Imaginary Locomotives

[BernardTPM]

Given the height of the tender is probably near the maximum British loading gauge, you'd end up with a boiler the diameter of a pea-shooter (and that's without mentioning the platform gouging LP cylinders). One of the advantages of a Garratt in this respect is the ability to sling the boiler down lower. Not that they had much suitable work for them either.

Edited December 31, 2020 by BernardTPM

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

Given the height of the tender is probably near the maximum British loading gauge, you'd end up with a boiler the diameter of a pea-shooter (and that's without mentioning the platform gouging LP cylinders). One of the advantages of a Garratt in this respect is the ability to sling the boiler down lower. Not that they had much suitable work for them either.

 

I don't doubt that there are good, and sufficient reasons why the Mallet type was never tried in UK. Side throw of the smokebox would be a problem, too. 

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Problem there becomes length, again.   Michael Edge did a scratchbuild  in the 80's posted elsewhere of a supposed Horwich design for an 0-6-6-0, lacking the front pony to accommodate turntables.

 

Described here:

 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

12 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Described here:

 

 

 

Fitting it on to a 60ft turntable was a bit extreme, the drawing office was I suspect trying to prove a point here over the Garratt. E. S. Cox, whose book it appears in, says that if it had been built it would almost certainly have had a leading pony truck. My model hits curves pretty hard as well, we do turn it on the 60ft table at the back of Brunswick shed but it isn't easy and the adjacent road has to be empty to accommodate the huge front overhang (it won't turn the other way because it would hit the rock wall).

[rockershovel]

I suspect that the real reason articulated designs generally didn’t find favour in U.K. (with the notable exception of the LMS Garratt) was that

(1) the heavy, relatively short-haul Northern coal trade declined from the 1926 General Strike onwards

(2) the general design of rolling stock for the colliery Trade, and overall network configurations precluded further development of train size

(3) it was generally understood by about 1925 that a 75 ton, 8F rated 2-8-0 represented the practical limit of usable traction power. The 100 ton Gresley P1 2-8-2s never found a meaningful role and the final development of British steam freight traction, the 90 ton, 9F rated BR Standard design, was quite adequate for requirements.

[Compound2632]

In brief, size isn't everything.

[Flying Pig]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

In brief, size isn't everything.

 

Says the Midland man

 

[john new]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

.... snip

(2) the general design of rolling stock for the colliery Trade, and overall network configurations precluded further development of train size

(3) it was generally understood by about 1925 that a 75 ton, 8F rated 2-8-0 represented the practical limit of usable traction power. The 100 ton Gresley P1 2-8-2s never found a meaningful role and the final development of British steam freight traction, the 90 ton, 9F rated BR Standard design, was quite adequate for requirements.

 

I think both the above interact - bigger locos running with longer trains was found to need a significant civil engineering investment in marshalling areas, passing loops and four track sections to be practical (your constraint No. 2). That in turn led to your No. 3. Where bigger would also have led to increased weight in addition to the track configuration issues bridge strengthening costs all impacted on the projected total cost of operation. Building bigger would have knock-ons for costs of production in the workshops too.

 

The Midland/early LMS's idea of little and often is often derided, the converse view is that it defrayed areas of capital investment at a time when the revenue impact of L&O was an absorbable increase in use of cheap labour. Mistakes were made, for example with the use of standard design axle-boxes, but that is the viewpoint of hindsight. At the time, especially to Board level accountants, it would have made sense and the engineering design side couldn't have argued sufficiently forcefully against the idea for it to be overturned.

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by john new
To make better sense.

[Flying Fox 34F]

I find it interesting how in the imagination we create larger steam locomotives. I have my own flight of fancy, the Gresley 4-8-2, unstreamlined.  She just squeezes onto a 70’ turntable.  Perhaps we need to consider how steam would have evolved if BR had not been created and also the effect of additional diesel and electric traction of a big four nature.

 

Ironically, on the national network we now have plenty of Type 5 traction, but there is still demand for type 3, which is why the class 37’s are still a feature 60 years down the line.  There is no obvious interest in building a replacement.

 

Paul

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, john new said:

Mistakes were made, for example with the use of standard design axle-boxes, but that is the viewpoint of hindsight. 

 

A viewpoint arising from propaganda put about by certain writers with their particular axes to grind and failures to obscure. A viewpoint that has been exploded by Adrian Tester and others. There was nothing wrong with the axleboxes used on the 4F, 7F, &c. if used with the intended lubricants - R.M. Deeley having been an expert in lubricants. Problems did arise when the LMS attempted to economise; once the mistake was understood and corrected, there was no problem.

 

Sorry to have to repeat this again but in our world of fake news and relativism, one has to make a stand for evidence-based history.

[Signal Box Cat]

Dusty considered there is no problem to press a large 2-8-8-0 Mallet-Compound into the British loading gauge....

(Source, The Mallet Locomotive, A E Durrant, D&C, 1974).

