Imaginary Locomotives

[JimC]

37 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

If those railways built stock to their maximum height would they not be oversize when running on "Foreign" railways? 

If you consult a GWR rules appendix there are paragraphs of details of which particular stock is allowed to run on which lines, both GWR and others. Doubtless the same is true of the other lines. I understand the LNER actually enlarged some tunnels to deal with loading gauge issues. 

[melmerby]

23 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

If those railways built stock to their maximum height would they not be oversize when running on "Foreign" railways? That would suggest that Midland, H&B and GN stock would be built to other raiways' smaller height gauge in order to fit onto their tracks. There was a large amount of running on on other people's lines even in pre-grouping days. 

I doubt whether the Midland reached anywhere near 13' 9" with anything.

The GWR was 13' 6" as well but 9' 8" wide (5" more than anyone else) so none of it's max width stock could leave it's realms.

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, JimC said:

If you consult a GWR rules appendix there are paragraphs of details of which particular stock is allowed to run on which lines, both GWR and others. Doubtless the same is true of the other lines. I understand the LNER actually enlarged some tunnels to deal with loading gauge issues. 

GWR stock.

73' stock not accepted by other companies

63' 6" x 9' 7" & 9' 6" not accepted

63' 6" x 9' 3" only accepted on some LMS routes

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

 

If those railways built stock to their maximum height would they not be oversize when running on "Foreign" railways? That would suggest that Midland, H&B and GN stock would be built to other raiways' smaller height gauge in order to fit onto their tracks. There was a large amount of running on on other people's lines even in pre-grouping days. 

 

Not at all. There were oodles of restrictions. Just as one example, the standard height for Midland clerestory carriages was 13'1" above rail level. When it came to renewing the old arc-roof carriages used on through workings to the SECR via the Metropolitan Widened lines, special stock with squashed-down clerestories was built, 12'8" tall. 

 

 

[PhilJ W]

Some of the Metropolitan stock was wide. IIRC the A stock was 9' 7" wide and the C stock not much less. Not a great problem as initially the Metropolitan tunnels were built to take Brunel's broad gauge. A problem did arise when the A stock was sent away for refurbishment in the early 90's. When delivered in the early 60's it was done via  a route that has since closed and been lifted. However they did manage to find a route that was suitable to transfer the stock. Nowadays all such transfers are done by road so no problem (apart from cost).

[rockershovel]

I’d always understood that Derby’s “small engine’” policy mainly related to overall weights and axle loading, due to the light construction of their civil engineering works? 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I’d always understood that Derby’s “small engine’” policy mainly related to overall weights and axle loading, due to the light construction of their civil engineering works? 

 

In part. But remember that in the 19th century, Midland engines were by no means small compared to their equivalents on other lines. There was a bit of fiddling needed to get the later series of 4-2-2s past the civil engineer's office. When the big engines - the Belpaires and Compounds were big for the turn-of-the-century - a programme of strengthening of underbridges was put in hand but it was not until the 20s, IIRC, that Compounds were allowed on the Derby - Bristol line. But there were other reasons behind the continuation with 4-4-0s in the 20th century, to do with the way the passenger business of the company was organised. The Midland's network connected many cities that were important traffic centres so the pattern was for frequent, lightly loaded expresses - Inter City avant la lettre - it was simply the case that the railway was run in such a way that bigger engines weren't needed. 

[Signal Box Cat]

On 22/10/2020 at 16:12, PenrithBeacon said:

Hughes proposed a Pacific pre WW1 and this was (IIRC) the mineral engine variant of that proposal. Neither was proceeded with because they were deemed to be far too powerful for the traffic on offer, not to mention signalling issues, length of loops etc.

The idea that a CME would go so far as to produce such designs and present them to the board but not be serious doesn't bear thinking about. I should think the Civil Engineer and the Signalling Engineer got the vapours when they saw the diagrams.

 

 

Hi,

Fascinating! Is there anywere a diagram of the Hughes Pacific available?

 

Same question concerning the GCR 2-10-0. As far as I am informed the GCR considered some 2-10-2 projects.

 

Thank you,

The Signal Box Cat

[melmerby]

8 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Some of the Metropolitan stock was wide. IIRC the A stock was 9' 7" wide and the C stock not much less. Not a great problem as initially the Metropolitan tunnels were built to take Brunel's broad gauge. A problem did arise when the A stock was sent away for refurbishment in the early 90's. When delivered in the early 60's it was done via  a route that has since closed and been lifted. However they did manage to find a route that was suitable to transfer the stock. Nowadays all such transfers are done by road so no problem (apart from cost).

The new S stock is also 9' 7" and AFAIK was delivered via a rather circuitous route from Derby to Birmingham and down the old GWR main Line

IIRC 9' 7" is out of gauge for anywhere on the modern railway and has to run as a wide load.

[John Besley]

If I was building in 4mm SR I'd love to take a Nelson set and mate this up with a single car DMU / Hastings set to make a believable early branchline railcar like the Budd railcar in the US...

Edited October 25, 2020 by John Besley
.

[rodent279]

35 minutes ago, John Besley said:

If I was building in 4mm SR I'd love to take a Nelson set and mate this up with a single car DMU / Hastings set to make a believable early branchline railcar like the Budd railcar in the US...

How about a plausible version of a 1930's DEMU?

