Imaginary Locomotives

[21st Century Railfan]

From my own adolescent mind.

 

LNER EE2: A 1-Bo+Bo-1 Electric for expresses in the North East. Built in 1947 by A.H. Peppercorn as a replacement for the EE1, which didn't really have a working career

 

SR Y class: Mansuell 4-8-0 for heavy(ier) freight than the S15s could cope with. As there little heavy freights, only 3 were built.

 

BR class 79: 1986 Electric design for freight use on BR(S) Higher horsepower than the 73s at 1,900 hp, but were electric only and thus couldn't stray from the Southern.

[Edge]

 

Given its design, I want to say a Mallet. I would say a Fairly, but not all of them were double-ended. So yeah, Leader's a Mallet.

Not sure I would class it as a mallet either - they are traditionally compounded and have a single set of rigid wheels while the other one pivots. She's definitely not a Garatt and doesn't really fit into the Kitson mould well enough for comfort.

 

I think that she can only be referred to as a 'Leader' pattern loco. With perhaps a tentative nod towards being a cab-forward?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Edge

[The Black Hat]

I've got plans for two more. One in NER Darlington Green, Late Crest and another in Brunswick Green too. 

 

These two are almost complete. Need some warning flashes and chipping. So will try to post pictures of them soon.

 

As regards other imaginary engines, the whole idea of the NER electrifying the East Coast would have proved interesting. Raven was pushing for this but in the end Grouping intervened. It would equally have been interesting to see a layout of electrification in the north east at a station where engines were changed over. This could have been for grouping but then would have been interesting again if it were done for transition period, more so if the whole ECML was done at this point.

 

The East Coast was built for speed, would you have had some faster built electrics for the ECML and then Deltics still done for roles that left the main line proper? All academic, but interesting nonetheless.

[Zomboid]

If the NER had electrified the ECML it's highly doubtful that there would have been any deltics. The LNER would probably have been about as electric as the Southern was. Which would have been interesting - a British equivalent of the GG1 would have been something to see...

[Clearwater]

More likely that if, in the electrified ecml alternative history, if deltics had still been invented that they would have been seen on top link services on either the wcml or gwml. My bet is on the former

 

David

[Zomboid]

I suspect that British railways would have skipped the mass dieselisation stage if trunk route electrification had started in the 1920s. No doubt the LMS would have seen what their eastern competitor were up to, how much more efficient electric locos were compared to steam (in terms of power and utilisation) and would have started their own program to give themselves a chance where they directly competed, meaning that by nationalisation the main north-south trunk routes would probably have been electric.

The western would probably have stuck with steam though, as they had all that welsh coal - and innovation ended in Swindon in about 1903. Maybe in this parallel universe Swindon would have become the British Roanoake and the GWR our N&W...

[DavidB-AU]

I suspect that British railways would have skipped the mass dieselisation stage if trunk route electrification had started in the 1920s.

BR would have skipped mass dieselisation if electrification had progressed according to the Modernisation Plan.

 

The western would probably have stuck with steam though, as they had all that welsh coal

GWR had electrification plans for Devon and Cornwall in the 1930s but the war got in the way. The first section earmarked for wires was Exeter to Plymouth. They had already been working with Brown Boveri on the gas turbine (originally due to be delivered in 1940) so presumably they would have adopted the Swiss overhead 15kV AC.

 

Cheers

David

[PhilJ W]

The GWR had to carry locomotive coal from South Wales to the western end of Cornwall, London by rail was actually nearer to South Wales, this was the driving force behind the GWR electrification plans. All of the big four had diesel locomotives by the late 30's but only shunters and many lines were unsuitable/uneconomic to electrify which would have required the provision of diesel locomotives or DMU's. IIRC the standard had been set for OLE at 1500V DC for electrification within England, Scotland and Wales so this is the system that the GWR would have used. The style and type of electric locomotives would be interesting as I have seen proposals for GWR diesel locomotives including a 4-4-0DE with a box body containing the power plant over the driving wheels and a short bonnet over the leading bogie reminiscent of a Swiss Crocodile locomotive.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Funny you should mention that...

 

 

http://www.beyergarrattlocos.co.uk/source.html

 The interesting aspect of the 2-10-0+0-10-2 model is that the builder really has not grasped the essence of the Beyer-Garratt concept.

 

If we assume an identical engine unit to the 9F on each set of frames - and it would make no sense to have anything smaller on a loco this size - then to fully exploit these engines in continuous steaming near twice the grate area of the 9F is required, inevitably mechanically fired. That grate would be built out to the full width permitted by the loading gauge, with a vast ashpan underneath nearly down to rail level. This is a key element of the design, exploiting the advantage that accrues from the grate draughting not being compromised by the ash in the ashpan or any frames or mechanism. The barrel of this boiler would be shorter and larger in diameter, and untapered. 

