Imaginary Locomotives

[rodent279]

Looks like a genny van.

 

Nice work, especially liked the tri-bo. And I am sure I recall seeing early art work of the class 58 in banger blue in one of the enthusiast mags of the day.

Yes, somewhere there is a photo of a model of a 58 in large logo blue. I think it's Modern Railways from about 1981/2.

[The Johnster]

Regarding the GN Pacific, why not use a trapezoidal grate, the front fits between the frames and the rear widens out over the frames, used by the French. Plus the combustion chamber into the boiler barrel. Tubes over 14ft long are not regarded as efficient transferer's of heat.

  I'm not sure the GW 4-6-0 is a starter, too small a firebox and either very long con rods to drive the middle axle and a cranked first axle for clearance or long piston rods for sensible length con rods, or short rods to drive the first axle which would make that  area of the loco very cramped for preparation and maintenance. Still looks good though!

  There is also a parallel with the Baltic Castle tank. The Hughes LMS Baltics also four cylinder, although I have little knowledge of them I would think they were to complex, to hungry, to heavy for the type of work tank engines are employed on. And why would the GW build a larger tank loco for passenger work than the brilliant do anything 61/41  2-6-2t? 

 

Not sure the GW large prairies were particularly brilliant, though they were clearly a success in general, with large numbers being built over a very long period.  But they suffered a bit perhaps from the GW's 'Churchward cannot be improved on' outlook, and Collett messed around with them quite a bit, which suggests he wasn't happy that they were as good as they could have been.  This included the 61xx high pressure locos to get away from stops faster on Paddington suburban work, and the later iteration of the 31xx, prairia ultima, a proper beast with a no.4 boiler like Churchward's 3150s but 5'3" driving wheels and high pressure.  These were employed as Severn Tunnel bankers, and also used on the Cardiff-Porthcawl commuter service because of their ability to get away from main line stops with 5 bogies on without hindering other traffic.

 

I would envisage the Baltic as a Star rebuild with 6' drivers, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as the 72xx was a rebuild of the 42xx/5205, and it would have been better than the 61xx on outer suburban semi-fasts such as the Oxfords or Newburys from Paddington.  It should have been easily capable of over 80mph, with reasonably good riding smokebox or bunker first, on an 8 coach train.  Probably no need for more than about 2 dozen of them; the 61xx would have done for the rest.

 

New frames and running plates would have been needed, and the boiler 'set' would have been similar to that of a Hall, so they are as much 'new engines using parts of Stars' as they are rebuilds, like the Manors were 'new using parts' of 43xx withdrawals. They are pretty much in line with Collett's general philosophy of mucking about with the Churchward formula to see if he could improve it, of which the Halls were probably the most successful example; I would postulate an introduction in the mid to late 30s along with a new buffet car service to Oxford to parallel the success of the Liverpool St-Cambridge 'beer trains'.  The Star names would sadly have had to have been dispensed with as I can't see Swindon going to the bother of making straight nameplates for the tanks.

Edited January 3, 2019 by The Johnster

[Corbs]

An idea of how a model Baltic tank could look....

[Rasendyll]

If the war hadn't started 1939... After Duchess of Hamilton's/Coronation's tour of the USA, Sir William decided to apply some American ideas to LMS locomotive practice. Hence, 'Royal Sovereign' the express passenger 4-4-4-4...

 

[melmerby]

If the war hadn't started 1939... After Duchess of Hamilton's/Coronation's tour of the USA, Sir William decided to apply some American ideas to LMS locomotive practice. Hence, 'Royal Sovereign' the express passenger 4-4-4-4...

 

One question:

Where's the hinge?

 

Keith

[Gibbo675]

One question:

Where's the hinge?

 

Keith

Oh Keith,

 

Can you not see, it's un-hinged !

 

Gibbo.

[Compound2632]

Oh Keith,

 

Can you not see, it's un-hinged !

 

Gibbo.

 

Perhaps inspection of a map of the Lancaster & Carlisle section - especially the northbound descent from Shap - before the straightening out that accompanied electrification would explain why the civil engineer would object.

[The Johnster]

The loco would never have had to descend the up line downhill corkscrew off Shap, because it would never have got up the northern side without slipping to a standstill.  It wouldn't have got far out of Euston up Camden bank either.  Do both driven sets have 4 cylinders, by the way.

 

Rebuilt as a 4-8-4 it might have a chance; let's say there was some requirement to haul 20 coach trains, the longest that can be accommodated on the route.  

[Flying Pig]

If the war hadn't started 1939... After Duchess of Hamilton's/Coronation's tour of the USA, Sir William decided to apply some American ideas to LMS locomotive practice. Hence, 'Royal Sovereign' the express passenger 4-4-4-4...

