Fictitious Classes
Re: Fictitious Classes
The 2-8-2T design was worked up to a general arrangement, there's a good side elevation in Haresnape's 'Gresley Locomotives'. It is so close to a V1/V3 but with eight coupled wheels of 4'8" that modelling it is relatively simple, particularly with the good choice of eight coupled chassis now available RTR to supply the running gear. Mine is waiting liverying in a 'pet engine' scheme to work as a pilot at Kings Cross, following the examples of the specially liveried and maintained J69 and N7 pilots at Liverpool Street.
The justification is that the last shedmaster at KX, the well known Peter Townend, actually wrote about wanting an eight coupled tank to work heavy ECS out of the terminus in the morning. Speed restrictions introduced on the approach to the Wood Green flyover meant that the previous technique of charging the gradient could not be used, and he didn't have an eight coupled type allocated. It's all in 'Top Shed' for those interested.
The justification is that the last shedmaster at KX, the well known Peter Townend, actually wrote about wanting an eight coupled tank to work heavy ECS out of the terminus in the morning. Speed restrictions introduced on the approach to the Wood Green flyover meant that the previous technique of charging the gradient could not be used, and he didn't have an eight coupled type allocated. It's all in 'Top Shed' for those interested.
Last edited by Bigmet on Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Fictitious Classes
The really nice fictitious loco I would like to see (and maybe even model) was the conversion of two Black '5's to make a Garratt suggested by John Powell to get over the double heading of trains on the Highland line. Ideal for my Killiecrankie layout. There is a nice drawing of this proposal in his book Living with London Midland Locomotives. There are some other highly believable but un-built locos in that book - well worth getting.
I am completing my 4mm layout of Killiecrankie. I am the LMS Society carriage person.
Re: Fictitious Classes
Can I correct you here, since I once worked in a loco drawing office. The drawing you were looking at in Haresnape is what we called a 'diagram' in my day. A General Arrangement is a vast three view plus numerous sections which was done only after the first loco off had been steamed and all the mods required to reach that stage were incorporated. It was done mainly for the customer to show all the bits and pieces he might like to have as spares and as a reference drawing. GA's were not used for building locos - they didn't exist at that stage. They also came in handy when designing a new loco of the same general type. I worked on the SAR Class 25 4-8-4 and while it was a massive extrapolation of the 15F, it did incorporate many common parts.Bigmet wrote:The 2-8-2T design was worked up to a general arrangement, .....
I am completing my 4mm layout of Killiecrankie. I am the LMS Society carriage person.
- Essex2Visuvesi
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:51 pm
- Location: Finland, Finland, Finland!
Re: Fictitious Classes
how about a 18F 2 9Fs welded together to make a "Big boy"
Si quam primum vos operor non successio , impono
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
Re: Fictitious Classes
Whoops, thanks for that.Stanier wrote:Can I correct you here, since I once worked in a loco drawing office. The drawing you were looking at in Haresnape is what we called a 'diagram' in my day...Bigmet wrote:The 2-8-2T design was worked up to a general arrangement, .....
Re: Fictitious Classes
Hmm. A much more practical loco would be a 2-8-0+ 0-8-2 Mallet. Also the tender would be bogie - fives axles rigid in an engine yard would be a recipe for disaster. At Corkerhill we derailed WD tenders regularly and there were roads banned to them in the end. Note also that just doubling the length of a boiler would not double the steam output due to serious mismatch of tube free area to length - a vital ratio for steam production. Your enormous loco would have difficulty moving itself, never mind a train. Just my observations as a trained locomotive designer.Essex2Visuvesi wrote:how about a 18F 2 9Fs welded together to make a "Big boy"
I am completing my 4mm layout of Killiecrankie. I am the LMS Society carriage person.
