Imaginary Locomotives

[Smiffy2]

Culturalist, if you will.

 

Let me re-phrase my remark to avoid giving offence. It is a feature of the French language that when a colloquial term for an object is coined, it often references a comestible item. 'Mustard pot' for the large dome on the engine in question is an example.

Nope. Post was racist. Offence was given. And please don’t lecture me on the French Language.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Probably would have used a 37 or Baby Deltic cab/nose.

 Just noticed the cab is probably on backwards anyway.

 

D- must try harder

[DavidB-AU]

Just noticed the cab is probably on backwards anyway.

No that's correct. The door is behind the driving position in both directions. Same on the class 15 and 16.

 

Cheers

David

[DCB]

Nope. Post was racist. Offence was given. And please don’t lecture me on the French Language.

Looks more like a tree stump than a Mustard Pot.  Strange how the French could make such a pigs ear of a simple loco when Webb, Dean, Fletcher and  Worsdell could produce far more efficient and better looking locos, and in Worsdell's case more sophisticated (compound) locos.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[844fan]

Nope. Post was racist. Offence was given. And please don’t lecture me on the French Language.

How is it racist? I see no mention of Race in the aforementioned post only country. Unless your saying that a Latin based language speaking culture is endemic of their race and not merely a point of where they were born and raised which in of itself is borderline racist too.

[brack]

Taking offence is a very different thing to offence having been given.

 

Best to be a little more tolerant of one another and not make sweeping assessments of another person's character based on half a line of text in a forum post.

 

Do we have any more imaginary locos?

Edited September 27, 2017 by brack

[Compound2632]

The LNWR compound tanks have a chapter to themselves in Talbot's An Illustrated History of LNWR Engines (OPC, 1985).

 

The first one, No. 2063, was, as you say, converted in 1884 from one of a batch of Beyer Peacock Metropolitan-type 4-4-0Ts, becoming a 4-2-2-0T with Webb's usual arrangement of the outside HP cylinders driving the rear axle and the single large inside LP cylinder driving the leading axle - so the outside cylinders were further to the rear than the original outside cylinders. Otherwise it retained much of its Beyer Peacock look and kept its condensing gear. (Some of the other engines of this class were given extended bunkers and standard Crewe cabs, becoming 4-4-2Ts - a regular hippogriff, head of a Beyer Peacock, body of a Watford tank. I think they have the distinction of being the LNWR's only 19th century ten-wheelers.)

 

Following this experiment, in 1885 Webb produced a 2-2-2-2T No. 687 that was essentially a compound version of the contemporary Mansion House tanks. He followed this up in 1887 with a larger-wheeled 2-2-2-2T, No. 600 - in some ways a prototype for the Watford tanks but not as big - this was the 3,000 engine built at Crewe (and hence photographed with that number). The 2-2-4-0T, No. 777, was built about the same time - the rear pair of axles being coupled and driven by the HP cylinders, giving one a chance of getting away with a goods train, I suppose. As far as I can work out, by the 1890s these three compound tanks were all shedded at Buxton and used on the Manchester passenger trains. There's a topic on a build of a 4 mm scale model No. 777 - effectively a test build for what is now, I believe, a LRM kit (though not yet on their website).

 

If ever there was a group of engines that ought to have remained imaginary, these were they!

 

Being in penitent mood, I have to point up a blunder in my post on Webb's compound tanks. I've referred to the larger-wheeled class of 2-4-2Ts (officially the 5'6" tanks) as 'Watford' tanks. This name of course applies to the larger-wheeled class of 0-6-2Ts (the 18" tanks). At the hind end they're sufficiently similar that saying the converted Metropolitan-type tanks had the 'head of a Beyer Peacock, body of a Watford tank' still stands, but describing No. 600 as a prototype of the Watford tanks is wrong.

 

It seems the 5'6" 2-4-2Ts were the only class not to gain a handy nickname. The official LNWR class designations aren't very helpful - veering between defining the class by driving wheel diameter or cylinder diameter.

[Corbs]

Do we have any more imaginary locos?

 

Here's one I made earlier - it's a freelance Dübs 2-4-0 based on 'the MNR's 'Caledonia' and the WC&P's 'Clevedon'.

