Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I reckon hydraulics would have happened but apart from that, I think you're right-the railway in the 70's would have been very similar to BR. I think of the Big Four, the GW would have struggled.

Outwardly all would have been pristine and Swindon fashion, but I think it would have struggled to adapt, and the other 3 would have coped better with a changing world, because they had the more forward-looking mindset.

So-if consolidation had happened, who would have merged with who, or been acquired by who? Would we have ended up with a de facto BR? Would that have played out to eventual government acquisition, and franchising?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

LNER and LMS might well have merged, but the GW and Southern were probably too individualistic to ever contemplate it, certainly in the operational sense though a business merger could have taken place.   We’d have almost certainly ended up with a de facto BR, with the government stepping in to rescue the failing companies; the only question is when.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm wondering whether the GW and LNE might actually be natural partners? Financial soundness of the GW combined with the progressive attitude of the LNE, and they weren't really direct competitors in any great sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, RLBH said:

The LYR was also quite interested in electrification - at one point having three completely different systems on the go. I believe that the 1,200V side-contact third rail system was envisaged as their main line electrification approach, with Manchester-Bury seen as the prototype.

 

The LNWR, meanwhile, was seemingly actively hostile to electric railways. It was LNWR influence that killed off LYR and Midland interest post-grouping.

 

Thank you for mentioning the L&Y's electric schemes which I'd overlooked.

 

What is the evidence for hostility to electrification on the part of the LNWR management? Clive has mentioned the London suburban electrification. Preston - Carlisle would have been a natural first step - a self-contained section of main line with challenging gradients.

 

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I'm wondering whether the GW and LNE might actually be natural partners? Financial soundness of the GW combined with the progressive attitude of the LNE, and they weren't really direct competitors in any great sense.

 

If I had been a Great Western shareholder, I would have been appalled at the prospect.

 

One really intriguing amalgamation that very nearly happened at least twice in the late 19th century was between the Midland and Glasgow and South Western companies - what would such a combine have been called? London, Midland and Scottish Railway? The M&GSW Joint Stock dining carriages featured a roundel motif of an entwined rose and thistle...

 

In terms of imaginary locomotives, the resulting investment in a highly competitive through Anglo-Scottish route would have resulted in three-cylinder Smith-Johnson atlantics and 4-6-0s, in the full late Johnson style. Also 0-8-0s, then 2-8-0s. (Doesn't that sound like the direction somebody else went in?)

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure a non nationalised railway would have been that similar. The LNER, aside from producing mainline freight and passenger electric locos, was in its latter days looking at diesel electrics from US builders. Assuming they found the cash for those and were allowed to purchase from a foreign source, I suspect they wouldnt have been the last US built locos they or others bought, so in addition to the EE and sulzer diesels of the 50s we might have had EMD export models having a lasting impact and influence. Certainly what GM were offering at that point in time was significantly better than much of the rubbish that BR ordered in the 50s and 60s.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the Southern would have ended up following a similar route to the one which BR Southern Region took - main line electrification and DMUs for elsewhere. 

 

Bulleid was pretty pro-steam and had just built a lot of modern, go pretty much anywhere, do pretty much anything steam locos, so I doubt they'd have rushed headlong into diesels in the 1940s. But without the standards replacing the pre-grouping locos, diesel might have been required earlier. Or possibly a load more spam cans (perhaps of various sizes).

 

Leader would have been a failure no matter who was in charge.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

 

The last fourteen, if I counted correctly, posts have raised quite a lot of interesting points and references. Would it be a good time to summarise the likely directions that developments may have taken and also the how what where and why such developments may have been taken up and the reasons behind them.

  1. Stephensonian steam locomotives.
  2. Diesel hydraulic.
  3. Diesel electric.
  4. Diesel mechanical.
  5. DC Electric third rail and overhead.
  6. AC electric overhead.
  7. Non Stephensonian steam locos.

