71000 Matters

Those proportions would have made perfect sense for a loco designed for the WCML where there were plenty of troughs. Haven't some other preserved locos (one? more?) had their tender proportions modified for less coal and more water?

 

Apparently so. 60163's tender was redesigned internally, water capacity increased from 5,000 to 6,000 gallons, and coal capacity reduced to 7.5 tons. I believe a water scoop was adjudged unnecessary too.

I've occasionally wondered about an eight wheeled 'mainline' tender styled for Mr Bullied's machines, the mere mention of which ought to be enough to get some pichforks sharpened.

 

Ian Riley brought up the idea of creating a "Super Merchant Navy" some years ago by proposing to build a bigger tender for 35009. Not sure what is happening with this loco as Ian and his team are very busy with other work including looking after 60103 for the NRM.

Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

Well i agree that the longer tender enhances the look of the LNER pacifics, and that 6 wheelers generally look too short to me.

 

I wonder if the folks de-ruining Spamcan11 have clocked the idea?

 

?????
Shome mistake shurely?
Pat

 

Absolutely, it's far too conventional an answer for any true Bulleid fan. 9 wheels? Sure! Heat recovery turbine? Go for it!

8 wheels?
Just carrying water and coal?
Like everybody else?
<tumbleweed>

 

Really put the cat amongst the pigeons by putting them on bogies, RHDR style…

Simon

 

The wraith of Dugald Drummond smiles "next I'll get them tae junk all that superheater nonsense"

 

Go the whole hog...



6000 gallons, 20.5 tonnes of coal!

 

Stop it before somebody puts something American on

Seriously personally think that one of the proposed BR Standard longer wheelbase / Higher capacity tenders for DoG would be really handy apart from - the cost of building it and the reason long tenders were avoided in the first place - turntables

 

I think, as is often the case, a certain someone else got there first...

 

https://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lswr_sr_drummond_tenders.htm

Mr Drummond got there first (1900...)

 

Bogies?

 

Yes, the Drummond tenders (and later Urie / Maunsell 8 wheeled tenders) had bogies.

Tom

 

Several of the Pre-Grouping companies used 8-wheel tenders from around 1900, but the earliest appears to be James Manson on the GNSR in 1890. Strange design, with the front 4 wheels forming an inside-framed bogie and the rear 4 wheels rigid in the frame.

https://railway-photography.smugmug...GNoSR-D42D43D46-D48-4-4-0-designs/i-QP42xg6/A

Orthodox double-bogie tenders arrived in 1897 for the Caledonian Dunalastair II class. I think the later LNER 8-wheel corridor tenders were the heaviest used in Britain, but the Urie/Maunsell version was/is longer. Such large high-capacity tenders are of course much needed for some present-day main-line operations, but must be something of a nuisance overhead to haul around on short heritage lines.

Mr Bulleid takes the prize for squeezing a quart into a pint-pot, tender-wise. I understand that some MN tenders carry 6000 gallons of water on 6 wheels with a laden weight of only 52 tons.

 

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=4-8-8-4

Arguably the precursor to the big US tenders?

 

I always think that inside-bearing tenders look absolutely ungainly in the extreme (that includes the LSWR Watercart tenders as well!)

Richard.

 

Don't forget to add some firebox cross-tubes, disconnect the driving wheels and invert the valvegear...

Richard.

 

Its funny isn't it. Logically you would thing that a "standard" config pacific with 10 inside bearing wheels followed by 8/10 outside bearing wheels (and outside bearings on the rest of the train) would look wrong, and the Bear, with all inside bearings would look right, but somehow it doesn't work like that.