 

Clearly the intention was to start at Crewe and carry on adding sections in the middle until the tender reached Euston and the smokebox Glasgow Central.

[Compound2632]

The loco would never have had to descend the up line downhill corkscrew off Shap, because it would never have got up the northern side without slipping to a standstill.  It wouldn't have got far out of Euston up Camden bank either.  Do both driven sets have 4 cylinders, by the way.

 

Rebuilt as a 4-8-4 it might have a chance; let's say there was some requirement to haul 20 coach trains, the longest that can be accommodated on the route.  

 

The Coronation class 4-6-2s could and did take 16 on occasion. Such heavy trains would be exceptional; it would surely be better practice to divide the train - i.e. provide a relief train. 

[scots region]

The Coronation class 4-6-2s could and did take 16 on occasion. Such heavy trains would be exceptional; it would surely be better practice to divide the train - i.e. provide a relief train. 

 

That the problem with alot of these kind of proposals. If you build this thing, it has to work and if you have to make work for it, the obvious question will arise of why build it. 

 

See the LNER P1s, the Mikados that is.

[rockershovel]

That’s a general comment on neverwazzers; there’s usually a reason they weren’t built.

 

Realistically, the LNER 2-8-2 designs provided more power than the network as a whole could make effective use of. Other companies had similar designs, functionally speaking. There’s no real value in unlimited train lengths, because those trains can’t be made effective use of. The Beyer Garratt types never really “rang the bell” and apart from a few specific locations, there was/is no requirement for the ability to haul large trains up long gradients. There was/is, no real requirement for super-large, low speed “drag freight” in the American style.

 

I suspect that’s why although there is a definite following for American outline on here, you don’t see American neverwazzers. Steam was developed to its ultimate in the US, with super-large locomotives developed almost without loading gauge constraints, sometimes with very high axle loadings, to haul super-large loads at medium to very low speeds over huge distances, over profiles not present anywhere in U.K. Very large passenger locos built to haul at speeds, and over distances never seen in the U.K. (including a genuine 100mph long distance scheduled running speed).

 

Mechanical stoking, oil burning, cab-forward articulateds for tunnels, 90-tonne narrow-gauge locos, almost anything you can envisage; the Americans probably built them. The ones they didn’t, like super-large articulated Beyer-Garratt types and 2’ gauge haulage, reached their limits in Sub Saharan Africa,

Edited January 9, 2019 by rockershovel

[AlfaZagato]

I would tend to dispute that steam was brought to the ultimate here.    Yes, we had massive, extremely powerful locomotives, but you in the UK, and France & Germany at least, could match many of those achievements in power with half the size of locomotive.   Nothing much original or innovative was really done in here in the US, other than in making things quick & cheap, with brutal application of force to solve any problem.    Hudsons, which are the general outline I believe managed the 100mph scheduled timing you mentioned, just simply increased the size of everything involved to manage such feats.

 

Also, you don't see American phantoms because American modelers are by-and-large lazy, and have no desire to do more than show off how cavalierly they can spend money.

[RLBH]

I would tend to dispute that steam was brought to the ultimate here.    Yes, we had massive, extremely powerful locomotives, but you in the UK, and France & Germany at least, could match many of those achievements in power with half the size of locomotive.   Nothing much original or innovative was really done in here in the US, other than in making things quick & cheap, with brutal application of force to solve any problem.    Hudsons, which are the general outline I believe managed the 100mph scheduled timing you mentioned, just simply increased the size of everything involved to manage such feats.

 

Also, you don't see American phantoms because American modelers are by-and-large lazy, and have no desire to do more than show off how cavalierly they can spend money.

Chapelon apparently believed that he could have got 16,000 hp out of a Big Boy, if he had been given the chance. I think that might be a bit optimistic (it would require something like 7.5 to 8 horsepower per pound of steam, the best ever achieved was a little over 11 hp/lb) but 11,000 to 12,000 hp should have been achieveable. The American railroads operated in an economic environment where it made more sense to build bigger versions of simple locomotives than to build smaller, more complicated ones. The exception seems to have been compounds, which only really found their niche in North America where they could run heavy trains at constant speeds for hours on end.

[AlfaZagato]

Chapelon apparently believed that he could have got 16,000 hp out of a Big Boy, if he had been given the chance. I think that might be a bit optimistic (it would require something like 7.5 to 8 horsepower per pound of steam, the best ever achieved was a little over 11 hp/lb) but 11,000 to 12,000 hp should have been achieveable. The American railroads operated in an economic environment where it made more sense to build bigger versions of simple locomotives than to build smaller, more complicated ones. The exception seems to have been compounds, which only really found their niche in North America where they could run heavy trains at constant speeds for hours on end.

