If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Premise: class 08 never built...

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Reading General, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    2,801
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    You may be good at photo-shopping locos but, IMHO, I'm afraid your locomotive design skills are pretty much non-existent, either aesthetically or practically. ;)
     
    Corbs likes this.
  2. 242A1

    242A1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    407
    Much though the Austerity 0-6-0st is admirable I am with Tim on this one. The Bagnall design produced for the Steel Company of Wales is a very good choice. Of similar dimensions to the Hunslet based design but with significant advantages, being more modern with many refinements. More powerful, easier to prepare and easier to dispose of at the end of the working shift. The design also lends itself to the inclusion of newer developments. It would cost more per unit but fewer would be needed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
  3. RLinkinS

    RLinkinS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I am afraid that the advanced steam shunter has already been built but was so hush hush it was on the official secrets list, hence only a very poor picture exists Jimmys Riddle a.jpg
     
    240P15 likes this.
  4. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
  5. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    457
    If you tell me what won't work I can learn how to fix it. I tried to use the 15xx dimensions in this case to avoid massive silly overhang at each end, and to get the height right.
    The boiler has been shortened from the std. 2, the cab is shorter too.
    I think I have pitched the boiler too high making it too squat in appearance, and should have had the same pitch as the 15xx with horizontal cylinders instead of inclined.

    I stand by the opinion it would have looked like a standard loco and would not have deviated from side tank/outside cylinder/belpaire boiler design though. Perhaps it would not look as I have done it in that photobodge, but IMO it would have still looked like a BR standard loco.

    Here's the original image for reference to show I did not change the length, height or wheelbase/wheel size. The cab door is the same height.

    If it wouldn't work I would like to know why so I don't make the same mistakes again and again.
    Unfortunately perspective differences make this quite hard so maybe I need better reference images.

    EDIT. I may have made a rookie mistake and used the Standard 3 as a donor image, so even harder to shrink down, d'oh!

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
    andrewshimmin and 30854 like this.
  6. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,709
    Likes Received:
    15,457
    Location:
    21C102
    You are starting from various designs optimised for prolonged running, then chopping bits off, without really thinking about what are the optimum characteristics of a loco designed for intermittent, stop-start, short distance work.

    I think the boiler is where you are going most wrong. For a shunting engine you don’t really want a superheater (poor regulator response for a loco spending a lot of time being driven with a degree of precision; expensive to manufacture; more expensive to maintain; no real efficiency advantage in stop-start traffic). The Belpaire firebox, taper boiler is also more expensive to manufacture than a parallel boiler, round top box, and confers no real advantage.

    So the starting point should be a really simple round-top parallel non-superheated boiler, probably with a fairly small firebox. Then go from there. Possibly slide valves, ideally power reverser for labour saving etc. Look at what the Maunsell Z class looked like, or a bit later, the USA tank - both purpose built shunters. They didn’t really resemble what you are drawing.

    The end result may have been a “Standard” but borne only a passing resemblance to even the smallest of the other BR Standards.

    Tom
     
    Steve and Corbs like this.
  7. estwdjhn

    estwdjhn New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    182
    Occupation:
    Boilermaker
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Maybe it's just me, but that sounds horrible on a shunting loco. Being able to sling the thing from full forward to full reverse in 2 seconds flat is what you want. Having the lever well balanced is a bonus. No real need for fine cutoff adjustment - two or three notches in each direction will more than do.
     
  8. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Likes Received:
    1,602
    Occupation:
    computers
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Debatable. The GWR considered their belpaire firebox boilers were significantly cheaper to maintain. Its perhaps not always appreciated that alongside all the headlines of the standard classes Churchward and then Collett's team also did a lot of development work on the Dean/Armstrong 0-6-0T fleet, most especially on boilers. At one stage a significant percentage of the fleet was superheated, for example, until it was eventually determined not worthwhile.
    Arguably, though, the GWR classes were never pure shunters. They always had a good deal of other work. As, for example, contemporary accounts of the surviving 15xx say it rides fine at preserved line speeds, it seems quite probably that the tales of unsteadiness at speed relate to velocities the 08 diesels were quite incapable of reaching.
    Should a BR standard shunter have been a pure shunting locomotive, useless for anything else or should it have been designed to be capable in other roles?
     
    gwalkeriow, andrewshimmin and Wenlock like this.
  9. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    457
    Hi Tom, thanks for the notes. Apologies if I haven't taken all of them on board with this attempt, I hadn't read your post when I was working on it.

    Dimensionally I've tried to make this have less of a cut down feel to it. The standard 2 was a better starting point! This was mated with the Bagnall Victor/Vulcan running gear.
    The boiler is parallel rather than tapered (although retains belpaire firebox - there is precedent for this though as the GWR fitted them to small locos like the 1366 class).
    The boiler has been shortened and is a smaller diameter than the Std.2, the pitch is much lower than before.
    As the boiler has been pitched lower, the cab roof can be raised for better visibility (taller windows).
    The bunker has been shortened to fit 'Vulcan's overall length - and to reduce rear overhang.

