De-streamlined A4's

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a Duchess, there's no 'running plate' per-se. Any access to anything on the boiler needs either a ladder or a platform. I can imagine that making life more inconvenient.

 

The boilers might be interchangeable but presumably the smokeboxes aren't!

 

Correct.



This photograph from Flickr hopefully demonstrates the scale of the differences. For a start, the frames and their stay arrangement are actually very different throughout. You can't use A4 frames and bolt on A3 bits.

(Although on a side note, Great Northern, A1/1, used a similar frame design to the A4s that was elongated at the front end for Thompson's cylinder/valve gear arrangement).

The smokebox and front ends are not interchangeable. The valve gear though very similar isn't set up the same. Buffers are different. Cylinders not entirely interchangeable either - but the spindle ends are (and that's where we get a mismatch on DoC which has one torpedo shaped one on one side in preservation, and the later A4 and V2 type spindle end on the other).

A3s were at times given built for A4 tenders (only the non corridor kind), the A4s received built for A3s corridor tenders. Flying Scotsman and Mallard, if they did a swap, would be more accurate for more of their service lives (but Mallard wouldn't be as per her world record form and Scotsman would not be as familiar without the corridor tender!)

 

Considering American and mainland European locomotive designers seemed to either streamline or leave all the bits hanging on the outside, I bet one of those streamliners with its clothes off would be a very ugly baby indeed.

 

Compare and contrast:



J class steam locomotive, New Zealand Railways no 1229, 4-8-2 type, ca. 1940

(Image source: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/detail/?id=33851&l=en)



JA 1250 by Tom James, on Flickr

Tom

 

Various smoke deflector tests on A1/A3's used a similar smokebox shape to the Undressed A4 shown.
By de streamlining an A4 you would need additional smoke deflection accessories: possibilities might be
Keep the original smokebox and create the original P2 Coal scuttle Style front end. ?
Keep the whole Bugatti nose and use new side sheets like the later version of the P2
Replace the smokebox and add conventional smoke deflectors, think the DB style deflectors woild look ok with the curved running plate

 

Interesting numbering for Mallard - post war Thompson numbering scheme...

 

American locos are so ugly aren't they?


Clearly a matter of personal taste but IMHO the NYC J3As were handsome in both streamlined and un-streamlined form. The Japanese C55s though were definitely better looking without streamlining despite having "bits" on the outside.

 

I'm not quite sure the Kiwi's really "got" streamlining:





(Image source: http://www.trainweb.org/nzsteam/ka_class.html for both)

Tom

 

Can I be the first to say I actually think that looks better than the original ...

Tom (Ducks and runs for cover...)

 

I'm glad you said it, not me...
Robin Barnes in his book is actually discussing the initial design of the A4, as a sort of Pacific P2, and very thoughtfully outlines why the super-A3 actually developed was a much better bet - and in his view better looking.

 

Where's the "burn the heretic" emoji when you need it?!

 

The next time Tornado goes into the works, it would only take a little mix up with smokeboxes to produce a loco looking rather similar to that

#justsayin

 

Have you looked at a kiwi?

 

I’m married to one

Tom

 

The incredible thing is, if Hush Hush (the W1) had been successful, chances are we’d view the A1s as Gresleys one off conjugated Pacifics and we’d have four cylinder Baltics or Mountain arrangement locos built for the LNER instead to the W1 style.

It was all up for grabs - one can argue nobody expected Silver Link to work quite as well as it did. With a few years of appearing we had 35 A4s built, and the W1 and first two P2s rebuilt to resemble them and the four streamlined P2s.

And of course, a world record in the bag.

 

NSWGR C38 class. Interestingly, examples built during WW2 (5) were streamlined and those built after (25) were no no-streamlined.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_C38_class_locomotive

 

I mean, it's barely much of a change between the two isn't it? Headlight and a panel running along the top of the boiler. Does this count as streamlined, or "air smoothed"

 

Although I am partial to the c38 streamlining, (I suspect my eye has been well trained by 3801), I totally get your air smoothed point. For an Australian loco, the non-streamlined version is remarkably uncluttered and the only thing likely to slow it down is the great big flat face of that massive looking boiler! Not that the "streamlining" probably did very much to greatly improve performance or economy - more of a marketing tool I suspect like many others or just the fashion of the time - prestige passenger services need a streamlined engine!

The thing that resonates so well about the streamlining of an A4, (IMHO naturally), is how the streamlining looks very integral to the design.