 

I also suspect that Beyers would at least specify 2-8-2+2-8-2 in preference to the proposed layout, as one chassis is always running in reverse in the sense that coupled wheels are leading, and guidance of the fixed wheelbase element becomes rather important if any sort of speed is attained. Given how fleet the 9F was, the dynamics of a ten coupled leading arrangement might not make for easy riding shall we say.

[DavidB-AU]

From Railway Gazette International, vol 70, page 808. (1939)

 

In February, 1938, the Great Western Railway announced that in view of the increasing cost of steam working, Messrs. Merz & McLellan, consulting engineers of Westminster, London, S.W., had been engaged to investigate the economic advantages of electrifying the company's main line between Taunton and Penzance. This section of the line was chosen because, whilst it is virtually self-contained for operating purposes, it forms part of the main line from London to the West of England, and therefore any system of electrification adopted could readily be extended. Another important consideration was that the severity of the curves and gradients in Devon and Cornwall result in the operating costs being materially higher than on comparable mileages in other parts of the company's system, thus affording greater scope for possible economies by the use of electric traction. Messrs. Merz & McLellan have recently completed their investigations and their conclusions have, we understand, been considered and approved by the Great Western board of directors. The firm's report states that, as a preliminary, the the statistics of traffic and working costs for each of the branch lines in question were carefully considered and it was found that, in nearly every case, the average annual traffic density is insufficient to justify the capital cost of electrification. Operating and other considerations made it desirable, however, to include in the proposed scheme the Kingswear branch, including the line to Brixham, the Par-Newquay branch, the Cornwall mineral lines, and the Par — Fowey — Lostwithiel loop lines. Those branches, with the main line from Taunton to Penzance, represent 232 route miles and 583 single track miles. The consultants report initially that the severe gradients and curves in this area not only necessitate unusually high engine power, but also limit the permissible speed, with the result that it is impossible to provide for any spectacular speeding up by means of electrification. Their estimates of working cost have therefore been compiled on the assumption that the average speed of all classes of trains would remain unaltered. Investigations showed that about two-thirds of the train mileage over the main line section is passenger and one- third freight, and the report states that the average annual engine-mileage per mile of single track is practically the same as that which was regarded as justifying the electrification in the case of the L.N.E.R. An analysis of the traffic revealed, however, that the bulk of this mileage is run during the summer months and is concentrated particularly in a few hours during the middle of the day at week-ends only. Thus a considerably higher relative capital expenditure on fixed equipment and locomotives is necessary than in the case of the Southern Railway, where the flow is more even throughout the year. The cost of the overhead line equipment at £1,556,100 is appreciably greater than on comparable mileages elsewhere, as, owing to the unusually high proportion of curved to straight track, shorter spans than normal would be required between the structures carrying the overhead wires on 61 per cent, of the route in order to maintain the conductors in the proper position over the centre of the track. This would involve additional cost, while the installation of the overhead conductors would also necessitate fairly heavy expenditure in raising bridges, re-siting water columns and signals, &c. So far as electric locomotives are concerned, the engineers consider that it would be more economical to provide a small number of locomotives suitable for the heaviest passenger and freight trains, and three lighter and less powerful types for other purposes. Altogether it is estimated that about 164 electric locomotives would be required which, for various reasons, would replace only almost the same number of steam locomotives. The net capital cost of electrifying the lines mentioned is estimated at over £4,000,000, while the balance of saving in working costs available for interest on the net capital expenditure is calculated to work out at less than one per cent. The investigations have thus revealed that this section of line is not particularly suited to electrification by reason of its physical characteristics, the nature of the traffic and the wide variation between winter and summer traffic density, while the high cost of electric locomotives is another adverse factor. In these circumstances we are informed the Great Western Railway board of directors has decided not to proceed with the project.

[The Black Hat]

I've got plans for two more. One in NER Darlington Green, Late Crest and another in Brunswick Green too. 

 

 

Almost finished...

Edited December 20, 2015 by The Black Hat

[jjb1970]

Something to keep in mind was that it is very difficult to overstate the importance of the second world war for Britain's railways (and obviously, the railways of other countries). The war meant the best laid plans and ideas of railway mice and men were ripped up, the railways went through a period of enforced austerity (and it was austerity, not the sort of austerity lite of recent years) and at the end of the war the railways needed enormous investment. Yet the country left the war in dire financial straits and railways were not the most pressing item for the post war country. Given that, nationalisation and the creation of BR, a policy to continue building conservative steam locomotives and a deferment of modernisation and the more ambitious pre-war plans of the big 4 was probably the only realistic policy option available. So really, the fundamental "what iff" is not imaginary locomotives but rather what might have happened with no second world war?

Edited December 20, 2015 by jjb1970

[Allegheny1600]

Now that would have been something!

In fact, had WW2 not happened, maybe it's precursor, WW1 may not have happened and we could have been on good terms with the German empire.

Railway wise the pre-group companies would have developed without government interference and we could have had numerous electrification schemes of differing voltages, until it was realised how important it is to standardise.

I would suggest that in this scenario, it would have been logical to use the system in use in Switzerland and Germany, 15Kv.