Here is a brief outline of how I see that things would and also have developed

  1. Traditional steam locomotives were moving along in the direction of steady improvement in any case albeit rather a slow progress. The main differences would be manganese liners coupled with roller bearings, higher super-heat and mechanical firing either coal or oil. As mentioned above increased boiler pressures plus waste heat schemes such as the Franco-Crosti boiler idea may have been improved upon with maintenance and weight penalties reduced. Improved suspension and wheel balancing may have improved high speed performance along with developments in materials again to reduce weight.
  2. Diesel Hydraulics as locomotives eventually became too fast and powerful for their own good giving rise to transmission problems. The trouble with a D1000 Western class is that putting 1350 hp through a series of cardan shafts and universal joints through a bogie and dividing it all up to power six axles is not only a complicated system it has to be light enough not to batter the track. Diesel hydraulics have made their comeback in the form of lesser power multiple unit system such as the second generation DMU's, Voyagers and similar.
  3. This is by far the most simple system for powering a diesel as it gives far less complication in the construction of the bogies as compared with the hydraulic types but at the weight penalty of the generator or alternator set coupled to the engine. The locomotives may be either built larger or coupled in multiple to provide more power. It would seem the best system for diesel locomotives.
  4. Diesel mechanical has only been used in low speed shunting application for locomotives but has been successfully used in light weight low powered multiple units, the early series of DMU's had mainly diesel mechanical transmissions.
  5. The earliest forms of electric traction were of direct current for the control gear is both lighter and more simple without the need for transformers and rectifiers. DC may be arranged as either third rail or overhead systems. DC electric is especially suited to multiple units where the smaller lighter weight control gear may be easily installed under the floors of the cars. There have been also successful locomotive types built for both third rail and overhead applications, although the limitations of third rail occasionally caused trouble with gapping at point work and overhead systems have a limit to the amperage that they are able to supply without using overly high voltages.
  6. Due to the limitations of DC transmission AC systems seem to be the best from a point of view of sustained high speed and high power. Improvements in technology have made control gear much more compact and lighter making it better suited to multiple unit application than previously. AC Locomotives are able to be constructed of huge power combined with light weight comparative to other forms of traction of similar power. Motors may be either mounted within the bogie frames, under floors as with multiple units or body mounted such as in the APT-P and class 91's allowing for light un-sprung axle loads for high speed running.
  7. There have been various attempts to improve the traditional Stephensonian steam locomotive, some successful others not, Turbomotive and Leader respectively. There could have been closed circuit condensing steam turbines, driving alternator sets, powering traction motors who knows where imagination could lead with this section ?

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Corbs said:

Musings...

 

I've no idea what this would be for.

 

Stanier 4-cylinder front end with shortened smokebox, similar to 'Coronation' boiler but with a narrow firebox fed by mechanical stoker. 6'2" driving wheels.

Class 8MT. Shorter than the Pacific, probably not as powerful, but with more driving wheels.

 

More of a stretched 'King' (with smaller wheels) than a 'Duchess'. A 'Jester', maybe?

 

394288323_4-8-02.jpg.5c57e3fb57ab1d6fe06cf98b3134ccd0.jpg

 

or in Maroon if you prefer

 

1149820047_4-8-01.jpg.2c1d9fc2dffe822574db35636e725721.jpg

Hi Corbs,

 

That looks the business although might be better as a small wheeled version of a Scot, make it three cylinder and it would have a better torque characteristic than that of a four cylinder locomotive.

 

Both the smoke box and firebox need to be lengthened in its current form as I don't know how you would manage fit a super heater header of sufficient size, the main steam pipes the double blast pipe and all of what forms the self cleaning deflector plates and screens into what is shewn!

 

The smoke box needs to come back to the front edge of the sand filler, perhaps even extended forward and the firebox shoulders between the driving and intermediate trailing wheels.

 

Gibbo.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 The GW was playing with gas turbines, but was stuck in a 1920s mindset. 

 

I thought the GWR was far from stuck in the 1920s and was actively looking towards electrification of some routes?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
10 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Corbs,

 

That looks the business although might be better as a small wheeled version of a Scot, make it three cylinder and it would have a better torque characteristic than that of a four cylinder locomotive.

 

Both the smoke box and firebox need to be lengthened in its current form as I don't know how you would manage fit a super heater header of sufficient size, the main steam pipes the double blast pipe and all of what forms the self cleaning deflector plates and screens into what is shewn!

 

The smoke box needs to come back to the front edge of the sand filler, perhaps even extended forward and the firebox shoulders between the driving and intermediate trailing wheels.

 

Gibbo.

 

You're right, Gibbo. From discussion here and in another part of the internet I think this large design is unworkable in its current form.

A while back I drew this up, a 4-8-0 with driving wheels from the 8F, similar boiler to the 3C but with a longer firebox, Royal Scot 3 cylinder front end and bogie.