 

Compounds did not last much longer here in the US than they did in Europe.   Other than the C&O, almost none were built after 1920.    Our articulated types were mostly simple after that time.

[Niels]

  Hudsons, which are the general outline I believe managed the 100mph scheduled timing you mentioned, just simply increased the size of everything involved to manage such feats.

 

 

The fastest regular passenger paying steam speed train was run by Chicago and Milwaukee in summer 1939 doing 126 km in 63 minutes;That is 119.8 km/h

The Belgians then did 121km in 60 minutes;that is 121 km/h.

The Americans then  went 121,8 km/h in april 1940 were the Belgians were engaged in other sports.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Niels

[rockershovel]

The fastest regular passenger paying steam speed train was run by Chicago and Milwaukee in summer 1939 doing 126 km in 63 minutes;That is 119.8 km/h

The Belgians then did 121km in 60 minutes;that is 121 km/h.

The Americans then  went 121,8 km/h in april 1940 were the Belgians were engaged in other sports.

Are you referring to running speeds, or start-to-stop overall averages?

[Niels]

Are you referring to running speeds, or start-to-stop overall averages?

Timetabled Start to stop average with fare paying passengers as I have read it.

 

If You can read german:https://www.ekshop.de/buecher/eisenbahn-geschichte/die-schnellsten-dampfzuege.html

Edited January 9, 2019 by Niels

[melmerby]

These were fast:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Road_class_F7

 

Keith

[rockershovel]

Timetabled Start to stop average with fare paying passengers as I have read it.

 

If You can read german:https://www.ekshop.de/buecher/eisenbahn-geschichte/die-schnellsten-dampfzuege.html

I don’t speak or read German, but I think we are all talking about the same thing, the Milwaukee Road F7s. 120km/h is 80mph in real money, near enough; the MR services were scheduled to run at speeds up to 100mph to maintain that stop-to-start average speed.

[melmerby]

One thing that was not uncommon on US locos of that period was roller bearings on rotating surfaces which made them very free running compared to UK locos which still used oil fed solid metal

Much less chance of cooking anything at high speed (e.g. Mallard).

 

IMHO The F7 had every chance of beating the record if a proper go of it had ever been made.

It was designed at the outset to run at 100mph for extended periods, with something in reserve.

 

Keith

[Gibbo675]

One thing that was not uncommon on US locos of that period was roller bearings on rotating surfaces which made them very free running compared to UK locos which still used oil fed solid metal

Much less chance of cooking anything at high speed (e.g. Mallard).

 

IMHO The F7 had every chance of beating the record if a proper go of it had ever been made.

It was designed at the outset to run at 100mph for extended periods, with something in reserve.

 

Keith

Hi Keith,

 

The use of roller bearings upon US locomotive and latterly British locomotives was two fold; first lower static friction upon starting, and second greater mileage periods therefore extending major works maintenance attention.

 

A correctly set up white metal lined bearing will, once rotating, provide less dynamic friction than any comparable duty roller bearing.

 

The main trouble with white metal bearings is that should they stand for any length of time the oil is eventually forced out of the contact patch of the bearing and upon restarting there is a risk of metal to metal contact and it is this that causes most of the wear in such bearings. The railway continued to use them for no other reason than they were cheap to produce and maintain within the existing engineering infrastructure.

 

The main reason for the switch over to the use of rollers in British steam locomotives was that they both the extended mileages between major maintenance and also that the cost of skilled labour repairing white metal bearings had risen considerably enabling the high original capital outlay for roller bearings to be accounted for. Like all things on the railway it was down to money and not much else.

 

As an aside, white metal bearings run hot when lubrication fails yet roller bearing tend to run hot though over lubrication.

 

In a nutshell;

 

http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/tower.htm

 

Gibbo.

[talisman56]

These were fast:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Road_class_F7

 

Keith

 

An had service lives comparable to some BR Standard locos...

[rockershovel]

..... hence the common use of roller bearing big ends, but plain phosphor bronze bush or ball bearing main bearings in motorcycle engines of the period. Over-lubrication of big end bearings is almost NEVER a problem, it is usually lack of flow which destroys big ends. Main bearings can be over-lubricated, so a design which doesn’t suffer as a result is preferred.

[AlfaZagato]

All this discussion of bearing surfaces.    I think, somewhere, someone needs to introduce the, as certain Gundam series term it, magnetic-coated axle.   What you do is involve electro-ferrous materials on bearing surfaces.    When you add power to the device, some is diverted to these bearing surfaces, which should be arranged to oppose each other.    With the addition of an electrical current, the bearing surfaces repel each other, theoretically reducing friction to almost nil.   Sort-of reducing Mag-Lev track technology into an otherwise conventional locomotive.