What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

4-8-2 near enough?



More here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...73-steaming-chris-cuts-n-shuts-n-other-stuff/

 

I have a 5 inch gauge model of this loco, built by my father and named 'Neverwas'. He loved the fact that rivet counters couldn't complain about anything!

 

The June 1985 edition of Steam Railway featured some locos that were proposed but didn't make it to production.
GWR 4-4-0 ideal for light branch (and preserved) lines and Bulleid's 4-8-2 for boat trains were just two of the illustrations.

 

Excellent, although I don't think the p'way gangs would agree. Apart from 1551 which is 'cute' and would go round any corner.

 

I like 1551 and at the opposite end of the spectrum the 56xx and 92xx mighty impressive beasts. Though I doubt the civil enginner would think the same.

 

Here are a few that should never had been built. but were:

THE REID-MACLEOD GEARED STEAM TURBINE locomotive was shown at the Empire Exhibition, Wembley, in 1924. The engine was of the compound type mounted on tow eight-wheeled bogies. The turbines were placed on the bogie frames. The low-pressure turbine drove the leading bogie and the high-pressure turbine drove the trailing bogie. The illustration shows the engine on a trial run from Glasgow to Edinburgh.


STEAM WAS GENERATED at the pressure of 300 lb per sq in in the 1926 turbine engine, tried out on the LMS. The locomotive successfully worked express services on the Midland Division of the railway. The engine weighed 143¾ tons in working order, and proved efficient in operation but though economies were effected they did not lead to the construction of other engines of this type


ON TRIAL. The Beyer Peacock Ljungström locomotive on the Midland main line near Mill Hill, Middlesex. The engine had a leading four-wheeled bogie, three pairs of wheels with outside frames under the firebox end of the boiler, six-coupled driving wheels of 5 ft 3 in diameter under the leading end of the condenser chassis, and a second four-wheeled bogie at the rear end.

 

I remember reading an old Model Railway Constructor 30-odd years ago in which someone scratch built a 7mm version of the 92xx 2-10-2T. It was quite a beast!

Tom

 

This would have been a bit of a hill-flattener. It was a serious design proposal as well, as I recall:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/46226-maunsell-proposed480/

Effectively a Maunsell 4-8-0 version of an S15, with a Lord Nelson boiler. Just don't mention the programme of turntable rebuilding in Kent!

Tom

 

Just adding a wheel to good design, does not make it a better design.

 

it would probably be wiser to add 2 wheels 1 each side
just saying

cheers
Colin

 

Agreed, but it does make them bigger and despite what the girls might say size does matter ;-)

 

Did that have a turntable problem too?! I bet even in 7mm it was a big bugger!

 

Adding a wheel set [happy now] and making the boiler longer, does not effect the power generated by the piston. It only gives you more steam capacity. 2-8-0's in the UK were mostly slower goods engines. bigger engines with large wheel sets are quicker, but adding an extra wheel set tends to make the engine lighter on it's feet. We all know how a Bullied likes to spin it's wheels! Add another set and you'd never get moving. It's a trade off, which has dictated why certain wheel / boiler configurations work, and others are don't.

Here is another one foe the collection. The Experimental Kitson-Still Steam/Diesel Hybrid Locomotive

 

Stanier's was a monster 4-6-4 Streamliner and mechanically fired, no copper fittings. It looks right...could have been the finest loco ever built

 

Even a 72 sized bunker behind a King boiler is still going to be shorter than a King...

But for what ifs Durrant's book Swindon Apprentice is the place: he sketched a "BR Standard" 2-14-2T to replace double headed 9Fs on the Ebbw Vale iron ore traffic (loosely based on or at least inspired by an unbuilt German wartime design). 2 * 20*30 outside cylinders, 1 * 20*28 inside cylinder, TE 74,125 and 53'9 over buffer beams. He failed to get his management to take the idea seriously...

 

It would look derailed on pointwork mostly

 

Great idea, shame they only be able to run it on straight track.

 

The German design was supposed to be going to be capable of traversing 140m radius curves.
Durrants had 1.25" sideplay in end drivers, standard wheels 2 and 6, thin flanges 3 and 5 and flangless centre drivers. The "fixed" wheelbase was 20ft and 30ft over all the driving wheels with the sideplay. But he says himself that with what he learned since a Garratt would be better, but at the time he'd only seen the LMS ones which didn't inspire as a model. In the text he says that since German 12 coupled designs had been successful, it seemed possible their 14coupled design could work. I can't find a drawing,but I think the Union Pacific 4-12-2s must have been about 30' over their 6 pairs of driving wheels. It seems they had 2" play in the outer wheel sets and no flangeless wheels.
It might be a bit of a challenge to make one work on the average 4mm layout though...

 

To me, the British locos pictured with a wheel arrangement '4-8-x' just look wrong. Matthew Cousins did a 2-8-2 Stanier loco that looked more convincing.


and some more from the same artist...

 

This beast of someones imagination and pretty good drawing would of been quite impressive

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Stanier-16F-Behemoth-193288210