Imaginary Locomotives

[Hammer]

There are a lot of plausible could-have-been locomotives.

 

I remember seeing mention of a BR Standard shunter, which was planned but which was dropped due to the large number of 0-6-0s and the success of diesel shunters.

 

Brian Heresnape's book on Gresley locomotives also has drawings of three proposed LNER tank engines which are quite interesting.

[Sailor Charon]

Indeed, when it comes to locos that never were, the more you look, the more you find... And a fascinating subject it is too...

[Dudley Dodger]

How'sabout the Hawksworth 4-4-0?

[28XX]

Well that got a few tongues wagging! Suffice to say, The Railways of Borchester will feature 'Felpersham Castle' 'Ambridge Hall' and 'County of Borsetshire' as well as other hitherto undocumented engines, as determined by the demands of the traffic on the line.

[S.A.C Martin]

In a modern setting, you could model the proposed 5AT...?

[The Stationmaster]

How'sabout the Hawksworth 4-4-0?

 

 

I've always rather fancied the 2-6-0 pannier tank with outside cylinders and valvegear - I reckon it would look rather nice although possibly a hint too much of the Baldwins about it. And if it had been built I somehow suspect that it would have been even less popular wih enginemen than the contemporary 'Hawksworth' 4-4-0 design.

 

All I can presume is that there were folk in the Swindon Drawing office with time on their hands towards/just after the end of the war and they were given the task of looking at various ways of replacing older locos.

[28XX]

In a modern setting, you could model the proposed 5AT...?

 

Excuse my ignorance, but please explain??

[LH&JC]

In the RCTS study of the 9fs, there are several interesting drawings of proposed heavy freight designs including a GWR 2-10-2t and some GCR beasts that make the O4 look more than a bit small.

[Bernard Lamb]

Excuse my ignorance, but please explain??

http://www.5at.co.uk/

 

Have a look.

Bernard

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Bernard,

Thats an interesting site there, thanks for posting.

I was struck by the apparent outline similarity between the 5AT and the West German DB class 10 locos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_10

One could get the Hornby Rivarossi model, set the layout in the future and call the 5AT!!!!! (perhaps?).

Cheers,

John E.

[S.A.C Martin]

Hi Bernard,

Thats an interesting site there, thanks for posting.

I was struck by the apparent outline similarity between the 5AT and the West German DB class 10 locos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_10

One could get the Hornby Rivarossi model, set the layout in the future and call the 5AT!!!!! (perhaps?).

Cheers,

John E.

 

The 5AT has more in common under the streamlining to the BR Standard 5MT, but - you're quite right - the 5AT is a dead ringer for a smaller version of that german pacific - thanks for posting, thats very interesting...

[Sailor Charon]

In the RCTS study of the 9fs, there are several interesting drawings of proposed heavy freight designs including a GWR 2-10-2t and some GCR beasts that make the O4 look more than a bit small.

 

If I remember rightly, the GCR... either asked Baldwin to design them an engine, or Baldwin submitted one, and yes, it was about as big as you could get on British rails. (Unsurprisingly) very American looking, but rather handsome for all that.

[highpeak]

Hi Bernard,

Thats an interesting site there, thanks for posting.

I was struck by the apparent outline similarity between the 5AT and the West German DB class 10 locos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_10

One could get the Hornby Rivarossi model, set the layout in the future and call the 5AT!!!!! (perhaps?).

Cheers,

John E.

Then organise comparison trials with the ACE 3000. http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ace_det.html

[coachmann]

I particularly like the big Great Central 4-6-0s, which in life were a doomed species because of restricted ashpan and lack of primary air. Apart from that each class was built in very small numbers and as such were costly to maintain.

 

So I thought an LMS 'Jubilee' boiler with cladding to look like a parallel boiler mounted on a slightly altered GCR chassis would produce a workable and an efficient 'Sir Sam Fay'. Never got around to building it though!

[DavidBelcher]

I particularly like the big Great Central 4-6-0s, which in life were a doomed species because of restricted ashpan and lack of primary air. Apart from that each class was built in very small numbers and as such were costly to maintain.

 

Indeed, a good many of the GC 4-6-0s, especially the Lord Faringdons, were a "bad miss" on the part of Robinson who usually turned out very sound designs. Though a smaller loco, his D11s often out-performed them.

