoms of them, so the locos sort of dribbled as they progressed along the route.  High mileage engines were worse of course

 

What you're really saying is that South Wales needed Garratts.  Perhaps an 0-6-2+2-6-0 could be built from the running gear of a pair of 56xx, with an un-GW short fat boiler between them and whistles provided by Morgan the Roundabout.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting though this thread is, is does seem to repeatedly cycle through what-ifs based on swapping standard GWR/Stanier components and/or and extra axle or two.

But..... has anyone (with the exception of @Clive Mortimore) actually built any imaginary locomotives of the Big Four or British Railways?  @Corbshas produced some freelance stunners for the Isle of Sodor, shown on his thread.  My apologies to him but I've forgotten the username of the modeller of some superb planned-but-not-built LMS types for the far North of Scotland.

Even simpler, has anyone renumbered any locos to fictional numbers, to represent planned batches that weren't built?  Examples could be the Std Cl.4 4-6-0, for which a batch of ten (75080-89) were intended for the Eastern Region.

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

48 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

What you're really saying is that South Wales needed Garratts.

The Western Valley line, Newport Ebbw Jc to Ebbw Vale, might have been a very good place for them.  There are, I would contend, only two other routes in the UK where similar conditions prevailed, i.e. the need to keep a very big steelworks supplied with iron ore imported by sea, with a series of severe gradients in between against the loaded trains.  These were the relatively short haul from Clydebank Docks to Motherwell, which was the stomping ground of the WD 2-10-0s, and Tyne Dock-Consett. 

 

The Ebbw Vale iron ore trains were a constant challenge to the GW and WR, as the loads required ideally needed more power than was available from the 42xx and 5202 2-8-0 tanks, which had to be banked on the final few miles from Aberbeeg to Ebbw Vale.  A King was tried out, but was not a success, and the job was the first one allocated to the brand new BR standard 9F class in 1954.  This was tried out for a week and famously disgraced itself by laying a heavy black smoke screen along the entire length of the valley on the Monday.  Washing day.  The double chimney 9Fs were the ultimated answer to the problem, able to haul 30 wagon trains up the hill, but they still needed banking from Aberbeeg, in fact this was not dispensed with until Type 5 diesel power in the form of the 56s became available, and smelting had finished at Ebbw Vale steelworks by then.

 

An 0-6-2+2-6-0 Beyer Garratt, with outside cylinders inboard mounted inboard, would have been a very useful thing to have on hand at Ebbw Jc or Aberbeeg, and 4'7" wheels would enable it to be used on other work as well; 4'1" is going to be fine in the valley but a bit of a slowcoach elsewhere.  I don't think it could be made successfully out of Swindon standard components, as any Swindon boiler big enough to supply 4 cylinders for the hour and a half or so of unremitting slog needed would be too long.  The loco would need a short fat B-G boiler and outside cylinders, which suggests Walchaerts' valve gear.  56xx components are going to be non-starters for this job.

 

An alternative might have been an 0-8-0+0-6-0 American style (i.e. not compound) Mallett tank, again with the cylinders on the swinging 8 wheeled bogie mounted inboard.  This might have been able to utilise the King or 47xx boiler, but an issue might have been water capacity, as these big boilers would have meant that the tanks needed to long and thin to keep within the loading gauge and be low enough for the water column bags to clear the top of them.  There is a limit to this as the driver needs to see the front of the loco, which is why larger GW tank locos have sloping tank tops.  My sense is that an 0-8-0+0-8-0 might have been a bit light on it's feet.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Interesting though this thread is, is does seem to repeatedly cycle through what-ifs based on swapping standard GWR/Stanier components and/or and extra axle or two.

But..... has anyone (with the exception of @Clive Mortimore) actually built any imaginary locomotives of the Big Four or British Railways?  @Corbshas produced some freelance stunners for the Isle of Sodor, shown on his thread.  My apologies to him but I've forgotten the username of the modeller of some superb planned-but-not-built LMS types for the far North of Scotland.

Even simpler, has anyone renumbered any locos to fictional numbers, to represent planned batches that weren't built?  Examples could be the Std Cl.4 4-6-0, for which a batch of ten (75080-89) were intended for the Eastern Region.

Big difference between me and Ben, he has finished his and they look wonderful.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've built several HR and CR proposed and what ifs, and I have probably posted pics along the way here, but don't keep constant track of this thread - too much to see on the forum if any modelling is to be done - but it would be good to see more actual builds appear. I have done a series of what if Standards and shown them a couple of months ago or so, and they have a mix of unused numbers, with my takes on the LMS Four using later Black Five numbering. As an example, here is a smaller wheeled Pacific.

20211021_223612.jpg.b502819f9034ea64bb3324065318269c.jpg

 

More or less finished but stalled in order to finish off a batch of HR Small Bens - real locos so no place for them here....;)

  • Like 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

An alternative might have been an 0-8-0+0-6-0 American style (i.e. not compound) Mallett tank, again with the cylinders on the swinging 8 wheeled bogie mounted inboard.  This might have been able to utilise the King or 47xx boiler, but an issue might have been water capacity, as these big boilers would have meant that the tanks needed to long and thin to keep within the loading gauge and be low enough for the water column bags to clear the top of them.  There is a limit to this as the driver needs to see the front of the loco, which is why larger GW tank locos have sloping tank tops.  My sense is that an 0-8-0+0-8-0 might have been a bit light on it's feet.

Split the first set with a pilot, to make a 2-6-6-0, and I think you'd have it.   I'd personally make it a tender loco, as well.   I know the locomen didn't want a tender flopping around downhill.   For practical reasons, I don't think a tank would really work in the conditions.   

 

Admittedly, on very basic math (assuming a Standard 12 boiler from a King, and the same number of cylinders split onto both drive sets,) the suggested artic would be around 15 tons/axle

  • Like 2
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...