Suzie Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) 528875540.jpg oh wait a minute, you said Gresley Garratt Built in Doncaster so very easy to mistake for a Gresley... Edited January 28, 2018 by Suzie 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2018 Corbs' 0-6-0 tanker looks like an Anglicized Southern Railway USA tank engine That's because it is - as Corbs explains in the text accompanying the image; (S100 = USA tank). Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 It looks as tho' if it stopped a bit to quick it would nose dive into the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) Hmmm. A rethink needed.Mum always told me it was better to sleep on an idea as it'll always look different in the morning! Edited January 28, 2018 by Corbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 I am reminded of the North Staff’s experimental 4-cylinder D class... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2018 Rather longer wheelbase and hence more stable, if less useful in a dockside context. I don't believe the North Staffs was a major dock owner! - one of the more land-locked companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 They owned lots of canals, so plenty of docks! It was intended to prove that rapid acceleration didn’t mean electrification. And like GER decapod, was a similarly unwanted singleton. Built in Doncaster so very easy to mistake for a Gresley... And such a smoothly curved front end, even more so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2018 True, the NSR owned the Trent & Mersey Canal, but where there any rail/canal interchanges laid out with particularly sharp curves? I would have thought it would just be alongside. Off to the NLS OS website to look at 25" maps... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 28, 2018 I am reminded of the North Staff’s experimental 4-cylinder D class... Is it just me or is that an LBSC E2 with two extra cylinders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 I’ll see your Not Proven, and raise you Deviation (FX MINUTE WALTZ) Combining your answer with the posts elsewhere about cylinder size vs loading gauge, and the failure to implement proven advances in rolling stock design and cargo handling in the UK in the 1930s, the key question appears to be whether British loading gauge constraints would allow sufficient cylinder capacity to make proper use of such a firebox. The answer appears to be, if I understand you correctly?, that on the balance of probability, the 2-8-2 and 2-10-0 types provided as much usable traction capacity as could be achieved within the loading gauge and available paths? The large and super-large mallet-type locomotives, and the highly successful 4-6-4 and 4-8-4 types built in the USA proved what could be achieved using very large fireboxes in conjunction with train weights never approached in the U.K. within a much larger loading gauge. That isn’t the question. Even under American conditions, the 2-8-2 seems to have been a generally more useful locomotive. So the LMS appear to have been correct in their assessment, that these very large fireboxes were not productive in British conditions Quite, there's no problem in loco design within the UK loading gauge for these large grate locos, but there needs to be integration with the freight rolling stock and the traffic management for the heavy hauls that make them economic to operate. There was no technical obstacle to moving to higher capacity all braked wagons in the UK, and indeed the railways from around the WWI period tried to persuade their customers of the merits of this, which was well proven elsewhere in the world. But this didn't happen until quite recently. Even BR made no major effort at all in this direction for its first dozen years, most noticeably in replacing the wooden mineral wagon with an obsolescent steel design, a significant missed opportunity. (Why have a command economy if you don't know what to command?) It is very noticeable that the typical UK wide grate area, of designs entering service from the 1920s to the 1950s, is about 40 sq ft, a useful power advance on the 30 sqft typical of larger narrow firebox types, and these accounted for about 80% of what was constructed. At the 50 sq ft of grate typical of the largest pacifics, in all except the heaviest service it sometimes proved necessary to fire coal just to keep the firebars covered, as most fast UK routes had sections where well under a thousand horsepower was called for to maintain schedule. But it remains fun to imagine the might have beens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) Ok, ok. I had another stab at it. This one is based more on the 15xx, same height, same length, same wheelbase/wheel size. Chimney is same height. Hopefully this one is less laughable! Original images: and Edited January 28, 2018 by Corbs 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 That's amazing. Makes me think of a Z Class, bet it would go like whatsit off a shovel! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisman56 Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 I dunno, I keep wanting an extra set of wheels under the cab so it doesn't keel over backwards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 Well since it's exactly the same size as the 15xx that's unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Looks whole lot more balanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisman56 Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) Well since it's exactly the same size as the 15xx that's unlikely. I know, but to my eyes, the 15xx looks more balanced. The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason... Edited January 28, 2018 by talisman56 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 Looks whole lot more balanced. In the cold light of day the dock shunter is rather ridiculous by comparison! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Hope it rides better than a Yank Tank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 28, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) I know, but to my eyes, the 15xx looks more balanced. The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason... I think if you did, you could extend the bunker back to the full length as I cut it down, or you could do what I did before and shorten the cab to only have one window and reduce the overall length. Post it up here when you've done it! EDIT in fact it, I did it myself and updated the image. Edited January 29, 2018 by Corbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted January 29, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2018 That's amazing. Makes me think of a Z Class, bet it would go like whatsit off a shovel! The effect of the standard's fuller-bodied cab and bunker makes me want an extra pair of wheels under it, for some reason... What would it be like if you lengthened it slightly and made it an 0-8-0 à la Z class? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted January 30, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Hmmm. After talking to some people about the Mk.2, I wanted another go at a 'Steam Class 08'. Dimensionally I've tried to make this have less of a cut down feel to it. The standard 2 was a better starting point as it seemed I'd made the rookie mistake of starting with a standard 3! This was mated with the Bagnall Victor/Vulcan running gear.The boiler is parallel rather than tapered (although retains belpaire firebox - there is precedent for this though as the GWR fitted them to small locos like the 1366 class).The boiler has been shortened and is a smaller diameter than the Std.2, the pitch is much lower than before.As the boiler has been pitched lower, the cab roof can be raised for better visibility (taller and wider windows).The bunker has been shortened to fit 'Vulcan's overall length - and to reduce rear overhang. The tanks could be cut back, more like the Z class, for better forward view (especially if there is an ample water supply), but I haven't done that on this version. Reference images: Edited January 31, 2018 by Corbs 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
73c Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Looks the mutts nuts, corbs. Must take ages to do these, thanks for taking the time to do them. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 the second one looks much more “rounded”, much more balanced overall Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Also from the discussion on the other forum, this was my take with the (G)WR 1500 very lightly Riddlesized. Edited January 30, 2018 by JimC 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 30, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2018 Riddles-ized or Riddle-sized? 1 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