 

David

[DavidBelcher]

Having studied welding design at one time, a field in which the name of a certain Mr Bullied cropped up, I wonder what he would have produced if he had continued as the CME of an independant Southern Railway to say around 1954.

 

More Leaders seems to be a good bet, with the oil firing originally envisaged rather than using coal. Hindsight's a fantastic thing; given more time on the project and with fewer corners cut, it could probably have been developed into a reliable design. It's unfortunate that having ironed out most of the problems with the Bulleid articulated loco concept when the "Turf Burner" appeared, CIE decided to plump for all-out diesel traction instead.

 

David

[Beardybloke]

Freelance NG modellers have been designing and building imaginary locomotives for many years.I'm one of them

 

I won't be designing any new ones... but given that the NWNGR was originally intending to have about a dozen Single Fairlies, I've seriously considered a Moel Siabod to go with Moel Tryfan and Snowdon Ranger - a quarry on the side of Moel Siabod would have been served if (as assumed on my layout) the NWNGR was completed to at least Betws-y-Coed.

 

Damn... now I'm thinking of buying a Chivers Fairlie!

 

I'm sure I'd be able to justify another Double Fairlie or two to handle the switchbacks at Roman Camp and an extra England engine to shunt at Betws...

 

No! Stop it!

[Tim H]

Obvious diesel-era "What-if" would be if internal BR politics hadn't cut short the WR's foray into diesel-hydraulic traction. We'd have seen more Westerns and Hymeks, with the equivalent reduction in the numbers of 37s and 47s. The 50s quite possibly are never even built.

 

In that scenario, the National Traction Plan would probably not have resulted in the early elimination of either the Hymeks or Westerns, and it's quite likely that at least the Swindon-built Warships would have lasted a few years longer as well. Possibly all three classes get air-braked, and some Hymeks and Westerns might have gone ETH. Warships would have been like the 40s, largely confined to freight except on summer Saturdays. Pairs of 42s on Freightliners, anyone?

[Karhedron]

we could postulate extra members of real locomotive classes.

I rather like the idea as it has a certain charm and could allow for some personal touches. I am a GWR modeller living in Basingstoke (just on the edge of the territory ). My local area includes some place names like Oakley Hall and Bramblys Grange which would fit nicely with Mr Collett's 4-6-0s. )

[Etched Pixels]

In N there were several available RTR at one point - a German bo-bo centre cab in bad mock BR blue, and a most peculiar fake BR blue 0-4-0 shunter. After that Lima started producing things that were vaguely the same shape as UK models, but were still borderline imaginary

[Bloodnok]

Obvious diesel-era "What-if" would be if internal BR politics hadn't cut short the WR's foray into diesel-hydraulic traction. We'd have seen more Westerns and Hymeks, with the equivalent reduction in the numbers of 37s and 47s. The 50s quite possibly are never even built.

 

I think that last one's a bit of a misnomer - to get the 50s never built, you need to bring the electrification of the northern stretch of the WCML and the 87s earlier, as the 50s were built for this line, and transferred to the WR later.

 

In that scenario, the National Traction Plan would probably not have resulted in the early elimination of either the Hymeks or Westerns, and it's quite likely that at least the Swindon-built Warships would have lasted a few years longer as well. Possibly all three classes get air-braked, and some Hymeks and Westerns might have gone ETH. Warships would have been like the 40s, largely confined to freight except on summer Saturdays. Pairs of 42s on Freightliners, anyone?

 

If you are going to airbrake and ETH the Westerns (airbraking fair enough, but ETH? On a hydraulic? How exactly?) and planning to keep them on later may have meant the 50s get transferred somewhere else. I'd hazard a guess at the ECML - not as a replacement to the Deltics, but to release other locos on passenger work onto freight.

 

(50s have the edge over 47s on passenger work, but 47s have higher tractive effort, which is key to freight performance).

 

OTOH, my 'what if' in this territory is what if the westerns had been airbrake converted and deboilered for freight usage. Westerns have high tractive effort, so would make good dedicated freight locos, particularly with a spot of re-gearing. At about the point westerns were being run down, BR was desperate for heavy freight locos (hence the rush job order for 56s), so it's not too far a stretch to see them cascaded onto freight en masse...

