Imaginary Locomotives

[Traintresta]

If anybody is interested, my copy of Locomotives that Never Were. is up for sale on a well known auction site. 

[rodent279]

Interesting concept, I think it has legs, but I agree with the points about the guards compartment in the Deltic-would make more sense in the driving trailer.

Personally, I'd go for a Bo-Bo single cab Deltic, with a single power unit, on either end.

The Swiss TEE units were of course EMU's-a better model might be the Dutch/Swiss TEE units, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_RAm_TEE_I_and_NS_DE4, which had a single 740kW power car on A1A-A1A bogies, and a driving trailer on the other end.

[Flying Pig]

 

7 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

The Deltic cab on the driving trailer comes back to 'using items I physically have'... got to put an old Lima Deltic to some good somewhere! To my eye at a brief glance, the trailer cab on the SBB RAm TEE units looked similar to the locomotive end (these are different to the DB VT11.5 with the raised cabs and big noses)

 

Fair enough.  Perhaps as a DBSO the trailer will look more the thing.  As a general thing, I actually quite like blue/grey, but I thought the train needed something more classy - perhaps the reverse version like in the HST prototype would work?

 

Apologies for not noticing the bogies on the trailer.

 

10 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

The Swiss TEE units were of course EMU's-a better model might be the Dutch/Swiss TEE units

 

I was just looking for styling cues so the power source doesn't really matter.  I like the push-pull aesthetic as it retains the identity of the loco to some extent.

[rodent279]

Ok, so slightly changing the subject from single ended Deltic..... What if Stanier, instead of using a Pacific as the basis for his experimentation with turbines, had used an 8F, or a Black 5?

Sweden's TGOJ line seems to have used several 2-8-0's quite successfully, hauling iron ore trains.

 

[melmerby]

The UK version looked like this:

It was tried between St Pancras and Manchester.

It didn't work too well by all accounts.

 

That TGOJ one is much neater!

Edited August 13, 2019 by melmerby

[rodent279]

So why not an 8F with a similar configuration to the TGOJ machine?

The Beyer-Peacock machine was a different animal to the TGOJ machines & 6202, it was a condensing machine carried on two units, boiler, fuel & water in the front, turbine, drive and condenser on the rear unit. By all accounts it worked, but suffered from poor combustion.

An 8F with turbine mounted in front of the smoke box, and gearbox between the frames, if it could be fitted within the loading gauge, could have been a workable proposition.

 

Edited to get my facts right-I had the Armstrong-Whitworth machine in mind.

Edited August 13, 2019 by rodent279

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

The UK version looked like this:

It was tried between St Pancras and Manchester.

It didn't work too well by all accounts.

 

That TGOJ one is much neater!

 

Is there a prize for having the lowest possible proportion of driven, to carrying axles? I know Brunel built an aberration which pretty much pushed its driving axle as a sort of afterthought..

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

Is there a prize for having the lowest possible proportion of driven, to carrying axles?...

Sometimes. The Midland 'Spinner 4-2-2, which if we include its four axle tender which it required to operate, is 1 : 7 was rated aesthetically satisfying and received the accolade of a Prix from Paris.

 

Then again there's Aerolite which is a rare aberration by the NER away from 'sensible' to 'what?'.

 

4 hours ago, rodent279 said:

... What if Stanier, instead of using a Pacific as the basis for his experimentation with turbines, had used an 8F, or a Black 5?

It is an attractive thought, and it would fit, after all a much higher output turbine fitted inside the dynamic loading gauge envelope of a longer framed locomotive. The implication of a turbine on a utility locomotive would be that the LMS was on the path of converting to turbine drive as standard for all its line locos.

 

(We will have to adjust the poem in consequence:

This is the night mail etc,
...
Exhausting white steam over her shoulder,

Humming quietly as she passes
Silent miles of wind-bent grasses... )
 

Edited August 13, 2019 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
spullong ertirs

[rodent279]

I wonder if a turbine loco using a Black 5 or 8F as a basis would have meant more of an opportunity to work on full load? I would imagine 6202 spent a large part of its time on part load, which I understand is not the most efficient way to operate a turbine.

[RedGemAlchemist]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Then again there's Aerolite which is a rare aberration by the NER away from 'sensible' to 'what?'.

At least Aerolite is kind of cute though. 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if a turbine loco using a Black 5 or 8F as a basis would have meant more of an opportunity to work on full load? I would imagine 6202 spent a large part of its time on part load, which I understand is not the most efficient way to operate a turbine.

 

I think freight engines spent quite a lot of time at part or no load waiting in loops or refuge sidings for a path.  This is why superheating was removed from a number of freight classes - their work pattern just didn't maintain the constant high temperature needed for the extra cost of superheating to be worthwhile.  Conversely,  wouldn't an express passenger loco be running at high power for extended periods?

 

Also, I wonder if timetabling a unique 8P is simply easier than timetabling a unique 8F.  

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

41 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I think freight engines spent quite a lot of time at part or no load waiting in loops or refuge sidings for a path.  This is why superheating was removed from a number of freight classes - their work pattern just didn't maintain the constant high temperature needed for the extra cost of superheating to be worthwhile.  Conversely,  wouldn't an express passenger loco be running at high power for extended periods?

