Jump to content
 

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

There are, at the back of RCTS 'Locomotives of the LNER' Part 2B, diagrams of a rebuilt B7 with 100A boiler and 2 B1-type cylinders; the original B1 diagram, and a B1 rebuilt with a standard BR3 boiler, from 1953. In the same publication part 5, there is a diagram of a proposed J21 rebuild for the darlington - Tebay services. This had 2-off 19"x 26" inside cylinders with 8" piston valves, J39 - type frames, a boiler at 200psi and an enclosed 2-window cab.

 

Also, I remember an article of might-have-beens in 'Backtrack' which included a diagram for a Great Eastern 4-4-0 mixed traffic loco dated 1915. It looked similar to a 'Belpaire Claud', but had 5' 7" drivers.

 

There's few for the LNER types to be going on with! Where would the GE 4-4-0s have been numbered in the Thompson renumering scheme? 2621-2649?

 

In a similar vein, as I recall, E.S. Cox's Locomotive Panorama includes details of various schemes that emerged from the various LMS drawing offices but were never built- IIRC these included a modernised take on the L&Y 2-4-2T and a 4F 0-6-0 replacement amongst others

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Max Stafford

Now if you'd numbered it '427 and stuck ETH cables on, that would have been a REAL abuse of TOPS...! ;)

 

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What if the LMS had purchased Castles? No rebuilt Scots/Patriots? No Black 5s? does not bear thinking about. GWR were too soon with its Pacific, What if the King had been developed as a 4-6-2?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the LMS had purchased Castles? No rebuilt Scots/Patriots? No Black 5s? does not bear thinking about. GWR were too soon with its Pacific, What if the King had been developed as a 4-6-2?

I'd liked to have seen the Hawksworth Pacific. He might have got it if he'd used Southern's trick of calling it a mixed traffic loco.

 

Cheers

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably like in the proposals of the first post in the thread, it's a normal 09, except there wasn't a #027 example.

 

Exactly! Maybe it was a little too subtle...

 

The idea behind it is that 09 027 could be allocated anywhere and thus avoids, on fictional layouts, the smart arse coming up and saying "I think you'll find that 09 027 wasn't allocated in this area at this time" :)

 

Now if you'd numbered it '427 and stuck ETH cables on, that would have been a REAL abuse of TOPS...! ;)

 

Hadn't thought about that but I like it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

a 4F 0-6-0 replacement amongst others

 

P. Ransome-Wallis has written that the building of such large numbers of 4Fs right into the 1940s wais something of a puzzle, given the usual Derby shortcomings in the design (poor bearings etc.). Not until the "Flying Pigs" was something deemed a substitute available; I'm surprised that Stanier didn't come up with an alternative sooner - given that his design portfolio ticked most of the other boxes (express passenger, mixed traffic, heavy goods, passenger tanks) the absence of a decent small-to-medium sized goods loco is odd. Presumably Black 5s and Moguls were intended to fill this gap too?

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

...What if the King had been developed as a 4-6-2?

Overlay a drawing of the LMS Princess Royal on a GWR King. I think you will find the general resemblance of the layout from the front of the loco to the centre driving wheel rather striking. The Princess Royal is in essence a King with a wide firebox boiler for the roughly one third increase in grate area, and thus potential sustained power output. Monsieur Chapelon believed that the ideal King development to suit the GWR's heavy grades in the West Country would have been a 4-8-0 with a roughly twelve foot long trapeziodal grate, for the same sort of grate area and thus sustained power output as the Princess Royal, with the traction to enable a restart on a 1 in 40. It had worked in France...

P. Ransome-Wallis has written that the building of such large numbers of 4Fs right into the 1940s wais something of a puzzle, given the usual Derby shortcomings in the design (poor bearings etc.). Not until the "Flying Pigs" was something deemed a substitute available; I'm surprised that Stanier didn't come up with an alternative sooner - given that his design portfolio ticked most of the other boxes (express passenger, mixed traffic, heavy goods, passenger tanks) the absence of a decent small-to-medium sized goods loco is odd. Presumably Black 5s and Moguls were intended to fill this gap too?

There were not unlimited resources in the LMS DO to support the scrap and build programme, and the immediate deficiency which Stanier was called upon to rectify was to produce locos capable of higher sustained power output. The system was awash with locos in power classes one to four, but of locomotives capable of express speed had only two and a half designs in power class 5. In retrospect it could be argued that the Fowler 4MTT was known to be a decent loco, and could have waited for 'Stanierisation', in favour of turning out an equivalent design to the Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 that much sooner.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the LMS had been given drawings to build 'Castles, I'll bet they would have incorporated LMS standard parts...... Fowler 3.500 gallon Tender, 3-cylinder Walchearts valvegear and maybe a parallel boiler....... A cock-up in true Anderson/Fowler tradition.