Perhaps something in between the two would be better using the 5'6" wheels from the 5MT 2-6-0, with closer spacing on the front 3 axles, and a brake setup more similar to the P2

stanier-ivatt-9f-2.jpg.31aeb2412f601870ba99a979dd00dd3a.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, The Johnster said:

There were hints as to where the big 4 would have gone in the 50s.  The Southern was committed to 750v dc and the Next Big Thing was the Kent Coast scheme.  The LNER was heading in the direction of 1,500v dc overhead, and the LMS was investigating diesels with the involvement of EE, as was the Southern for off-electric use.  The GW was playing with gas turbines, but was stuck in a 1920s mindset. 

 

By the late 50s, chances are that diesel loco and dmu manufacturers would have been hardselling to the railway companies, and many of the 1955 scheme locos would have probably appeared anyway, the successful and reliable ones being those that made the cut.  An un-nationalised railway in the 60s and 70s would have looked a lot like BR did.

 

A non-nationalised LMS would surely have built a production series of 10000-10100 (at least) and by the end of the run, EE would had realised the engine could produce 2000hp reliably, so existing locomotives would have been uprated; if not to 2000hp, to whatever the traction motor insulation could safely cope with.

 

I agree about the various fleets too; we would have seen a lot less variety, particularly the spectacularly unsuccessful types which BR built where the government wanted to create employment/buy votes (delete as appropriate) rather than where the expertise existed to build them.  The private companies would also have been undertaking the same route/depot closure programmes as BR by the late 1950s, but unlike BR would NOT have built fleets of trains for services they were trying to extract themselves from at the same time.  That was perhaps the biggest waste of the Modernisation Plan; building slightly newer versions of stock to handle traffic being hemorrhaged from the railways and which had no likelihood of returning.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

What is the evidence for hostility to electrification on the part of the LNWR management? Clive has mentioned the London suburban electrification. Preston - Carlisle would have been a natural first step - a self-contained section of main line with challenging gradients.

 

Not sure where I saw it, but I'm fairly sure I've seen reference to former LNWR management being opposed to further progress of the LYR electrification schemes. There was also hostility from the LMS direction to extension of the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electrification over the CLC route to Liverpool.

 

Certainly Cox states in Locomotive Panorama that early work at Horwich on a Crewe-Carlisle electrification scheme was abruptly stopped in 1924, O'Brien - the Chief Electrical Engineer and a LYR man - resigned, and the department was moved to Euston and put under control of Cortez-Leigh, an LNWR man. The LMS thereafter confined its' electrification endeavours to suburban operations. The Crewe-Carlisle scheme seems to have been reasonably well progressed and called for a 2-D-2 locomotive along Swiss lines. I have a suspicion, entirely unfounded, that the Weir Commission's case study from 1931 of this section was based on the earlier proposal.

 

The consultants in that case found that the return on capital was poor because the scheme confined itself to the main line, meaning that many steam locomotives had to be retained, and electric locomotives were underutilised. The simultaneous study of the LNER Great Northern section was much more favourable, and it's hard not to wonder whether the attitudes of the two railways to electrification impacted the choice of case studies. Certainly the LNER had wanted to do the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath scheme as early as 1927, but capital wasn't available at the time.

 

3 hours ago, brack said:

I'm not so sure a non nationalised railway would have been that similar. The LNER, aside from producing mainline freight and passenger electric locos, was in its latter days looking at diesel electrics from US builders. Assuming they found the cash for those and were allowed to purchase from a foreign source, I suspect they wouldnt have been the last US built locos they or others bought, so in addition to the EE and sulzer diesels of the 50s we might have had EMD export models having a lasting impact and influence. Certainly what GM were offering at that point in time was significantly better than much of the rubbish that BR ordered in the 50s and 60s.

The LNER diesels may have been intended to be along American lines (so was Deltic, after all) but were very definitely from British builders - tenders were received from all the usual British suspects. 

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

I thought the GWR was far from stuck in the 1920s and was actively looking towards electrification of some routes?

The GWR was primarily interested in spending less on coal west of Newton Abbot, where transport costs made coal much more expensive than the rest of their network. The 1937 electrification study - based on 3 kV DC overhead lines - was done in that vein. The later GWR schemes for oil-fired steam locomotives in this area, and for early dieselisation under BR, had much the same slant on them.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

The LNER diesels may have been intended to be along American lines (so was Deltic, after all) but were very definitely from British builders - tenders were received from all the usual British suspects. 

Yes the tenders came from uk builders, but I believe the early ideas from the lner were to import proven technologies from the US, but the (national) lack of capital for imports and the prevailing economic and political climate meant that buying from overseas was right out. Given a freer hand things would've worked out differently.

EMD/GM I think had discussions with BR regarding getting involved in the 55 modernisation plan but were turned down. If memory serves a factory in the UK or license production were proposed (as with the successful NOHAB designs elsewhere in europe).

