Premise: class 08 never built...

Hmmm - looks suspiciously like s photoshopped version of this:



Hard to say how that would be an improvement as a shunting engine, while retaining lots of sub-optimal features. Worth re-reading @Steve ’s post above - or, at greater length, Holcroft’s description of the genesis of the Z class.

Tom

 

Thanks Tom! I think I need to purchase that photoshop program (even I heard it`s expensive)

 

The German answer to analysis.

 

There's probably a free shareware package that'll cover most functions. My (ancient) PC runs Linux, and there's shedloads out there, I'd be very surprised were it not the same for Microsoft infested kit.

 

@240P15 - I use "Gimp" which can do most photo/image editing functions, again on Linux, but there is a Windows version available for free. Search for "Gimp for Windows".

Steve B

 

Thanks Steve!

 

Thank you, I made it a few years ago.
No animation but I made this around the same time.



I rather think that the question has been skewed from 'what would a standard steam alternative to a class 08 have looked like' to 'what's the best steam shunter we can come up with?'
It would look like a standard loco. Not necessarily like my photobodge above, but all the standards had belpaire fireboxes, outside cylinders, same cab styles, fittings etc.
Even the ones that were obvious developments of LMS designs looked like standard locos, even the oddball 8P did.

Many of them were essentially big 4 locos built using 'standard style' parts.
The idea of redesigning the USA tanks as a standard loco isn't far off.... The GWR 15xx seems to have borrowed from the concept.

I had another stab using the USA wheelbase and squishing it a bit more (and using a standard 2 for a start).
Standard 1F?

 

Leader perhaps ?

94xx Pannier was built until 1956.

 

I don't think a short wheelbase would have been high on the design criteria. Such things are usually required for a specific purpose, not general purpose. In this discussion, people seem to have forgotten that BR built some 0-4-0ST's for shunting duties so any new shunter probably would not have been from the same stable as the standard classes, both in looks and design standards. Simplicity would be the keyword, not fantasy.

 

I agree and don't agree, Steve. I agree that basing the above on the S100 was not correct, as you say the wheelbase is probably too short. In the cold light of day it looks too stubby.

The line drawing bodge above is proportionally more similar to a Hawksworth pannier, which would have been a better basis and wheelbase wise is not far off an 08.





I disagree that it wouldn't have looked like a standard locomotive. All the standard classes below were designed for all manner of duties (except that filled by the 350hp shunter) but they are all clearly from the same design stable, even if you removed the livery and numbers there would be a family lineage, so I just don't believe that Riddles' office would have designed something vastly different in appearance, especially at a time where BR were trying to establish a house style.

 

More like a GW 1500?

 

the 15xx was, as far as I can see, the only attempt at a modern shunter ,clearly inspired by the USA class. standardising it would have been essential of course but , with no 08, over 1000 of them would have been decent build.

 

I really like the GWR class 1500! They must be one of very few GWR engines to NOT have inside Stephenson valve gear, but instead outside Walscheart valve gear.

Knut

 

And outside cylinders. From a fitters point of view this is a massive help and would be an essential for any new steam shunter.

 

Possibly the most unwestern western engine ever built!

 

Didn't BR build a batch of Fowler 0-4-0 tanks?

 

IF the beast were to be based on an existing design then I can only see the 15xx or S100 fitting the bill. From a boiler perspective the 15xx would win out I guess.

Add mechanical lubes, outside steam manifold, pipeworks etc and BR std cab controls, self-cleaning smokebox and rocking grate (or maybe even Hunslet underfeed stoker for one-man operation!).

 

I wonder.
How different can an outside cylinder 0-6-0 shunting engine look? The 15xx was already on the drawing board in Feb 1944, so those commentators who claim out was the Southerns use of the USA tanks which influenced them are clearly mistaken.
Above the frames the locomotive is pure standard GWR. Below the frames the whole motion layout is quite different to the USA tanks, with the drive to the middle wheels, not the last ones, and nearly everything else different.
The observation that footplate and splashers can be omitted could just as easily have been sparked by Bulleid's Q1.

 

Yes, it was definately a break from the traditional GWR design.

 

the USA came to Britain in 1943 , plenty of time for the GWR guys to be inspired by it

fwiw Wiki says "The British Great Western Railway (GWR) had used many S100s in South Wales during the Second World War. The GWR 1500 Class was partially inspired by the S100 in its use of outside cylinders and short wheelbase"