Steam Hoover

Hermod · 7 янв 2021

bluetrain сказал(а): ↑

Thanks for those details. If a British equivalent of a Chapelon 4-8-0 were to be produced, it would be necessary to reduce the overall width to stop it colliding with station platform edges.

Where a locomotive has the De Glehn cylinder layout, the outside cylinders typically need to be widely spaced to allow for the sideways movement of the bogie wheels. The GWR King Class had 16¼in x 28in (412mm x 711mm) cylinders, with outside cylinder spacing of 7ft 2in (2184mm) and overall width of 8ft 11½in (2730mm). That was close to the permitted width limit for GWR routes and too wide for some other British routes.

Possibly the closest British design to the French compounds were the 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 designed under Henry Fowler in 1926 for the LMS, but never built. See attached diagrams, taken from ES Cox books. The Fowler Pacific design had its outside HP cylinders above the bogie centre and the overall width was only 8ft 8in (2642mm), much narrower than the GWR 4-cylinder engines. One can only speculate how well or how badly this design would have performed, and whether it could have subsequently been given Chapelon-type improvements.
Click to expand...

Mr Raven (my hero) said in 1911 that future locomotives would be heavier,go faster and therefore had to be three cylindered to avoid destruction of track,crew and locomotive.
The Fowler proposal from 1924 for a three-cylinder compound had outside 570mm cylinders and that is possible because the cylinder spacing can be 1880mm due to conrods being inside coupling rods on first axle.Big drivers is no advantage for multicylindered locomotives and four times 15 tons is better than three times 20 tons.
The best migthiest british passenger locomotive would have been a 4-8-0 with three compound cylinders and a wide firebox boiler over 1500 mm drivers.
So simple in my opinion

WP_20200112_001[1] by Hermod posted Jan 12, 2020 at 1:56 PM

bluetrain · 8 янв 2021

Hermod сказал(а): ↑

Mr Raven (my hero) said in 1911 that future locomotives would be heavier,go faster and therefore had to be three cylindered to avoid destruction of track,crew and locomotive.
The Fowler proposal from 1924 for a three-cylinder compound had outside 570mm cylinders and that is possible because the cylinder spacing can be 1880mm due to conrods being inside coupling rods on first axle.Big drivers is no advantage for multicylindered locomotives and four times 15 tons is better than three times 20 tons.
The best migthiest british passenger locomotive would have been a 4-8-0 with three compound cylinders and a wide firebox boiler over 1500 mm drivers.
So simple in my opinion

WP_20200112_001[1] by Hermod posted Jan 12, 2020 at 1:56 PM

Click to expand...

Several European countries used 4-8-0s with wide fireboxes. The Hungarian 424-class appears to have been the most numerous type.

But I can find only one example of a 3-cylinder 4-8-0, namely the Soviet M-class (Russia's only 3-cylinder type?). Strange-looking machines, with bogie wheels of unequal size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-0#Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Паровоз-М-001.jpg

Войти или зарегистрироваться

Steam Hoover

Hermod Well-Known Member

bluetrain Well-Known Member

Поделиться этой страницей

Войти или зарегистрироваться

Steam Hoover

Hermod Well-Known Member

bluetrain Well-Known Member

Поделиться этой страницей

Быстрый поиск