Standard 8MT 2-8-2 New Build

Brighton Baltic tanks out of Barry? Some wires crossed here I think.

 

Que? 3 Brighton baltics came out of Barry?

Tom

 

And all three in umber ooohhh yes please (just like big E4`s eh)

 

Guess because unbraked wagons place a limit on speed , therefore larger driving wheels are not an advantage. therefore a wide firebox can go on top of a driving wheel - more driving wheels = better adhesion both in starting and braking.
Theres no question that in respect of heavy freight the 9f's are excellent locomotives and better in many respects than the 2-8-0's and 0-8-0's they replaced and absoloutely should have been built perhaps with the smaller 4ft 8.5 wheels as a specialist machine.
My question is, as a general utility loco ie a 'Black 7', would a 2-8-2 with say 5ft 6 inch drivers have been a better substitute than a brittania/clan for the various regional class 6's and 7's.
I think Yes.
So did Riddles.

 

So do I, but if we're building the Black 7 and the Leader*, the question is which shall we do first?

* see: http://railways.national-preservati...xhibition-at-steam-centre.318004/#post-909271

 

Two different problems - a Br standard 2-8-2 - Combining bits of two ( or more) loco designs that worked ( and changing a couple of things that did but only just in the process) ...
or Taking something that didn't work and turning it into something that does ( would anyone out there actually want to fire a leader ? )

Could either of these become the 'Nat Pres Loco' ? Feel a poll coming on ?

 

Burns oil and is box shaped.... class 47 ?

 

Wot, like one of these?



(Non-"streamlined" versions available to taste ...)

Another "spread the wheels" job, I'm afraid Though on the plus side, you can have a booster truck on some variants for a bit of "Honiton flattening"...

Tom

 

In one very important way a 2-8-2 is superior to a 4-8-4. The percentage of locomotive weight used as adhesive weight. Then you look at the 9f. An even larger percentage.

Given that dead axles have to be driven along (world's greatest offender - the Allegheny class) they should be avoided if possible.

As many countries made use of the 2-8-2 and the UK built pitifully few of them for domestic use it is easy to understand the attraction. The obvious question is how much power do you want? If you design for a 22 ton axle load then a T.E. little short of 50,000lb can be aimed for with a 2 cylinder design and more with a three cylinder. Standards, with one exception, being 2 cylinder I'll stick with that number so you just need to juggle the usual parameters around to get where you want. But as T.E. is only part of the question, how much horsepower do you need? This is where you may reach a tipping point with two cylinders within the U.K. loading gauge and a maximum boiler pressure of 300psi. And there is still the question of working speed limits.

2-8-2s did make good mixed traffic locomotives 141P, 141R etc. If anyone were to argue that such a design was the one Standard class that should have been built they could well have a very good case. Which, I suppose makes for a worthy new build subject.

 

Complete with "Tangmere stirrup".

 

Having re-read it I now realize the recreation was not about the links to the GWR 72s. Oops.

 

Good stuff. - unfortunately theres no action without reaction, there is s evidence that whilst the mis-appropriated frame design on the large standards (plus 2 cylinders tis a mismatch) - worked ok with 5 sets of conventional axle boxes to take the thrust, it suffered somewhat with three sets of roller bearing axles, the slide bar design perhaps suspect too. So in order to handle the 300 psi it would probably be 3 cylinders or a major rethink into the frame design ( bar frames perhaps as originally mooted). The smaller wheels would translate into an impressively high TE ( and it would really p*ss on the p2 's Britains most powerful chips if it was 44,000) I am of a mind that the Brittania boiler with a decent exhaust could generate more steam than two 20 inch cylinders could use, and this amount of power would be acceptable with four pairs of axleboxes and the limitations of adhesion Increasing the psi even to 275-280 would of course take the loco into a different league but the lubrication systems, boiler and fittings would also go beyond the limits of widely available expertise in the uk

 

Does Wardale's modified QJ 2-10-2 still exist in China? Will already have some of the bits and bobs for a thoroughly modern engine. Importing scrap from China [instead of crap] would be a first!

 

He dabbled with two QJs. QJ7036 was a conventional machine rebuild to his principles and then returned to original spec. 8001 was built new to Wardale's specification and then retired to Datong museum.