[Zomboid]

If there had been no WW2 then companies like ALCo and Baldwin wouldn't have suffered from the development freeze which the US government imposed upon them during the war, giving EMD a head start with diesels.

[DavidB-AU]

So really, the fundamental "what iff" is not imaginary locomotives but rather what might have happened with no second world war?

Another interesting "what if" is if nationalisation had happened after WW1. The first serious suggestion that the railways should be nationalised was put in December 1918 by the then Minister for Munitions, a gentleman named Winston Churchill, citing the obvious benefits of running them under the REC. But Lloyd George was scared off nationalisation by the then recent Communist revolution in Russia and only weeks later a near revolution in Scotland. The Big Four was a compromise.

 

Cheers

David

[cheesysmith]

If the wars hadn't happened, electrification would have happened sooner. If you want a what if, how about the GC electrified earlier, with 2-8-2 electrics based on the successful 04 chassis. Or a mixed traffic 2-6-2 based on the j11 chassis. At the time a lot of railways were looking at the penn electrification in America as the way forward.

[21st Century Railfan]

A little while ago, I played around with some "what-if" designs for pre-war LNER diesel traction...

 

LNER3.jpg

This might sound a bit rude, but may I use this class for a project I'm working on?

[The Black Hat]

Here you go....

 

The completion of the Newby/Thompson L1 to L4 conversion new build project. Again as with the lead engine all these have a K1 boiler, mounted onto the L1 chassis, with the same size cylinders as B1. This should cure the over powered nature of the design. Also changes have been made to the front. The lead two have a LNER group standard Darlington-esque smokebox door, with the latter having a genuine NER style appearance at the front.

 

All engines feature air brakes. A westinghouse pump is fitted to the right of the smokebox door. Lamps are carried on the left running plate, which might be GW practice, but in turn is a great idea and thus quickly adopted. All feature mainline signalling equipment, being TPWS and OTMR. Top speed should be 75mph given the size of the main wheels, but for mainline work it is envisaged that they would work in pairs.

 

This would be a brilliance choice for new build engines if only it were real. A flexible tank design, able to be used on medium length lines to those that need the power for a 4/5MT. The adoption of best practice from tested designs such as K1 and B1 should solve doubts over the L1 original overpowered design.

 

Hope the fleet is of interest... details of the conversion work is all on my Black Hat RTR detail thread, where as more pictures of them on the layout will be on the 'Bishop Auckland' layout thread in due course.

 

Enjoy...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by The Black Hat

[peak experience]

I could never understand why no one invented the Fell-tic. A 4-8-4 napier powered beast  A Deltic shell on the Fell chassis. It would have been a sure fire winner.

Edited January 10, 2016 by peak experience

[Ben Alder]

Having tackled the smaller proposed HR tank, my attention turned to the larger one. It's M7 origins are fairly obvious to my mind , and a fortuitous Ebay purchase was enough to get the project rolling. Here is the M7 against a drawing of the tank.

 

 

 

And on shed on its first outing, still needing a crew and one or two details sorted.

 

 

[Steve K]

I could never understand why no one invented the Fell-tic. A 4-8-4 napier powered beast  A Deltic shell on the Fell chassis. It would have been a sure fire winner.

 

Good looking, too!

 

Assuming you're a fan of the works of HP Lovecraft...

[cornamuse]

Just found this thread....

 

I am currently off work, on drugs and off my face this thread is making soooooo much sense.

 

It also puts my freelance early "Neilson" box tanks to shame.

Edited January 23, 2016 by cornamuse

[Tiptonian]

The little Neilson (and its surroundings) looks fine and dandy to me.

 

Step to it! Details, man,......Details !

[cornamuse]

Details elsewhere on the site - Gainford spa in boxfiles etc ..

 

Have built 2 freelance boxtanks - one a piano tank, the other a more typical box. They are inside cylinder (because I can't manage to build the motion, so far)

the piano tank now has skirts, since I took the connecting rods off out of frustration - runs much better without.

 

anyway - with the early period, and the varied life of these little locos - freelancing isn't too big a deal, as I am sure I can find most of the details on one of the versions, somewhere! The majority of the layout is freelance - the idea being to convey the 1860s on a small independent company in the North East. There are so many gaps in the available information that freelancing has been used for reasons of sanity! A small tender loco may be a next step - again it will be freelance, but with a flavour of ... not sure yet 

 

Very much built on the cheap: O gauge, using wagon wheels and "smokey Joe" motors and gears. The rest, chassis included, is cardboard, with an occasional piece of wire or cocktail stick. They are documented in a thread in making cardboard locos in the 7mm area, but cant remember the precise link. All the other rolling stock is cardboard too - and surprisingly resilient!

 

hope that satisfies curiosity, provides enough details and doesn't feel like hijacking. Back to some better quality freelancing now .....

Edited January 25, 2016 by cornamuse

[Tiptonian]

Details elsewhere on the site - Gainford spa in boxfiles etc ..

 

 

Superb. Many thanks for the above pointer.