What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

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

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


I think it would have put all the conventional principles of boiler design to the test though! It would probably have been possible to use the smokebox as a refrigerator.

 

Especially with that apparently rigid wheelbase!

 

What you need is one of these:



Though like all such things, one wonders about the boiler capacity to supply all those cylinders - not much point doubling the cylinder power if the boiler power doesn't also double! I also suspect, at least in a British context, that the available goods handling facilities (sidings etc) were such that the full capability of such a machine could never have been realised. That was effectively what scuppered Maunsell's plan for a fleet of mixed -traffic Garret

Source: http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/quadruplex/quadrapl.htm

And check out some of the even madder multiplex concepts on the same site.

Tom

 

Eh? Trailing wheels (as on Bulleid pacifics but on many other classes too) carry some of the weight without contributing to adhesion, and the amount of weight on them increases slightly when the loco is pulling hard, exacerbating the tendency to slip. But more coupled wheels means more adhesion weight so less tendency to slip.

 

The late John G Glick who was a devotee of Oliver Bulleid and worked with him for some time penciled many pictures of various designs which may have come to pass had Bulleid continued his work. This is just one.....

 

I was committing on the simple addition of an driving wheel, not a pony truck. Just ask yourself, if it was such a good idea to have a super monster 4-8-2 or even 4-10-2, why didn't they get built? The LNER built te P2 Mikado 2-8-2 passenger engine, but even these engines were rebuilt into more standard designs, or scrapped.

 

They got them to work on NG because it didn't matter how big it was. If you look at the SA Garret here, it's way outside UK loading gauge, but only on 3' 6". Our small loading gauge hindered our locomotive builders, otherwise we could have built some really extreme machines.

 

A halfway house between a Spamcan and a Jarvis - I like it. Pity about still having the chain drive gear though...

 

I think not just loading gauge - our infrastructure would not have allowed such locos to develop their full potential. I believe the LNER P1s - with a mere 43,000lbs TE - were designed to haul 100 wagon trains, but the combination of siding length and strength of wagons meant such feats were very rare. So quite what a loco with, say, 200,000lbs TE would have fared in this country is anyone's guess, even had such a loco been technically possible within the loading gauge.

Tom

 

There is one "behemoth" of a monster what if machine that was produced and of which little is apparently known. I'm speaking of the Russian [USSR] 4-14-2 built in the thirties. Even allowing for the vasty size of the "old" USSR, this loco was an unwieldy and all but unuseable machine on account of such a long rigid wheelbase. It was from what little is known it was little used before, like so many people it simply "disappeared". Personnally speaking I wouldn't be surprised that if they wanted to go round a 90 degree turn it would have to be so slight it would take a length of line running from Moscow to Vladivostock in order to make such a turn.......

 

Weren't GWR 2-8-0s working 100 wagon trains? Or were they again capable of as shown in testing but not able to routinely due to infrastructure not being able to support it?

If larger fitted wagons were common rather than the abundance of short wheelbase often unfitted ones things would presumably of been quite different in terms of British freight locomotives.

 

Only on a couple of routes I think - Stoke Gifford -> London and Banbury -> London. According to GWR Goods wagons 60 was a more normal load.

 

Staniers 4-6-4 was a proper design, not just a bigger wheelset. But for Hitler, the race would have continued, the drawings are in the nrm

 

Anyone brave enough to recreate one of the greatest "What if... "'s. The Churchward 4-6-0. .................

for the 7' gauge?

 

I forgot this, a model of the Horwich Mallet as built by Michael Edge.

 

A fascinating prospect.
A broad gauge loco built near the limits of the loading gauge would be quite a design exercise
Lets think.
Obviously you can have a relatively wide "narrow" firebox if you so desire, so the firebox can be shorter than with standard boilers.
There's loads of height available for the chimney, but the gauge was relatively restricted at "shoulder" height because it was semi circular at the top, so the firebox corners would be the main restriction of boiler size unless you accepted a round top box.
There's not significantly more room available for outside cylinders I don't think, so that would tend to force the design to four cylinders.
On the other hand the driving wheel diameter is less restricted by the need to fit in a large boiler, so wheels could go larger if required.
A high pitched boiler might give good access to inside valve gear.
It would tend to be heavy, what with the ability to put a bigger boiler on and the generally wider structure. A 4-8-0 would be an attractive proposition. Weight would probably be the biggest design limitation, I wonder if a 4-6-0 would get to the limits of the gauge.

 

Reminds me of a big blue engine that likes to haul the express on the Island of Sodor!

 

A couple more of John G Glicks drawings of Bulleid 'might have beens'..........

 

Found this, GWR garrat thing:




Think its GWR, seems to have that Swindon standard type look.

 

Just found this I did back in 2007!


and this attempt at an Austerity Tank