 

The Signal Box Cat

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

I find it interesting how in the imagination we create larger steam locomotives. I have my own flight of fancy, the Gresley 4-8-2, unstreamlined.  She just squeezes onto a 70’ turntable.  Perhaps we need to consider how steam would have evolved if BR had not been created and also the effect of additional diesel and electric traction of a big four nature.

 

Ironically, on the national network we now have plenty of Type 5 traction, but there is still demand for type 3, which is why the class 37’s are still a feature 60 years down the line.  There is no obvious interest in building a replacement.

 

Paul

I think "Had Nationalisation not happened", to be one of the most interesting "What-ifs?".

 

My suspicion is that with shareholder pressure, modernisation would have been much more focused on modernising the railway practices, instead of building newer versions of what they already had, which the 1951 Plan tended to focus on.  There would have been no "Standard" Classes - the Big Four might have built more of their known "good" types as a stop-gap - and far less experimentation with multiple types of diesel from multiple suppliers (a number of which were in marginal constituencies, funnily enough).  The Big Four were surprisingly innovative though, remember how much electrification was being implemented before WW2; what if it had been persisted with in areas of high density traffic, perhaps extending the 1500V DC wires from Sheffield, further South along the GCML and West to Liverpool.  However, to do anything like this they would have had to borrow from the government on preferential terms and the Labour Government of the time was never going to allow that, it was public ownership or nothing. 

 

You would also hope that a private company would have realised early on when one department was ordering diesel replacements for worn-out steam locomotives, which operated traffic that another department wanted to opt out of altogether (compare with the Beeching report, recommending complete closure of routes that were just being "modernised").  Although not all conditions were the same - they weren't worn-out and bomb-damaged for one thing - the comparision with the US is interesting.  A country with abundant coal and oil but no Nationalised railways, got out of steam early.  The private sector knew that steam had nowhere near the development potential of diesel traction and grabbed that potential with everything they could. 

[The Johnster]

A ‘what if’ situation where nationalisation never took place would, I suggest, have resulted in the big 4 looking very much like BR actually did by the mid 60s.  Dieselisition with dmus and locos sourced from outside builders, and reliance on government subsidy against increasing competition from road and private car use would have meant that the government, as piper, would have called the tune and the railways would have been effectively nationalised and only nominally independent.  Three out of the big 4 had viable modernisation programs, which would have continued anyway.  The other, the GW, almost a definition of ‘other’, was messing about with gas turbines but apat from that was very backward looking as WR in the early 50s, objecting to BR locos and wanting to build more of it’s own.  Castles, a 1922 design, were preferred to Britannias, 5101s, effectively the 1906 31xx, to 82xxx, and the equally antediluvian 28xx to 9Fs. 
 

How the GW might have fared if it had been an independent company is fairly predictable, and the company would probably have collapsed in the early 60s, leading to government intervention and nationalisation which would, I believe, have had to include all railways.  

[Compound2632]

300 psi? How heavy is that boiler and how much does it cost to maintain? Nothing there that a pair of 4Fs couldn't achieve with greater economy, notwithstanding the wages of the extra driver.

[john new]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

A ‘what if’ situation where nationalisation never took place would, I suggest, have resulted in the big 4 looking very much like BR actually did by the mid 60s.  Dieselisition with dmus and locos sourced from outside builders, and reliance on government subsidy against increasing competition from road and private car use would have meant that the government, as piper, would have called the tune and the railways would have been effectively nationalised and only nominally independent.  Three out of the big 4 had viable modernisation programs, which would have continued anyway.  The other, the GW, almost a definition of ‘other’, was messing about with gas turbines but apart from that was very backward looking as WR in the early 50s, objecting to BR locos and wanting to build more of it’s own.  Castles, a 1922 design, were preferred to Britannias, 5101s, effectively the 1906 31xx, to 82xxx, and the equally antediluvian 28xx to 9Fs. 
 

How the GW might have fared if it had been an independent company is fairly predictable, and the company would probably have collapsed in the early 60s, leading to government intervention and nationalisation which would, I believe, have had to include all railways.  

 

But were the GWR as non-progressive as stated? They were early adopters of the DMU and had commissioned a costing exercise for mainline electrification. Had also looked at gas turbine traction so experimentation and ideas for alternatives to steam were in hand. The idea post-nationalisation of the BR Riddles classes was to impose a national BR standard on to the new Western Region, the GWR already had a form of standardisation which as an independent company they could have continued until the case for switching away from steam was forced on them by economics or labour shortages. In reality some steam men drifted to other countries after BR finished with it so if the GWR had stuck with steam a bit longer they would perhaps have found recruitment easier as there was a pool of redundant steam men elsewhere in the nation looking for work!

 

The fact is we can't know, so a counter factual scenario can be made to fit anything, provided it stays plausible. My own guess - electrification.