The variation in power output was a problem in the UK railway environment, for any power class. While the express loco would typically be working at a higher power output overall, the variation was still large, five hundred horsepower to maintain express speed on a favourable or slightly falling road, then a burst of 2.500 to go up Shap at a decent rate.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Yup, you've got at least another day before the revised Deltic unit appears again, didn't finish drawing earlier.

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

At least Aerolite is kind of cute though. 

 

It is, but you have to wonder what possible diagram it was intended to work... it seems to have received a surprising amount of thought, works time and cost for a small locomotive of no real function https://www.lner.info/locos/X/x1.php

 

I’m quite intrigued by the idea of a turbo LMS 2-8-0 or 2-10-0, I always thought the turbo Pacific was rather stylish. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

 

...this is the kiddy! 1 driven axle out of 8, and it’s difficult to envisage a design providing less adhesive weight..

[AlfaZagato]

Seeing that Hurricane, I wonder how you could update l'Aigle?

[Flying Pig]

33 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

...this is the kiddy! 1 driven axle out of 8, and it’s difficult to envisage a design providing less adhesive weight..

 

Isn't that an early rail grinder? Probably looked interesting in yellow.

[RedGemAlchemist]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

a small locomotive of no real function

It did have a function. It was the CME's inspection loco. 

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

The variation in power output was a problem in the UK railway environment, for any power class. While the express loco would typically be working at a higher power output overall, the variation was still large, five hundred horsepower to maintain express speed on a favourable or slightly falling road, then a burst of 2.500 to go up Shap at a decent rate.

 

That sounded quite low for rolling resistance on the flat, but when I had a play with the numbers, based on Wardale's calculations here (5AT site chosen as it causes satisfying amounts of rage on RMweb, rather than for any technical reason), I got pretty much the same for a Duchess with 500 tons: I am sorry ever to have doubted you.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

...this is the kiddy! 1 driven axle out of 8, and it’s difficult to envisage a design providing less adhesive weight..

Designed by a guy called Harrison; Brunel is not to blame.  The intention was to have a loco with a big driving wheel for high running and low piston speed, without compromising the size of the boiler.  There is, as noted, virtually no adhesive weight above the driving wheels, and the loco was not a success...

[rodent279]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

It is, but you have to wonder what possible diagram it was intended to work... it seems to have received a surprising amount of thought, works time and cost for a small locomotive of no real function https://www.lner.info/locos/X/x1.php

 

I’m quite intrigued by the idea of a turbo LMS 2-8-0 or 2-10-0, I always thought the turbo Pacific was rather stylish. 

I'm sure there's probably a dozen perfectly good, valid reasons why a Princess was chosen as the basis for a turbine loco, and not an 8F, but it's an interesting thought, worthy of a bit of daydreaming, give me that at least!

[The Johnster]

Aerolite was designed and built specifically to haul the NER director's saloon, and did so successfully for many years.

 

The Turbomotive was used on a specific diagram for most of it's life, a heavy Liverpool express and return, presumably because this would suit the requirement for continuous steady high output that a turbine needs to be at it's most efficient and because that would limit the number of staff that you needed to train up to be able to maintain and work the thing.  The loco was rebuilt as a conventional Princess when the boiler wore out, but this does not mean that it was unsuccessful in service, merely that it was not considered worth following up in post war operating conditions

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Aerolite was designed and built specifically to haul the NER director's saloon, and did so successfully for many years.

 

The Turbomotive was used on a specific diagram for most of it's life, a heavy Liverpool express and return, presumably because this would suit the requirement for continuous steady high output that a turbine needs to be at it's most efficient and because that would limit the number of staff that you needed to train up to be able to maintain and work the thing.  The loco was rebuilt as a conventional Princess when the boiler wore out, but this does not mean that it was unsuccessful in service, merely that it was not considered worth following up in post war operating conditions

 

Aerolite seems to have been, in succession, an exhibition piece then two different locos (the second passing through so many rebuilds as to be virtually three different locos), the final incarnation being scrapped within a week of its users’ retirement. An extraordinary story, but not, it seems, unique https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSWR_F9_class 

 

Watching the video of that Swedish 2-8-0, it does rather seem that once stopped, getting it moving again is a considerable undertaking. That might be ok for a loco built to work a dedicated route but would be of no use in general traffic. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by rockershovel

[Satan's Goldfish]

Last one on the Deltic unit. Sorry, my MS paint artistic skills didn't extended to an inverse blue/grey like the prototype HST

 

I've altered the original to have a DBSO, and the locomotive now has double doors for access to equipment at that end... just because. 

 

Brought forward in time, it's gained a couple of mk3s for a buffet and scotrail style CO for updated 1st class accommodation. 

 

Taken back in time, the air con is gone and it's a bit less glamorous in reggie rail, but probably still better long distance than a 156 or 158!

 

And finally, possible original build style? No air con, blue grey, and a mk1 buffet! The DBSO has become a DBFK here too.

 

 

THAT IS ALL.

[rockershovel]

11 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Designed by a guy called Harrison; Brunel is not to blame.  The intention was to have a loco with a big driving wheel for high running and low piston speed, without compromising the size of the boiler.  There is, as noted, virtually no adhesive weight above the driving wheels, and the loco was not a success...

 

Surely it represents Harrison’s interpretation of Brunel’s Specification, which appears to include the singular deficiency of not requiring a specific tractive effort? 

Edited August 14, 2019 by rockershovel