Pink engine?!

I wondered that, but it doesn’t distinguish between the Crampton and a double single. Maybe the Whyte notation doesn’t have that level of precision.

(I wondered about using a prime symbol to indicate that the prime was of the same type as the preceding axle. So the Crampton would be a 2-2’-2-0 and a double single with no trailing truck would be a 2-2-2’-0).

Some Cramptons are hard to classify. The Famous "Liverpool" is generally said to be a 6-2-0, but the leading axles aren't a bogie: maybe a 2-2-2-2-0? And then how do classify a loco like Folkstone? Is a jack shaft part of the wheel arrangement?



Then you get really weird: Douglas Self on his wonderful website queries what wheel arrangement this would have?



(http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/belgian/smashsys.htm)

Tom

 

The Whyte system does indeed have limitations when it comes down to oddball locomotives because it basically only has three figures in its description, the middle one being the coupled wheels. Even the LNER W1 doesn't fit well with Whyte. I've seen it described as a 4-6-4 and a 4-6-2-2 as the rear wheels are not a bogie. Garratts are another variation. I have seen the LMS ones described as 2-6-0+0-6-2 and 2-6-6-2. I think the former fits the system better as it is comparable with the description of the SAR GMA Garratts as 4-8-2+2-8-4 as it is essentially two locomotive units permanently coupled.

 

I always thought that 2-6-0+0-6-2 would be a Garratt while 2-6-6-2 would be a Mallett. As for the W1, I'm in the 4-6-2-2 camp, precisely for the reason given.

 

On the FfWHR there are both 0-4-4-0s, and one 0-4-0+0-4-0.

John

 

The Petiet locos on the same site are incredible. The make Emett's drawings look quite rational!

 

I'll,offer 2A n2 (assuming that is saturated steam!)
Pat

 

Looking at that Crampton beastie in Tom's post [#55], that still doesn't describe leading wheels of two differing diameters, point bere being from the description in the notification, the loco's actual appearance would come as a surprise (and the tartan paint job, doubly so!). Thank Almighty Bob that French contraption with a stray set of carrying wheels inserted within the coupled wheelbase didn't catch on.

 

Something I hadn't appreciated (or at least, internalised) until looking at this is that the Whyte notation is a twentieth century description. So it probably didn't overly concern Mr Crampton too much! More significantly, it explains why Victorian locos tended to be given names like "four wheels coupled passenger tank locomotive" or "Six wheels goods locomotive". I guess such descriptions were reasonably clear when, in Britain at least, there were few fairly locos that weren't some variation on a 2-4-0; 4-4-0; 2-2-2; 0-4-2; 0-6-0; 2-4-0T; 0-4-2T; 2-4-2T; 0-6-0T; 0-6-2T or 0-4-4T.

I've always liked the Webb descriptions: "4ft 3in Six wheel Coal Engine Side Tank", "17in Coal Engine" and so on.

Tom

 

The notation often used for diesels, such as 1-C0-Co-1 gives more information than White, but even that can't cope with that French beast. But I do see the rationale for that one; most of the wheels coupled but smaller ones under the firebox, where another designer might have made it an 0-4-4, like very many small British tank locos.

 

That looks very interesting. I'd love to see a front 3/4 view, that cylinder casting and smokebox looks massively constructed!

Richard.

 

Wildly off-topic, but surprised the southern never tried one of these...

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/heilmann/heilmann2.htm

 

Ye Gods! It looks like a second generation b***ard offspring of the ugliest conceivable Mallet, a GW gas turbine, an SP cab forwards and that Reid Ramsey turbine job.

I've read Mr.Self's delightful website several times .... so that's one my mind must've blocked out!

 

Heh! I rather like the looks...

Now imagine one of those on a west of England service - small head of steam to gove emergency power if gapped, on the juice as far as it goes, build up to full pressure for the long run.

 

It's almost like something that Sentinel could have got away with

 

Has anyone noticed how a thread that was explicitly about livery is now discussing somewhat interesting questions of railway history?

Tom

 

It'll never last!!

Keith

 

It would solve all the problems of leader. I wonder what the relative transmission losses would be?

All kinds of interesting variants - do you make it predominantly 3rd rail with a small steam plant for shunting and gaps, or a larger-capacity to work off-juice.

 

Or just take a leaf from modern long range submarine technology. Remember just how much was nuclear powered in the Gerry & Sylvia Anderson* continuum?

Howzat for thread drift!

* the irritatingly young can look this particular reference up for themselves.

 

Shhh!

 

I actually like this machine! And apparently it worked too, unlike 36001...

Richard.