Standard 8MT 2-8-2 New Build

In lined black. The only problem with the big drivers as on the Brit is it would make it more prone to slipping. The 9f size was a good compromise, they were at home on heavy freight and passenger workings.

 

Thanks anyway Phil, very thought provoking and it really is a joy to behold.

Cheers

Alan

 

The time will come. I've seen 3d printed titanium components on a racing boat. Thinks, titanium rods and motion, that might cut down the hammer blow a bit. Wouldn't do the budget much good though.

 

My pleasure.

 

I got a picture of a 4 8 2 Brit with caprotti valve gear if anyone's interested plus a real beast of a 9f based tank.

 

Big Betty. A spiritual successor to Big Bertha.

 

Just add headlamp and buffer up to a freight

 

That's the one.

 

Thanks for those incredible Images - even as a fan of this particular 'Loco that never was' if I had the money to build one from scratch there are so many real projects that I feel should benefit first.
It surprises me that someone hasn't created a virtual one for rail sims yet as this is its true home.
Personal feeling on the P2 is that it will be very somewhat limited in where it can run and where it can be stabled with its ridiculously long rigid and impractical wheelbase, any ordinary run of the mill standard mongrel loco would never get away with. But the point I get, and the P2SLT get and perhaps you don't , or don't realise that I get is that ITS A P2, even if it only runs 6 times a year on the ecml and has to live at the nvr ITS A P2 FFS if it only runs twice, ever, its still worth a bob or two from me... and most of the folk on here judging by the support its getting.

 

Think this was first done by Ae Durrant and printed in his book Swindon Apprentice. He had a photo of a 9F with the last pair of rods off and cut and pasted a Brit truck on. That's cut as in sharp knife and paste as in glue for you youngsters who don't know how the terms originated.

 

But the 9Fs were designed as a heavy mineral train loco. My recollection is that only when the old order broke down were they taken off the jobs they were intended for. For example the WCML, at least North of Crewe , used 5MTs and 5XPs for through freights. Maximum train lengths meant there was no point in having locos that could haul class 8 or 9 loads. At Preston we only saw 9Fs on excursions from Yorkshire and East Midlands to supplement the MTs and 8Fs. The only regular 8Fs were austerities on the L &Y routes where slow freights were dragged up hill and sown dale at low speed and the benefit of a 9F in haulage terms would have been minimal. Of course maintenance and reliability may have been a different matter.
Were they actually much better as heavy freight locos than Stanier 8Fs?
Were any of the standards better locos than the latest of the big four designs doing the same job?
Fascinating subject which will be argued over for years and years.

 

The 9f was seen as the potential saviour of the S&D as it obviated the need for double heading, the only disappointment was that it came too late! Plenty of stories of 9's running at considerably higher speeds than they were designed for and doing it smoothly and well. Terry Essery talks about a run on one with a short fully fitted van train where he worked it up to something over 80mph IIRC, and the loco ran so smoothly that the driver (who was nominally firing) dozed off in the fireman's seat.

 

Thanks. Excellent job deleting the coupling rod to the 5th driver - hard to tell the image of the 4th wheel had been tweaked!

Noel

 

And BR refusing to fit steam heating so once the summer timetable was over it was back to double heading the Pines.

 

i wonder , what if the MN class had been built as a 2-8-2 i wonder what that might have looked like, sussed it, take a scrap MN,use the boiler, another wheel set, new set of frames but could it work? is the boiler long enough to accomodate another set of drivers ? number it 37001

 

As far as the LM was concerned the 9Fs were seen as replacement for the Garrats - and for which they proved eminently suitable. In the way of things I suspect that the 9Fs would also have taken over some of the heavier 8F duties and see other 8Fs take over from 3 / 4Fs with the Ivatt 4MTs taking over light freights and branch line workings with Ivatt 2 2-6-0s.

AIUI the 9Fs were intended to be 2-8-2s, but it was the experiences that Riddles had had with the German 2-10-0s as part of his WD role that he reconsidered the design and made it a 2-10-0. In view of the longer frame required for the 2-10-0 I wonder if the 2-8-2 would have been designed with larger driving wheels to retain the frame length or smaller driving wheels to reduce the frame length.

In Colonel Rogers book on Riddles [The last steam locomotive engineer R.A. RIDDLES CBE] it notes that the original 2-8-2 consideration was changed because Riddles felt that there would be better adhesion from a 2-10-0 than from a 2-8-2 hence the change in specification.

 

Bloody hell I think have taken too many of my tablets

 

The 2-8-2 design diagram is illustrated in E.S. Cox's book Standard Steam Locomotives. The length of the loco was the same as a Britannia, 2-1" longer than a 9F. The loco would have had 5'-3" dia driving wheels and the same boiler as a Britannia.

 

There are a couple of schematics in "Bulleid of the Southern", by HAV Bulleid.

The first (dated June 1938) is a somewhat conventional-looking 2-8-2 with 6'3" driving wheels at 6'7" centres (Fixed wheelbase = 19'9"). Other salient dimensions are 19"*30" outside cylinders and 20.5"*26" inside cylinder; 220psi boiler with 50sq ft grate; 6 wheel tender of distinctly Maunsell outline with 5000 gallons of water and 5 tons of coal; estimated weight of loco and tender 154 tons.

If I've calculated right, that gives a TE of about 40,600lbs - put that in your pipe and smoke it, Collett!

There is a second design, distinctly more Bulleid in appearance, with air-smoothed casing and a Bulleid-pattern tender. Main dimensions are 6'2" drivers and 6'8" centres, 275psi boiler, total weight 155tons. No other dimensions given except it was a three cylinder design again, with two sets of (presumably miniaturised) inside Walschaerts valve gear and derived drive to the middle cylinder. However, the significant design feature is that it was to have been fitted with a Helmholtz truck at the front, reducing the fixed wheelbase. On that ground, Ellson (the civil engineer, who had a distinct reluctance to sanction front pony trucks) agreed to allow two to be built for testing purposes; and Bulleid promptly said "no" as he didn't want endless haggling. Thus he returned to 4-6-2 designs.

Tom