    The tanks could be cut back, more like the Z class you mentioned, for better forward view (especially if there is an ample water supply), but I haven't done that on this versi

    As you are aware I am a novice with the actual mechanicals, where is the superheater on the Standards? I can have a go at removing it if I knew what it looked like ;)
    BR-standard-shunter5c1.jpg

    Reference images:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
  10. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    2,801
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It can only ever be opinion because there is nothing out there to say otherwise (AFAIK) but I do not share your view that it would follow the house style of the other standard tank locos to the extent that you have. A few standard fittings, perhaps but the main essence would be something that would be cheap to build and cheap to operate/maintain. Unless existing flanging blocks were used, it would not be a superheated belpaire taper boiler as they are expensive bits of kit and offer no distinct advantage for such a loco. 1950's thoughts would be about the driver being able to see the shunter and buffers and somewhere safe for the shunter to ride. Your boiler seem to be quite high pitched, certainly when compared with the 15XX. Unnecessary when you are looking at a small(ish) wheel diameter. This and the unnecessarily high running plate make it very stumpy.
    Shunting locos spend a lot of time doing very little and that would be reflected in the design. The only railway to look at updating its shunter designs was the GWR and that was with the 15XX. Don't forget that BR was still building 0-6-0T's until 1956 with no attempt to modernise them and bring into your so-called house design.
    N.B. I wrote this before dinner but didn't post at that time. Tom's response is similar.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    2,801
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm fully aware of the claimed advantages of a Belpaire firebox but I'm not really convinced that they offer sufficient advantage over a round topped one in the case of locos principally intended for shunting. I'm not sure that the railways ever really came to terms with what later became the KISS principle. Even today.
     
    35B likes this.
  12. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    2,801
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    What don't you like about a power reverse? Why can't that go from full forward to full revers in a couple of seconds? Or even faster. That's what they do. Makes life so much easier, especially if you are employing slide valves.

    I wonder if there would be any hypothetical mileage in employing some of the Sentinel principles allied to a conventional boiler. Higher pressure and small, geared high speed poppet valve engine unit, for example.
     
    Wenlock likes this.
  13. Wenlock

    Wenlock Active Member Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bus Driver
    Location:
    Loughton Essex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer

    The single window length of the cab does not allow room for the driver. Even without allowing for the protrusion of the boiler backhead into the cab, there needs to be room for the driver's knees if seated. Even if standing, the reverser and brake controls have to fit between that side window and the cab front sheet. Compare a class 08/09/10/11/12/13 diesel cab and you will see that the only way a single window width is possible for cab length is because the drivers controls are on a desk in the centre of the cab, which is not possible with the firehole door in the way. Hope this helps.
     
  14. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    On the LMS at least, they had real numbers to show that the Swindon type boiler with belpaire firebox was much cheaper to maintain than equivalent round topped boilers (or indeed Derby style belpaires). They cost more to build, but you got the money back very quickly in maintenance. I think this was true even for smaller locos (hence the Ivatt mogul/tanks).

    I think your logic would be true for a really small loco (the LMS and then BR bought off the shelf shunting 0-4-0STs from outside manufacturers).

    A shunting 0-6-0T is somewhere in between, so could be a moot point.
     
  15. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    More to the point why does it have push-pull gear??

    (Pickes up coat and heads for the door)
     
  16. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,709
    Likes Received:
    15,457
    Location:
    21C102
    I agree it's not about fine control - more about physical effort. I'd take a Wainwright P class (power reverse) over a Terrier (lever) for shunting any day! Obviously there is a balance to be struck on labour, capital cost, maintenance cost etc - for many years a lever reverse sufficed, but this is about what might have been designed in the labour situation ca. 1950. The other advantages if you were starting with a clean sheet of paper would be a saving space in the cab, and it would be easier to arrange a seated driving position, if so desired. (I reckon the combined controls and indicator of a Stirling reverser take up no more than about a square foot of cab space, and can be operated pretty much with finger tips).

    reversing gear.jpg

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  17. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,436
    Likes Received:
    2,801
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There are Belpaire fireboxes and there are Belapire fireboxes, just like there are round top fireboxes and round top fireboxes. The Midland pattern Belpaire is about as poor as you can get. Look at this NER round topped firebox.

    upload_2018-1-30_22-5-19.png
    It embodies all that is good about the Player /Churchward boiler without it being a Belpaire. Good ogee bends, increasing stay length, large radii and radial staying. The Maunsell round topped boilers were very similar.
    upload_2018-1-30_22-7-48.png
    Then look at a Midland Belpaire. Flat plates, sharp ogee bends and no increasing water space and stay length. Small radius bends on the shoulders, too.
    upload_2018-1-30_22-11-51.png
     
    andrewshimmin and Jamessquared like this.
  18. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    457
    Thanks all for the responses.
    Ah yes. Perhaps getting rid of the window and just having a cut out would be better. I had imagined there wouldn't be seats in a loco of this size or purpose.
     
  19. Steve B

    Steve B Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Fascinating stuff and thanks @Corbs for your efforts in imagining a loco never built. If I could add a thought - Photoshop doesn't come with a facility to weigh things (as far as I know). One of the limiting features of the 15xx was it's weight that limited it's route availability. The USA tank weighed about 20 tons less, was generally smaller all round but tractive effort was not too dissimilar. I get the impression from the pictures that your imaginings might be rather on the heavy side - not brilliant given the state of the track in some yards...

    Vulcan and Victor have a higher tractive effort still - might have made a good basis for a standard BR design?

    Steve B
     
    Corbs and Wenlock like this.
  20. Wenlock

    Wenlock Active Member Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bus Driver
    Location:
    Loughton Essex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Probably not. A lot of drivers seem to prefer to stand especially when shunting.
    I don't have any pictures of my own showing the controls in a standard cab, but those which I have seen appear to leave quite a cramped space for the driver even with the full cab.
    It's a long time since I drove, but on a tank loco I would often find it easier to stand in the doorway, on some locos such as Met1 the side tanks extend back into the cab almost up to the door anyway.
    Older locos often had very short cabs, but plenty of open space further back. The most notable exception to the latter being the Y7 which I was on one day, if the fireman needed to get off on the driver's side, he could only do so if the driver got off first because there wasn't room to squeeze past.
     

Share This Page