Standard 8MT 2-8-2 New Build

To be fair, Thompson had embarked on replacement of some of the older designs with his B1 class amongst one or two others.

 

Agreed,

Though I do believe the LNER would have followed Dutch practice.. the foundations were there...literally

 

Dear "Draggon" (bouuuuuuh!! I'm frightened!)

In fact 1340 2-4-2 R mikado were ordered to Canada and USA but in 1947 the norvegian cargo Belpamela sank with 17 engines (because a violent storm)
604 engines were fuel oil fired locs,
regards
Noel

 

LNER boilers were no less efficient then GWR/LMS and cheaper to build and maintain.

2ft gauge locos have run successfully for years with Krauss-Helmholz trucks so it is difficult to imagine one would not have fitted on a BR standard gauge loco - but a 2-8-2 in Britain wouldn't have needed one because actually sharp curves are rare in the UK and in any case the wheelbase would not be particularly long with 5ft 3 or even 5'6 wheels. The P2's did not, in fact, spread or damage the track with their bigger wheels, that's a myth. They may because of size and weight come off the track in shed yards, but the 8MT would be shorter and lighter, more like the P1's which had no trouble in that way at all.

I agree with 242A1 that much better engines than the standards could have been built, if indeed new designs were needed at all, but would the staff and works be able to handle them? It would have taken a degree of organisation of retraining and so on that never happened in the UK in steam days, hence a lot of fairly sophisticated design features that were successful in other countries never took root here, not even compounding.

 

I'd go further than that and say it wasn't until privatisation.
Diesels achieved more than steam in standardisation, but the classes did congregate to regional allegiance..
33's to the Southern
26/27 to Scotland,
Hydraulics to the western
Etc etc.

 

I'd argue that dieselisation was more divisive than the Br Std steam programme, as you have pretty much stated. I'm no expert on boxes, but you had the LNER Deltics, the GWR Westerns (see what they did there?), Warships and Hymeks etc, Southern had the Cromptons and Electro-Diesels and the LMS had lots of things with extra wheels.

 

That 2ft gauge (and other narrow gauge) locos may well have run successfully with Krauss-Helmholz trucks is not denied, but that is beside the point. Because of the restricted UK load gauge (particularly the width in this case, and especially regarding the P2) the leading coupled axle crankpins are already so close to the piston rod crossheads that there is no scope for additional side play on that axle to suit the Krauss-Helmholz application. It is as simple as that.

 

Out of interest, the 'Belpamela' previously also took the LMS 'Coronation' loco and train to the USA in 1939.

 

Hmmm where do the
EE type 3's and Brush 4's fit into this?

 

I also forgot this magnificnt class too...

 

Do you have a secret mission to put as many pictures of diesels in the steam section as you can?

 

The exceptions that proves the rule?

 

You know, that strikes me as exactly the sort of negative thinking 242A1 complains about. The cylinders would be well above the swinging part of the truck, and the movement of the leading coupled axle crankpins is not so great that the cylinders could not be spread slightly to accommodate it - or we could go for a Gresley A4 layout with narrower outside cylinders and the inside one cocked well up and driving on the second axle. Oh wait a minute - that's what the P2's have

If that wasn't sufficient you could always do what Dr. Tuplin suggested once and make the inside cylinder(s) larger to lop another inch or two off the outside pair.

 

If you refer to the designs schemed out by Bulleid, then the second 2-8-2 design had a Helmholtz truck, so presumably he also considered that there was sufficient space. I don't know what cylinder sizes he was proposing for the second design, but his first design also proposed different-sized cylinders (smaller diameter but bigger stoke for the outside pair), again presumably for reasons of ensuring adequate clearance. So such considerations have good pedigree (dare I say it, better pedigree than just the good doctor!) See post 80 for dimensions.

Tom

 

Oh yes, Dr. Tuplin - that giant amongst steam engineers.

 

I did think about that, but also thought What the hell its a rather nice phot of a personal favorite beastie of mine 20059.

 

Don't be vague - just point out that it was the only diesel design which followed steam principles with something big in front of the cab for forward travel, it followed the MR tradition of providing sufficient power for local trips but doubled up could handle the heaviest of freights and it has lasted longer than many standard locomotives built in the same decade. As such surely a worthy descendant of steam locomotives !

 

Cheers Fred, certainly put it better than I could! As I say have a soft spot for 20059 as the Fat Controller would say 'It's a really useful engine' think they say the same thing at SVR...