 

The reason why the LMS continued with certain outdated ideas in the late 1920s/early 1930s wasn't just because of certain powerful ex-Midland men. The 1929 - early 30's depression also played its part. But for all that, stupidy reigned when the final Fowler locos came out (even if they do make super models smile.gif ).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There were not unlimited resources in the LMS DO to support the scrap and build programme, and the immediate deficiency which Stanier was called upon to rectify was to produce locos capable of higher sustained power output. The system was awash with locos in power classes one to four, but of locomotives capable of express speed had only two and a half designs in power class 5. In retrospect it could be argued that the Fowler 4MTT was known to be a decent loco, and could have waited for 'Stanierisation', in favour of turning out an equivalent design to the Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 that much sooner.

 

Good point, I suppose it was far lower on the list of priorities than putting some decent top link motive power into service plus addressing needs for (1) modern mixed traffic locos and (2) a better standard heavy goods loco than the "Austin Sevens". Surprised that the 4F wasn't tinkered with to improve the bearings issue though (one of the shortcomings of the aforementioned 7F). As for the Fowler tank, a very good design indeed - maybe they should have built more with the modified side-window cab design and left it at that for a few years?

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! Maybe it was a little too subtle...

 

The idea behind it is that 09 027 could be allocated anywhere and thus avoids, on fictional layouts, the smart arse coming up and saying "I think you'll find that 09 027 wasn't allocated in this area at this time" :)

 

 

 

Hadn't thought about that but I like it!

 

On revisiting the concept, I am quite taken with this, especially for the classes less in the limelight...

 

Sadly it wouldn't work with D-numbers tho' and that particular retro grotto is where I dwell these days....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Railway history is full of locomotive designs that were contemplated but never built. I have in mind the gigantic GCR loco proposed to haul coal between Wath and Immingham - essentially it was an American concept and they planned to open out a tunnel or two to accommodate it. (How they would have serviced it is another matter as they certainly couldn't have opened up Woodhead to get it to Gorton.) They also toyed briefly with the idea of electrifying Worsbrough Bank, long before it actually was electrified. Either of these projects would have produced fascinating machines.

 

I don't see why models of never-built but considered locos shouldn't be built, if the owner wants to build them. It's really only a step beyond having a model of Decapod, which was more or less a whimsy made flesh.

 

Some imaginary locations really need imaginary locos. For example, what if the Leek and Manifold had extended to Buxton. They couldn't have managed with just the two they had. Maybe it would have been a 4-8-4t like the Barsi had. Who knows?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cracking model, Simon - don't know how I missed you doing that!

 

I may yet get around to making a might-have-been NWNG Fairlie - it all depends if I can get hold of an Arnold 0-6-0 chassis unsure.gif

 

Thanks chap, it was on the old RMweb - the model's currently in store, awaiting the time I get off my backside and build it that Hawksworth tender it needs to complete it :)

 

The fairlie sounds fairly interesting ;)

 

Sorry, couldn't resist! Sounds cracking actually, would like to see pics of that one day :)

 

I agree, cracking model. Feel like building a real one? :)

 

Cheers

David

 

No thanks David - it's hard enough trying to find the drawings for a model one!!!

 

Coachmann made a brilliant point on another thread (or maybe it was this one somewhere?) that it's not feasible, simply on the basis of the drafting required for all the different components. If ever there was a draftsman's dream, it was this, and possibly Gresley's Mountain 4-8-2...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

post-1656-1274367253_thumb.jpg

 

post-1656-127436727717_thumb.jpg

 

Ten years ago or so, one guy wrote about (over two or three artciles) about various models in 0 he had built of proposed GWR designs. It included a 2-10-0, a 4-8-0 and the pacific outlined here. (He may have done a 2-10-0T too, but one also appeared in MRC some years ago too!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • RMweb Gold

It has struck me that there is a significant disconnect between the behaviour of modellers towards rolling stock when compared with the places we model.

 

Many people go to great lengths to ensure that every detail of their engines is historically correct, then cheerfully place them in a ficticious piece of geography.

 

If we allow ourselves to create an imaginary world, then surely we should imagine also that the railway companies built additional stock to serve the line, because all the real vehicles were busy serving the real world.

 

I am not necessarily advocating freelance designs but, rather as we adopt characteristic architectural styles and standard buildings, we could postulate extra members of real locomotive classes. If the traffic demands it, we could also propose variants or sub classes of real designs.

 

Discuss....

 

 

I have badly built a few kits when I was younger that have ended up as imaginary/ ficticious items of stock

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten years ago or so, one guy wrote about (over two or three artciles) about various models in 0 he had built of proposed GWR designs. It included a 2-10-0, a 4-8-0 and the pacific outlined here. (He may have done a 2-10-0T too, but one also appeared in MRC some years ago too!)

 

These, I believe:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/galfox1.html

http://www.gwr.org.uk/galfox2.html

http://www.gwr.org.uk/galparsons1.html

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...