Dinmore Manor

Manor tank ?

You would need to finish the side tanks when the cab starts to give the crew some room,
The bunker would be better over a bogie - like the standard 4 tank.

But if you want to play
Put a 28xx boiler on the Manor frames
Or
How about a Hall tank as a 4-6-4T ?

 

The Manor frames are too short for a Std 1 boiler, and in any case I reckon a Std 1 would need to be sitting on 8 driving wheels for a tank engine to come in as red route restricted. So my guess is a tank engine with a Std1 boiler would need to be a 4-8-2 or 4-8-4, depending on how much water needed to be carried, and that would probably need to be based on a modified 47xx chassis for the wheelbase to be even half sensible, and then I start realising that even with the kit of parts those chaps at Swindon were a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than I am and this loco design business is more complicated than I thought. And I'd better shut up now so the thread can get back on topic...

 

Well it keeps the thread near the top when not much is happening!

Swindon really could have done with us, I definitely like the sound of a GW 4-8-4 tank, I wonder who would have been likeliest to build it, Churchward, Collet or Hawksworth...

 

The former, I'm unsure if the latter two had the imagination for such a design.

 

Probably, I don't think Collet did many "different" things, I was led to believe Hawksworth tried to breath some fresh air in though...

 

According to RCTS under Collett's regime they starting roughing out a 4 cylinder 4-6-2 tank with a shortened Std1 boiler, but the standard 4 cylinder layout couldn't be made to work with smaller wheels. A more practical proposal was a 2-10-2T with a Std 7 boiler. There's enough detail available on that one that someone made a model: http://www.gwr.org.uk/galfox2.html

 

Did someone say they wanted a 4-6-4T?





Oops sorry, thread drift again…

Tom

 

What kind of work was envisaged for such a design? The pacific tank has always seemed an unnecessary one to me.

 

The GWR Directors did not need another locomotive designer when Churchward retired - they'd had a brilliant man who'd set out the designs they needed for the next 50 years.

They needed a "workshop man" to improve productivity in the shops and to integrate the works they'd be taking over at the grouping - that's why they appointed Collett - because he fitted that particular bill.

 

According to RCTS the aim for the 4cyl 4-6-2T was for a high acceleration tank engine.
I imagine they were looking across London at the timings of the Southern's electric services and thinking there was going to be a need to compete.

The 2-10-2T was for Ebbw Vale iron ore traffic. They were later to use two 9Fs for that work.

In his book "Swindon Apprentice" AE Durrant has a sketch of a loco he roughed out in his own time and proposed for the iron ore traffic, which was turned down on the spot... It was a 3 cylinder 2-14-2 with TE of 74,125!

 

Wouldn't they have been better looking at the underlying reason for the quick timings of the Southern services, i.e. electrification, and trying to replicate that, rather than going down what was an essential dead end? Looks a bit like the GER 0-10-0T, that was built to prove that steam services could accelerate from 0-30mph in less than 30seconds. It proved the point, and probably set back electrification by decades, while much slower steam engines continued to run the services, with all the attendant problems of dirt and higher motive power requirement by the need for turnover engines etc..

Tom

 

But could they afford it? Even now, what, 80 years on, aren't I right in saying that not all London commuter lines have been electrified?

 

It's an interesting question (and apologies for thread drift). But clearly the SR (and the pre-group companies before them) had an economic strategy to electrify their lines. Not only did it lead to reduced operating costs, but the way it was marketed (on the basis of speed, cleanliness and regularity) generated entirely new traffic - the "sparks effect". Indeed, more than half the cost of suburban electrification was paid from enhanced revenue from the previous schemes. It's curious that the GWR didn't develop their short distance commuter traffic in the same way.

Tom

 

But the GWR didn't have the suburban traffic that the Southern had.

 

Neither did the Southern initially - the cultivated it, while the other three companies (and to a large, though not universal extent their pre-group constiuents), ignored the local traffic while concentrating on inherently less remunerative, but more prestigious, long-distance services.

The success of the Southern's strategy can be seen in the respective financial accounts before the war.

Tom

 

However wonderful the Southern was, and we never seem to stop hearing about it, this doesn't have much to do with 7820.

 

Hawksworth fell foul of post war austerity and BR looming to be fair, People probably have a point on Collett, but considering the success of his predecessor, would you try something new and fail, or enlarge proven technology to do the job ?.

 

Did the Brighton lot have ideas about taking on brass & copper line and reaching South Wales?

 

Clearly not, no works that favours the 4-6-2 arrangement is even aware lines and gradients like the South Wales valleys exist

 

someone on facebook has posted that dinmore is having the dukedogs tender? is this true?