 

I made it from a Hornby Pug, 101, radial tank and a marker pen.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Corbs

[Compound2632]

Here's one I made earlier - it's a freelance Dübs 2-4-0 based on 'the MNR's 'Caledonia' and the WC&P's 'Clevedon'.

 

I made it from a Hornby Pug, 101, radial tank and a marker pen.

 

B0B2AEE5-ADC1-4CA7-A0F6-246598839A5A.jpg

 

I suspect there's something rather interesting going on with the now tankless radial? A small Adams-ish 4-4-0?

[Northroader]

What's the bounds to your ingeeneuititty? Its an 0-4-2T one side and a 2-4-0T on t'other!oh no, it's my eyesight, silver them side rods, please.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Northroader

[Corbs]

I suspect there's something rather interesting going on with the now tankless radial? A small Adams-ish 4-4-0?

Ahhaa it's just the cylinders and motion from the Adams, I couldn't stretch to a whole loco just for those parts! The tanks are the 101 tanks, heavily cut down

[Compound2632]

Ahhaa it's just the cylinders and motion from the Adams, I couldn't stretch to a whole loco just for those parts! The tanks are the 101 tanks, heavily cut down

 

Aha! I misread 'radial tank' as, the tanks off a radial...

[PhilJ W]

Truth can be stranger than fiction. I have just received the October edition of Railway Bylines. On page 526 is a locomotive that I couldn't imagine in my wildest dreams. Its an 0-6-0F with the cab mounted about ten feet above the running plate making it about twenty feet high. It was built to operate in the NCB coking plant at Glasshoughton.

[DavidB-AU]

A heavy shunter to replace the SR Z class.

 

 

Cheers

David

[The Johnster]

A heavy shunter to replace the SR Z class.

 

18001.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Almost big enough to use the power plant from a class 20.  And I think that's the fundamental problem; why not just use a Class 20, which is capable of 60mph, with modified controls for shunting.

[DavidB-AU]

Almost big enough to use the power plant from a class 20.  And I think that's the fundamental problem; why not just use a Class 20, which is capable of 60mph, with modified controls for shunting.

 

Is there a rule that ideas in this topic have to be practical?

 

Cheers

David

[Satan's Goldfish]

Going a little O/T from locomotives, but I've always thought the original FFA/FGA container flats would work nicely if modified to articulated sets as 40ft containers became more prevalent.

 

 

10ft extra length on the ends for the occasional 30ft or 10ft box, less gaps if a route has more 40s than 20s. May need different bogies for the axle loading however.

 

 

 

Edit: this is actually on my lists to try with old Hornby flats and S-kits detailing parts (since Bachmann's were announced) just to upset rivet counters...

 

Edit 2: picture altered to add a 40ft box!

Edited September 28, 2017 by Satan's Goldfish

[Suzie]

Going a little O/T from locomotives, but I've always thought the original FFA/FGA container flats would work nicely if modified to articulated sets as 40ft containers became more prevalent.

 

icon1252.jpg

 

10ft extra length on the ends for the occasional 30ft or 10ft box, less gaps if a route has more 40s than 20s. May need different bogies for the axle loading however.

 

 

 

Edit: this is actually on my lists to try with old Hornby flats and S-kits detailing parts (since Bachmann's were announced) just to upset rivet counters...

 

Edit 2: picture altered to add a 40ft box!

 

Axle loading will go from around 25 Tonnes on a 4-axle 3 x 20' wagon to over 30 tonnes on an articulated 2 x 20' so an articulated set would have to be 40' or 45' only to keep the axle loading sensible (under 20 tonnes) unless careful weight selection is done when loading pairs of 20' containers. I guess not installing fixing points for 2x 20' containers but just allowing a single 20' in the middle of the deck will fix that problem. Tanks normally come in 20' so one of them in the middle would look prototypical (as if there were a prototype!)

 

[Pacific231G]

The old French 0-6-0 pictured some posts ago was one built by the c.f.de l' OUEST. At one time most of their fleet had these boilers with the very large flat topped domes. The French railway slang for them was "pot au moutarde", which you should be able to follow.

A small point but these locos were built for the C.F.de l'Ouest not by it. The example in the Mulhouse museum was built by Fives-Lille but no fewer than ten manufacturers built batches of the 339 locos that formed this class between 1867 and 1885. 

