LNWR18901910 Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 The Southern's answer to the requirement for heavier goods locos in 1942... bulleid-q-0-8-0.jpg This ought to be called the Q2 Class or the Z1 Class. Which do you think suits it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 I'm liking the Q1 derived pacific! I am of the opinion that Q1s are ugly enough to be visually appealing on that basis. My main reservation about the pacific is that the driving wheels would have thrown up a huge amount of crud in bad weather, and driver visibility would have been badly affected. Kent screens in the spectacle plates, perhaps? One was tried on a Western. Or bicycle type mudguards; you can imagine what the comments would have been about that... Reckon the fireboxes would have been too narrow at the bottom and not big enough to steam the boilers efficiently on the 4-8-0s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 How would a 2-8-2 P2 look (or a Pacific sized equivalent from any region for that matter) if turned into a 2-4-4-2 mallet/duplex? Would that solve the firebox width and curve issues? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 Well a duplex is a rigid frame so may not be too kind on the track, I've tried to muck about and create a mallett but the best one I've seen is Michael Edge's model of the proposed Horwich 0-6-6-0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brack Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 A duplex would make it worse - you'd have to lengthen the frames for an extra pair of cylinders so end up with a much longer fixed wheelbase. A mallet might work but then you get boiler throwover on curves. It'd end up much smaller than several us built mallets, but you'd get some instability at speed. If you're going to articulate a loco, a Garratt is by far the best design. Smoother running from dual bogies, optimal boiler/firebox proportions (short and fat) as they're unencumbered by the driving wheels, weight spread over a long area. But then you wouldn't end up with something equivalent to a P2, it'd be something far superior (I'd have gone for something like the streamlined Algerian double Pacific Garratt, but without the experimental gadgetry, just plain walschaerts and a power stoker), and there'd be little call for it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 I think everyone is failing dismally in their attempts to create imaginary locos, when things like this actually existed! 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 17, 2017 I think everyone is failing dismally in their attempts to create imaginary locos, when things like this actually existed! I reckon someone had been at the absinthe when they designed that. That is just bonkers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 (edited) Less bonkers when you consider that it was a) an attempt to build a loco with a decent sized boiler with a firebox not constrained by the high driving axle of a large diameter wheel so that it could achieve a reasonable speed, and b) French. A French or Belgian loco from this period would never have been taken seriously had it not been completely bonkers. Getting back to 2-8-2 converted to 2-4-4-2 Mallet or Duplex, it wouldn't make any difference because the firebox is still constrained by the rear drivers. A powerful fast engine needs big cylinders and a lot of steam to supply them, which means a big fat boiler and a big fat firebox to adequately and quickly heat it when steam is required, or the engine is writing cheques the boiler can't cash and will run out of steam at Scout Green or somewhere. Edited September 17, 2017 by The Johnster 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 That's not an imaginary loco, it's a hallucinatory one. I don't know what you'd call the wheel arrangement - 0-2-6-2-0? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 Similarly... A442.jpg But would it fit on a GER 50' turntable? Another thought on the 0-8-0 "Q1", wouldn't it be more balanced as a 2-8-0? It might almost have been aesthetically pleasing! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 I think everyone is failing dismally in their attempts to create imaginary locos, when things like this actually existed! Its a double ended Crampton, innit! The Nord always had a thing for Cambrian locos........ NO not the Cambrian Railway! The Cambrian geological period was noted for oddly designed lifeforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 17, 2017 Its a double ended Crampton, innit! The Nord always had a thing for Cambrian locos........ NO not the Cambrian Railway! The Cambrian geological period was noted for oddly designed lifeforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion Have you tried turning it upside down? It might be something quite ordinary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 Picture is stunning. I am breathless Can we see a Pacific versio also? For the the most dramatic british locomotive that never were put the cab forward like Chapelon http://thierry.stora.free.fr/pics/dwg240_1.gif https://camo.derpicdn.net/a64e809d5fe642c88b0fcaf8de7328f44d0a7d7c?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.e-train.fr%2Falbum_mod%2Fupload%2Fgrandes%2F46cb68ffe998fe0bd27ed3972f9f1c83.jpg Here's a non-divided drive pacific... Whilst messing about with the layers for that, I accidentally created the ganger's nightmare (flangeless centre driver possibly?) A very handsome Hudson (4-6-4) and Berkshire (2-8-4) may be arranged from the Peppercorn A1 with a 50% growth in length of the (mechanically stoked) firebox. The Hudson is not far off the W1 in its A4-like form. I quite like the Berkshire. This ought to be called the Q2 Class or the Z1 Class. Which do you think suits it? I think Z1. But would it fit on a GER 50' turntable? Another thought on the 0-8-0 "Q1", wouldn't it be more balanced as a 2-8-0? It might almost have been aesthetically pleasing! Funny you should say that, I had similar thoughts but with outside cylinders. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB-AU Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 For completeness. Although it would probably have one set of flangeless drivers. Cheers David 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardTPM Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 That's not an imaginary loco, it's a hallucinatory one. I don't know what you'd call the wheel arrangement - 0-2-6-2-0? Whyte notation doesn't work with that, but as it is French it's best described as an A3A 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted September 17, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2017 If you're going to articulate a loco, a Garratt is by far the best design. Smoother running from dual bogies, optimal boiler/firebox proportions (short and fat) as they're unencumbered by the driving wheels, weight spread over a long area. But then you wouldn't end up with something equivalent to a P2, it'd be something far superior (I'd have gone for something like the streamlined Algerian double Pacific Garratt, but without the experimental gadgetry, just plain walschaerts and a power stoker), and there'd be little call for it. I'd like to see a Garratt based on the Merchant Navy, both air-smoothed and rebuilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Here's a non-divided drive pacific... a2-2-non divided drive.jpg Whilst messing about with the layers for that, I accidentally created the ganger's nightmare (flangeless centre driver possibly?) P2-2-10-0.jpg a1-4-6-4.jpg The Hudson is not far off the W1 in its A4-like form. peppercorn-2-8-4.jpg I quite like the Berkshire. I think Z1. Funny you should say that, I had similar thoughts but with outside cylinders. bulleid-q1-2-8-0.jpg Great model, that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) Here's a non-divided drive pacific... a2-2-non divided drive.jpg Best looking Pacific ever Thank You very much I have tried to repeat Your deeds on this but cannot.What program to use? https://www.Hornby.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/3/r3171-cock-o.jpg Edited September 18, 2017 by Niels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) For completeness. Southern9F.jpg Although it would probably have one set of flangeless drivers. Cheers David Another very British 2-10-0 https://imgur.com/a/DodBL Two inside cylinder divided drive compound https://imgur.com/ZlssxtV Krauss-Helmholtz truck up front and flanges on all wheels Edited September 18, 2017 by Niels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted September 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 18, 2017 I'd like to see a Garratt based on the Merchant Navy, both air-smoothed and rebuilt. The problem with using an existing loco design to make a garratt has been mentioned before, it never looks right if you plonk a Bulleid/Gresley/Riddles etc boiler in between two bogies, garratts all have a similar look with the short wide boiler and it's difficult to illustrate in a side-on drawing (although I have tried to show a large firebox ashpan). (I use adobe photoshop for this) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted September 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 18, 2017 (edited) This is the Horwich Mallett model by Michael Edge, he described the build on this forum:http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67706-horwich-mallet-0-6-6-0/ Also from that thread.... Hi. Here is my attempt at the 4-6-2+2-6-4 Beyer Garratt proposed to BR in the early days of nationalisation. ref E S Cox. There were two versions, 5' 9" for Scotland and 5' 3" for freight. The model is powered by Hornby Railroad class 5 chassis, rear one powered, the other not. The centre unit is pure Kitmaster. The water tanks & coal bunker are made of card and are on their third version. When I am happy I will remake them of Plasticard and add handrails, water fillers etc. also the missing wheels. The loco runs very well but needs a fair amount of lead in the powered unit. The main problem is how do I justify such a loco on the GE section of the ER or the SW section of the SR. Perhaps is slipped in via the S&DJR. However the SR did consider running Garratts from Salisbury to Exeter in the 1930s .Any comments gratefully received before I resume work on it. Nett cost about £50 after I sold the Kitmaster drive units and the Hornby bodies and tenders on Ebay. Roger I keep going back to 'Peppercorn's Berkshire' above, I think it works a lot better than some of the ones I've done for reasons previously discussed, rather than just stretching a Pacific and adding another driver, I used smaller diameter driving wheels which are mounted very close together, and it makes it look proportionally nicer. Edited September 18, 2017 by Corbs 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 This is the Horwich Mallett model by Michael Edge, he described the build on this forum: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67706-horwich-mallet-0-6-6-0/ Also from that thread.... I keep going back to 'Peppercorn's Berkshire' above, I think it works a lot better than some of the ones I've done for reasons previously discussed, rather than just stretching a Pacific and adding another driver, I used smaller diameter driving wheels which are mounted very close together, and it makes it look proportionally nicer. Great model, that! I hope it runs well in both directions. I bet the L&YR could've experimented something like that in 1920, two years after then end of WW1. What do you, think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Whyte notation doesn't work with that, but as it is French it's best described as an A3A The Du Bousquet articulated locos also had carrying wheels under the centre of the loco, although THAT was to support the cylinders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 I'm sceptical that Mallets would ever have been of any real use in British SG service, the side throw of the boiler, very slow working speeds and clearances for the front cylinders against British type raised platforms, must all have been against them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Hroth Posted September 18, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 18, 2017 Have you tried turning it upside down? It might be something quite ordinary. That was a pity, its name (Hallucogenia) was really good! However, creatures like Anomalocaris and Opabina, which looks like a 50s cylinder vacuum cleaner, are whacky enough..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now