 

I guess in a similar manner, a rake of say 6 or 8 GWR two car railcars, with the outer cars streamlined, and an engine in every car, would be a plausible early HST.

Edited October 25, 2020 by rodent279

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

How about a plausible version of a 1930's DEMU?

 

The Hastings units were not exactly cutting edge design when they were built in the 1950s. A 1930s DEMU might not have looked much different unless streamlined, the LMS unit being a good example. 

[BernardTPM]

57 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

How about a plausible version of a 1930's DEMU?

 

I guess in a similar manner, a rake of say 6 or 8 GWR two car railcars, with the outer cars streamlined, and an engine in every car, would be a plausible early HST.

 

I did this back on page 12. A diesel-electric version of the LNER Coronation train.

[John Besley]

Who's going to photo shop a picture ....

[PhilJ W]

Armstrong Whitworth were already there.

 

 

[rodent279]

34 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

 

I did this back on page 12. A diesel-electric version of the LNER Coronation train.

Nice, I missed that. Now if the NER electrification of York-Newcastle had gone ahead, they could have been built as bi-mode sets, though whether it would be worth it for 80 miles is debatable. Extend it to London and it would be I guess.

[rockershovel]

On 24/02/2014 at 13:02, MikeOxon said:

According to Alan Peck's "The GW at Swindon Works", Dean wrote to the electrical engineer, Crompton, in 1892 that he had been instructed by the Chairman to discuss the subject of electrical haulage through the Severn tunnel. It seems that Dean showed no enthusiasm for the idea - perhaps he saw it as another potential 'atmospheric railway' type of disaster - and the correspondence fizzled out.  Instead, Dean went on to build the 4-6-0 'Crocodile', to haul heavy freight trains though the tunnel.  But what if the line had been electrified.  What might a Victorian electric 'crocodile' have looked like?

There's an article in 'The Engineer' dated June 13th,1890 (I like to keep up to date with my reading), which discusses the potential for development of main line electric traction and suggests some design parameters. (see: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/images/4/49/Er18900613.pdf ).  Crompton designed small 4-wheel locomotives for the London underground but these would be inadequate for main-line use.  The Engineer article suggests that a heavy six-coupled locomotive, with 6 foot diameter driving wheels, each directly driven by an electric motor, might provide sufficient adhesion and power for main-line haulage.  In view of the need for heavy freight working on the gradients in the tunnel, .then a double unit would seem appropriate, given the motor power available at the time. Six 150hp motors would provide 900hp and an overall weight of, perhaps, 70 tons, which should do the job fairly well.

Possibly, the biggest issue at that time would have been the design of the power station itself - a state-of-the-art requirement, to match the engineering of the tunnel itself.  It could also have been used to power electric pumps, anticipating the modifications eventually made in the 1960s.

So, I give you the Dean/Crompton electric 'crocodile':

 

 

Mike
 

 

 

In what sense is that a “crocodile”? Surely the term applies to articulated electric locomotives with a centrally suspended cab, between two power bogies? 

 

One thing which is apparent at this stage, is that the Armstrong-Whitworth concept of two, rod-driven steam-type chassis back to back, was a blind alley; the articulated chassis with power bogies under a single frame was the way forward, as the Americans realised early on from their experience of similar types. 

 

I’d never heard of the Dean 4-6-0, handsome beast in the style of the time. 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by rockershovel

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

How about a plausible version of a 1930's DEMU?

 

I guess in a similar manner, a rake of say 6 or 8 GWR two car railcars, with the outer cars streamlined, and an engine in every car, would be a plausible early HST.

A 1930s Hastings demu would probably have looked stylistically like a more slab sided version of the Portsmouth sets; doubt they'd have gone as fast, though!

[John Besley]

38 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

A 1930s Hastings demu would probably have looked stylistically like a more slab sided version of the Portsmouth sets; doubt they'd have gone as fast, though!

I was actually thinking more of a single car branchline set as a DEMU back dating to the 30's...

[Joseph_Pestell]

15 minutes ago, John Besley said:

I was actually thinking more of a single car branchline set as a DEMU back dating to the 30's...

 

That would depend on finding a diesel engine of that era which would fit below the floor. Otherwise, you are probably not leaving enough passenger/parcels accommodation to be viable.

[BernardTPM]

The Armstrong Whitworth 'Governor' class railcars (3' 6" WAGR, but close to UK loading gauge) used a compact above floor motor/generator set that took no more than 4ft 4in in length.

[FoxUnpopuli]

I like to think that if the GWR would have given more thought to streamlining their steam locomotives, something would have appeared that would have had similar art-deco flat-sided crease-edged lines to the early railcars (i.e. No. 4.)  I think a King/Castle with that kind of streamlining (and maybe even choc, cream & gold livery, ilo loco green) would have looked very impressive.

[rodent279]

Personally, I think 4-6-0's just look too chunky when streamlined. The extra couple of metres of a Pacific helps to balance the somewhat slab sided nature of an A4 or Coronation. As for Bulleid Pacifics-as a Pacific they can pull it off, but without the trailing axle, I think they'd look too short & stocky.

Edited October 26, 2020 by rodent279

[PhilJ W]

The pair of Streamlined B17's didn't look to bad.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That would depend on finding a diesel engine of that era which would fit below the floor. Otherwise, you are probably not leaving enough passenger/parcels accommodation to be viable.

There were several 3' gauge Irish railways that seemed to have no real problem with this; their problem was not enough passengers or parcels...