Unlike in Britain where the larger railways built most of their own, it was more common elsewhere for railway operating companies to order their locos from specialist companies. I don't know how unusual the practice of French railways of ordering locos to the same design in batches from different manufacturers often over an extended timescale was but I suspect government industrial policy may have played a part in this.

[Compound2632]

A small point but these locos were built for the C.F.de l'Ouest not by it. The example in the Mulhouse museum was built by Fives-Lille but no fewer than ten manufacturers built batches of the 339 locos that formed this class between 1867 and 1885. 

Unlike in Britain where the larger railways built most of their own, it was more common elsewhere for railway operating companies to order their locos from specialist companies. I don't know how unusual the practice of French railways of ordering locos to the same design in batches from different manufacturers often over an extended timescale was but I suspect government industrial policy may have played a part in this.

 

I'm not sure there's such a strong national distinction here. Some did - the LNWR at Crewe - others didn't. Taking the Midland (certainly one of the 'big three' companies) as an example and a comparable type of locomotive, S.W Johnson's inside-framed 0-6-0 goods engines of which 886 were built* to essentially same design between 1875 and 1902, only 90 were built at Derby, the remainder coming from seven different manufacturers. Derby tended to build in small batches of 10 whereas the quantities ordered from outside were typically 20 or 30, often several such orders to different firms at the same time, up to 100 ordered in one go from Neilsons in 1890. I think Derby built these engines during times of depression - the mid 1880s in particular - to keep their employees in work and their skill set up to the mark - but at other times concentrated on the passenger engines. The large Neilsons order probably reflects rapidly rising traffic as the country emerged from depression.

 

*Including the 16 built for the M&GN and 5 for the SDJR.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Compound2632

[runs as required]

A small point but these locos were built for the C.F.de l'Ouest not by it. The example in the Mulhouse museum was built by Fives-Lille but no fewer than ten manufacturers built batches of the 339 locos that formed this class between 1867 and 1885. 

Unlike in Britain where the larger railways built most of their own, it was more common elsewhere for railway operating companies to order their locos from specialist companies. I don't know how unusual the practice of French railways of ordering locos to the same design in batches from different manufacturers often over an extended timescale was but I suspect government industrial policy may have played a part in this.

As indeed it has in the last 25 years or so here in the UK.

 

But to go back to the point of 10 different suppliers of the 339 locos that form the class - would differences of detail (apart from the builder's plate) be noticeable to the mechaniciens?

I am also thinking of locomotives like Stanier Black Fives or LNER B1s built both in-house and by outside contractors.

dh

 

Edit and I see, also the case with the Johnson 0-6-0s in the above post (a question for rivet counters)

Edited September 28, 2017 by runs as required

[Compound2632]

also the case with the Johnson 0-6-0s in the above post (a question for rivet counters)

 

Hardly. The standard of finish expected was such that all rivets were countersunk with the surface filled and stopped before painting, so no visible rivets to count!

[DavidB-AU]

Again not saying it would be practical...

 

 

Cheers

David

[Hroth]

Again not saying it would be practical...

 

18-2.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Crikey!!!

 

A Pushme-Pullyou!

 

With an 08 plant under each bonnet, it'd make a...   a...

 

Well, it'd raise some eyebrows!

[Satan's Goldfish]

Axle loading will go from around 25 Tonnes on a 4-axle 3 x 20' wagon to over 30 tonnes on an articulated 2 x 20' so an articulated set would have to be 40' or 45' only to keep the axle loading sensible (under 20 tonnes) unless careful weight selection is done when loading pairs of 20' containers. I guess not installing fixing points for 2x 20' containers but just allowing a single 20' in the middle of the deck will fix that problem. Tanks normally come in 20' so one of them in the middle would look prototypical (as if there were a prototype!)

 

articulated containers adjusted.jpg

 

Yup just done my homework, 25,000kg for a fully loaded 20 so axle weight would be far too high for fully loaded on the same flat (The American double stack articulated sets must be able to take huge axle loads!) so careful loading required. The precedent for this seems to already be set with only 2 tanks (heavy 20s) being mounted on 60ft flats at the outer ends, and I've seen shots of tanks loaded centrally on FLAs rather than pairs of 20s.

 

Other option is triple axle ridemasters.....