I might of course be recollecting things imperfectly, and you are of course correct in terms of which builders were approached in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, just supposing that DC electrification had remained king (as in parts of Europe) I wonder if we would be seeing 60KV DC electrification proposed here for main lines now that there is no need for transformers and things in the power transmission network if it is all DC, and the on-train bits become a bit lighter with no need for a transformer. Would locos and stock look any different? Perhaps more compact 10000HP locos? Electrification being a bit cheaper with fewer substations making it more widespread on longer branch lines (60 miles between substations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
38 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Now, just supposing that DC electrification had remained king (as in parts of Europe) I wonder if we would be seeing 60KV DC electrification proposed here for main lines now that there is no need for transformers and things in the power transmission network if it is all DC, and the on-train bits become a bit lighter with no need for a transformer. Would locos and stock look any different? Perhaps more compact 10000HP locos? Electrification being a bit cheaper with fewer substations making it more widespread on longer branch lines (60 miles between substations?

60kV? 6kV surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brack said:

EMD/GM I think had discussions with BR regarding getting involved in the 55 modernisation plan but were turned down. If memory serves a factory in the UK or license production were proposed (as with the successful NOHAB designs elsewhere in europe).

The issue with GM was that they flat out refused to licence production of the engine (and possibly traction equipment), and still do. All GM-powered locomotives have the machinery run off of the same American production line, even if it's fitted in a domestically-built shell.

 

Perfectly understandably, after all GM don't want someone like NBL botching the build and ruining their reputation. But, in Britain in the 1950s, that was economically (dollar shortage) and politically (loss of British jobs) unacceptable.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Wow, quite the beast! Shame no Crosti 9F's survived. I'd be tempted to contribute to a rebuild if anyone ever got one going.

Didn't one of these appear in the film Von Ryan's Express?

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

That was an Italian Crosti boilered 2-8-0, and probably the only believable part of the film...  

 

I remember one from a family holiday in 1966 as station pilot at Venice.  

 

A reconstruction is unlikely but not impossible, as there area good few 9Fs around in varying states of decrepitude that might donate frames and wheels.  You’d need a complete scratchbuild boiler, and cylinders, though, and it ‘d be a lot of money and work. 

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
25 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A reconstruction is unlikely but not impossible, as there area good few 9Fs around in varying states of decrepitude that might donate frames and wheels.  You’d need a complete scratchbuild boiler, and cylinders, though, and it ‘d be a lot of money and work. 

 

Indeed, why bother when one can see a preserved example in action and get a holiday in Italy into the bargain!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a Crosti 9F - but an FS 741 class 2-8-0. Although set in Italy some scenes in the last ten minutes of that film were shot in Spain as well necessitating fitting cosmetic smoke deflectors to 2-8-0 with a normal boiler as the sequences shot in Spain utilised a RENFE 141F 2-8-2 which was so fitted.  

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

On the subject of Italian steam, perhaps someone can confirm this: Italian railways (FS) has never formally stopped using steam traction.  It has retained some usable examples which are available for "preserved" operations, with all other operations converted to diesel or electrified, but there was never an actual plan to abolish it altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/07/2019 at 19:01, Northmoor said:

Congratulations Corbs, that is without question the ugliest locomotive anyone has created so far on this thread.  I'm going off to look at some photos of highly-polished Big Four locomotives, hoping it will settle my stomach.

 

Not even close, if this Iberian horror is any guide..

 

E8E32A79-2CED-4AD3-AD63-773174526979.jpeg.272f6274e18c4f5e8dd33927d8e94303.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

That was an Italian Crosti boilered 2-8-0, and probably the only believable part of the film...  

 

I remember one from a family holiday in 1966 as station pilot at Venice.  

 

A reconstruction is unlikely but not impossible, as there area good few 9Fs around in varying states of decrepitude that might donate frames and wheels.  You’d need a complete scratchbuild boiler, and cylinders, though, and it ‘d be a lot of money and work. 

Wasn't the Crosti 9F main boiler similar to a Clan boiler?

Edited by rodent279
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

On the subject of Italian steam, perhaps someone can confirm this: Italian railways (FS) has never formally stopped using steam traction.  It has retained some usable examples which are available for "preserved" operations, with all other operations converted to diesel or electrified, but there was never an actual plan to abolish it altogether.

I understand this is the case; FS has never claimed to have abolished steam and steam locos have been kept in ‘service’.  The Union Pacific does something similar; 844 has never been withdrawn from service.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...