Re: Fictitious Classes
I think he was been a little tongue in cheek!Stanier wrote:Hmm. A much more practical loco would be a 2-8-0+ 0-8-2 Mallet. Also the tender would be bogie - fives axles rigid in an engine yard would be a recipe for disaster. At Corkerhill we derailed WD tenders regularly and there were roads banned to them in the end. Note also that just doubling the length of a boiler would not double the steam output due to serious mismatch of tube free area to length - a vital ratio for steam production. Your enormous loco would have difficulty moving itself, never mind a train. Just my observations as a trained locomotive designer.Essex2Visuvesi wrote:how about a 18F 2 9Fs welded together to make a "Big boy"
I can just see that trying to go round 2nd rad curves
Re: Fictitious Classes
it's two split boilers you can clearly see the two fireboxes ,,, obviously oil firedStanier wrote:Hmm. A much more practical loco would be a 2-8-0+ 0-8-2 Mallet. Also the tender would be bogie - fives axles rigid in an engine yard would be a recipe for disaster. At Corkerhill we derailed WD tenders regularly and there were roads banned to them in the end. Note also that just doubling the length of a boiler would not double the steam output due to serious mismatch of tube free area to length - a vital ratio for steam production. Your enormous loco would have difficulty moving itself, never mind a train. Just my observations as a trained locomotive designer.Essex2Visuvesi wrote:how about a 18F 2 9Fs welded together to make a "Big boy"
Re: Fictitious Classes
Still no cigar. You can't dump the spent gases from one boiler into the firebox of another - you'd put the fire out (all that CO2). I was well aware that this 18F was a joke and I laughed when I saw it. However the thread was intended I think to draw out some of the 'might have beens' of which there were many and various in real life. The project office at the NBL where I worked had a drawer full of things that would have worked OK if anyone had wanted to try them. Some of the wilder ideas like the Reid-Ramsay turbo did get off the ground, but were as is too often the case, ahead of their time materials-wise. I draw a veil over the NBL's sortie into diesel hydraulics. Nothing to do with me, I must add, I worked in the Steam Office. It wasn't the designers fault either come to think of it. You can't work to fractions of a thou with machinery designed to work to ± 1/32". The top managers of the NBL were not engineers and it showed. That's why I went to Rolls-Royce on graduation - that company was run by engineers, though that had its down side in 1971.tornado64 wrote: it's two split boilers you can clearly see the two fireboxes ,,, obviously oil fired
I am completing my 4mm layout of Killiecrankie. I am the LMS Society carriage person.
- Essex2Visuvesi
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:51 pm
- Location: Finland, Finland, Finland!
Re: Fictitious Classes
was just a bit of fun with paint in my lunch break
Si quam primum vos operor non successio , impono
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
- thebritfarmer
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:46 pm
- Location: Windsor, Ontario
Re: Fictitious Classes
Well knock it off !!Essex2Visuvesi wrote:was just a bit of fun with paint in my lunch break
All Aboooooard !!
- Essex2Visuvesi
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:51 pm
- Location: Finland, Finland, Finland!
Re: Fictitious Classes
It's ok.... I just didn't want anyone taking it too seriously.thebritfarmer wrote:Well knock it off !!Essex2Visuvesi wrote:was just a bit of fun with paint in my lunch break
And for my next trick.... perhaps a 0-10-0 pannier tank?
Si quam primum vos operor non successio , impono
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask
Proud member of the OAM
(Order of the Armchair Modeller
Re: Fictitious Classes
How about making it an 060+060 mallet. You know, for hauling heavy coal trains through the Welsh hills or something
Re: Fictitious Classes
The Mallet went out of fashion when the Garratt came into being. A Garratt has several advantages - bigger more efficient boiler slung between the driving units, no need to turn, as it's a big tank engine, more flexible than the Mallet on curves, less loading on the wheels helped the bridge curve on narrower gauge railways. It was win,win,win. Had steam gone on in the UK we might have seen a few more Garratts here. The terrible mess Derby made of its Garratt of course put people right off them. The damage that man Anderson did to British locomotive development is unforgiveable, but hey ho that's life. We had Garratts from 0-4-0+0-4-0 to 4-8-4+4-8-4 in the end, so it must have been a good idea.
I am completing my 4mm layout of Killiecrankie. I am the LMS Society carriage person.