 

Either of these options would mean less rush on the 56 order, so probably significantly less 56s. This may have subsequently meant a larger order for 58s.

 

I'm trying to come up with a circumstance where the proposed class 38 would actually have been built. Unfortunately, even with a lot fewer 37s around, I can't see it - it would mean more 56s or 58s built and deployed on trains that used two or even three 37s, and cascading these 37s down where the 38 would slot in. What you really need to do to justify this is slow down or better still reverse the trend to shed wagonload traffic to road, which is rather hard to justify...

[peach james]

How about a HEP package in a DH to provide ETH? Stones boiler & water probably weigh enough to stick a V8 DG set in place of, without being silly about it. (V T 8-71 or so, something like 400A/400V, 400 hp(e) )

 

And yes, ?I do know my way around a vapour clarkson 100 hp boiler...

 

James

[DavidB-AU]

Obvious diesel-era "What-if" would be if internal BR politics hadn't cut short the WR's foray into diesel-hydraulic traction. We'd have seen more Westerns and Hymeks, with the equivalent reduction in the numbers of 37s and 47s.

Not necessarily more Westerns and Hymeks, but there could have been another more powerful class. Krauss-Maffei was building 3000hp diesel hydraulics at the time the Westerns appeared and 4000hp locos only 5 years later. There could very easily have been a 3000+hp 100mph diesel hydraulics on WR in the late 60s and potentially even a 4000hp 125mph version instead of the HST.

 

The 50s quite possibly are never even built.

The 50s were built for the non-electrified bits of the WCML. Had WR still been exclusive hydraulic territory, in 1974 the 50s could have replaced 47s on the Great Eastern and ECML in advance of electrification. (For any livery photoshoppers, how about a 50 with Finsbury Park white windows?)

 

Another possibility could have been the Midland and cross country, avoiding the need to retrofit 50 x class 45 with ETH. Laira 50s worked to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle anyway so they could very well have done the same IC work based at the other end.

 

Cheers

David

[The Stationmaster]

 

If you are going to airbrake and ETH the Westerns (airbraking fair enough, but ETH? On a hydraulic? How exactly?) ...snipped.. .

 

OTOH, my 'what if' in this territory is what if the westerns had been airbrake converted and deboilered for freight usage. Westerns have high tractive effort, so would make good dedicated freight locos, particularly with a spot of re-gearing. At about the point westerns were being run down, BR was desperate for heavy freight locos (hence the rush job order for 56s), so it's not too far a stretch to see them cascaded onto freight en masse...

 

Either of these options would mean less rush on the 56 order, so probably significantly less 56s. This may have subsequently meant a larger order for 58s.

 

 

Drawings were prepared, so I was told at the time, for equipping a D10XX with eth but the scheme was so complicated and expensive it was dropped. Don't forget the first airbrake conversion took more than long enough due to hitting various problems so the eth conversion might have been a real headache.

 

The D10XX were certainly pretty effective freight locos with, in effect, two 6 coupled bogies plus they had sanders which gave them some advantage of the Brush Type 4 when starting. The problem with them was 'the bounce' in the upper 50mph/60mph area - allegedly no damage done but certainly uncomfortable for the enginemen.

 

D10Xx would also have been a handful I suspect to convert to Slow Speed Control so other locos would have been required for that - so it made more sense to standardise on the Brush I think - alas.

 

As for the Class 56 - poor design and atrocious manufacturing standards in Roumania produced exactly what one could expect, junk! The design problem was the use of a large number of Brush Type 4 features - but regrettably those who worked on the design used the original specs and drawings and forgot that the locos had received numerous modifications to eliminate all sorts of problems. Hence the need to start more or less from scratch to again eliminate the problems....

[DavidBelcher]

Drawings were prepared, so I was told at the time, for equipping a D10XX with eth but the scheme was so complicated and expensive it was dropped. Don't forget the first airbrake conversion took more than long enough due to hitting various problems so the eth conversion might have been a real headache.

 

Hasn't the topic of hydraulics using ETH popped up on here recently? Namely, that one of the Warships was allegedly kitted out with some - but not all - of the necessary apparatus proving that such a conversion was not entirely pie-in-the-sky.

 

David