Following my rather successful perfect double header thread, I decided to set upon what would be the perfect express passenger locomotive. Now the thing about this is that it can't just be a ridicuosly powerful brute painted black with all the steam pipes on show (it is by no means a passenger locomotive, but look up the American 'big boy' as a prime example of this). The mystery loco in question has to be well thought out. It is a top link express passenger loco afterall
My proposed start off for this thread is a streamlined 4-8-4 with a 10 wheel tender, four 20x26 in cylinders driven by exterior walschaerts valve gear and bullied's chain drive. It sports a 6000 gallon corridor tender with a water scoop. It has 6ft 8 in driving wheels and a very spacious cab ala the rebuilt W1 'hush hush'.
I have modified my cad cam A4 for such a purpose and I expect that such a loco would never fit onto any turntable in the Uk, but it would only be used twice a day with a decent amount of hours between runs so it wouldn't matter if loco and tender needed to be separated for turning purposes and it would never stray from the ECML anyway. That is why it is purely express passenger and is built for straightline speed and traction for a rather large coach load. Post away
Attachments
[The extension bmp has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]
Why the chain drive? If we're borrowing technology from any era, then Caprotti valve gear might do a bit better.
Also I would hope that thing has a mechanical stoker - extra long tender and an extra long footplate - I wouldn't like to be the fireman!
I think a 4-8-2 with a mechanical stoker might do better.
Wouldn't be like by the shed staff either, not if they've got to splitting it to turn it, got to remember they had 120ft TT's in the US, had some big ones over here to.
If we are talking in terms of the American loading gauge, it would easily fit onto 120ft turntables.
The locomotive itself would only be around 8 or 9 ft longer than an A4 and the visibilty would be only be very marginally decreased as 3ft of the 'extenesion' is behind the driver. The tender would be 4 ft longer than the standard LNER corridor tender, this obviously being for the extra 1000 gallons of water it carries if it is required for non stop expresses.
Overall length would be 73 or 74 ft, depending on the size of the firebox in that extra foot. Would this fit on Uk turntables?
It shares the same boiler as the A4, but a larger firebox so a mechanincal stoker may be necessary if we are including the extra 4ft the fireman has to travel The caprotti valve gear that was suggested, was that for the inner two cylinders or all four?
It seems a pity that we cannot get away from early 1930s technology for the 'perfect' steam locomotive.
Bulleid tried it, and some might say failed spectacularly with the Leader, but at least his thinking was in the right direction in that he was attempting to give the driver a more comfortable cab with a forward view similar to that of a diesel.
Maybe we should ditch the coal fired locomotive idea, in favour of a computer controlled oil fired one? This would free both driver and fireman (if one is still needed) to sit in a cab (which would be fitted at either end of the loco) and work the controls from there.
I will now retire to my nuclear bunker - just in case.
Hey blackout60800 that looks one mighty 'impressive locomotive' to me and if it was only going to be used for what you say it would be used for then i reckon your on a winner
It's just a case of wether or not it would actually fit onto the Br loading gauge for the ECML.
EDIT: does anyone know the lengths of the turntables at Kings cross and Edinburgh? I'm guessing they don't survive but I can't find anything about standard turntable length anywhere.
strang steel wrote:It seems a pity that we cannot get away from early 1930s technology for the 'perfect' steam locomotive.
Bulleid tried it, and some might say failed spectacularly with the Leader, but at least his thinking was in the right direction in that he was attempting to give the driver a more comfortable cab with a forward view similar to that of a diesel.
Maybe we should ditch the coal fired locomotive idea, in favour of a computer controlled oil fired one? This would free both driver and fireman (if one is still needed) to sit in a cab (which would be fitted at either end of the loco) and work the controls from there.
I will now retire to my nuclear bunker - just in case.
Yes, I was going to suggest oil firing. It would also have the benefit of enabling the loco to operate at peak performance at all times, as the flame is instantaneous.
On the subject of valve gear, wasn't the 'British' Caprotti valve gear (as eventually perfected in the 50s) supposed to be superior to all other types?
And why not BFB wheels? I presume you'd also go for welded construction wherever possible.
Oil firing is a possibility, but it's too American for my liking (no offense guys and gals from across the pond) and I have also always preferred the traditional spoked wheels to the bfb 'lightweights'. In terms of valve gear i'm not sure about Caprotti as fitted to 71000, but I am rather keen on the Stephenson gear as fitted to 44767.
I'm pondering why you didn't just post a piccie of an entire HST, but the biggest question on my mind is how the hell did the power car negotiate that curve?
blackout60800 wrote:Oil firing is a possibility, but it's too American for my liking (no offense guys and gals from across the pond) and I have also always preferred the traditional spoked wheels to the bfb 'lightweights'. In terms of valve gear i'm not sure about Caprotti as fitted to 71000, but I am rather keen on the Stephenson gear as fitted to 44767.
I am rather confused now.
The thread title says the perfect express passenger steam locomotive, which I took to mean the ultimate in steam locomotive design, given that we are now in the 21st century.
Given the subject, can you really justify dismissing oil firing because it is "too American", or am I missing the point? Is the implication, only British design can be perfect?
If it's UK track and facilities that are being worked with, an oil fired loco would never have been practical from the mid 30's to (EDIT)mid 50's simply because the facilities have never been there, wheras with coal, no problem.
I have never liked oil firing at all as it just dosen't seem to fit right with steam locos and as I've said earlier, this is trying to detract from creating a huge brute like challenger or big boy with all the steam pipes on show etc.
Last edited by 60800 on Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The caprotti valve gear that was suggested, was that for the inner two cylinders or all four?