[melmerby]

I think the idea tht the Standards were all in some way superior designs to the big 4 locos I think is a bit short sighted.

They mostly weren't really innovative in any way just a mix and match of the various big 4 with more of a leaning towards the later LMS.

 

The 82XXX 3MT tank had a chassis based on Ivatt's LMS designs with a boiler derived from the GWR 5101.

I can understand why the GWR men wanted their big Prairie over the Standard, as the standard performed no better and was a power class down.

The 28XX did all the ex GWR wanted or needed, the 9F, superb though it is, was no advantage to them and was physically a lot bigger.

Taking on the standards meant the workshops needed new jigs & tools and unnecessary extra skills for the staff.

And for what? Satisfying a new management organisation that wanted to standardise everything.

 

[rockershovel]

My best guess is that without nationalisation, the Big Four would have progressed to electrification without the intermediate step of dieselisation, except for local railcar and MU services and shunting. The principal attraction of the diesel - a self contained unit requiring minimal infrastructure, and capable of multiple unit operation by single crews in a land of huge trains, vast distances, extreme climates and abundant oil - were more American than British. 

 

I’d certainly agree that the overall pattern of de-facto nationalisation via government subsidy was inevitable, and in the political and electoral climate of the time, that would have been extremely problematical. The electorate had voted for reform in 1945, and they intended to have it. 

 

 

[melmerby]

I think we can blame A Hitler esq. fot what happened to the railways.

Without his "European Grand Tour" to the detriment of the locals, railway development would have been completely different.

[Northmoor]

If we're going to mention the what-if of WW2 not happening (how we wish): in the "Imaginary Railways" thread, there was such a discussion three years ago where I mentioned how had some major strategic events not happened, the railways of the UK would have been very different.  As you can see I've just repeated myself above.

 

On 31/08/2017 at 21:02, Northmoor said:

This thread has produced so many "What if?" scenarios for particular railways, most of us have come up with more than one to justify our choice of "prototype".  However, I once started to compile a list of more strategic "What if?s" where a major industry or political event did or didn't happen.  See if you can add to these:

1. The Irish potato famine never happened.  Quite apart from the obvious millions of people saved, it would have impacted the railways of Britain as trade with Ireland would have been considerably greater.  One example is that Fishguard Harbour wouldn't exist, Brunel would have built the harbour 50-60 years earlier at Abermawr about 10 miles further west, in deeper water.
2. (Mentioned elsewhere in this thread) The Grouping was a much less extreme event than actually occurred, with the companies consolidated into perhaps a dozen and not four. Larger regional companies, perhaps the financially more secure, survived.  Perhaps the GER might have stayed independent? With more companies, would they have all retained their own works or would have been increasing use of contractor-built and standard locos and rolling stock?
3. Electrification planned by the NER and LMS actually went ahead in the 1920s and progressively extended. The initial Crewe - Carlisle would be extended to form a NW England network with branches to Liverpool and Manchester where conveniently, it would link with the 1500V Woodhead route electrified by the LNER!
4. Nationalisation - which was as universally unpopular across the industry as privatisation/franchising was in the 1990s (but the government did it anyway!) - didn't happen.  Instead the government offered low interest loans to the companies to invest in modernisation but still created a BTC to offer standard designs of diesels, units etc.  There would have been less variety but also considerably fewer redundant/duplicate designs built by contractors without the skills to build them properly.  The Big Four were often quite innovative, British Railways generally built slightly more modern versions of the equipment the railways already had, without updating the working practices.
5. The Beeching report was implemented, but nothing that WASN'T listed in the report was closed.  Sadly a great deal was; most rail re-openings, planned or actually implemented, are of lines closed after 1968 which the Beeching report didn't propose for closure.
6. (We've all dreamed of this one) Steam wasn't hurriedly abandoned in 1968 but was continued in a few small areas where there was a concentration of traffics with no advantage of diesel over steam (e.g. short distance, slow-moving, unfitted coal trains).  Newer steam locos, such as 9Fs were retained until they were worn out, the traffic was lost or modernised such that steam was no longer appropriate. The massive costs of redundancy ies was spread over a longer period and the workforce given longer to adapt or leave the service.  The full design life of the 9Fs might have seen them in service up to the mid-80s, which coincides with the pit closure plan which led to the miners' strike.....
7. (My favourite) The Channel Tunnel project was completed in the early 1970s.  What might the rail network look like now? Would the GC have been mothballed then upgraded as the main line to the continent?  Would Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading have been a major freight route, to Berne Gauge?

Any others?

How would any of these affected British locomotive policy?  Based on #3 and #7, some of the largest locomotive classes might have become Class 76 and 87 respectively.

[Gibbo675]

17 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I think we can blame A Hitler esq. fot what happened to the railways.

Without his "European Grand Tour" to the detriment of the locals, railway development would have been completely different.

Hi Melmerby,

 

If he hadn't met with quite such a lot of resistance there would have been 3m gauge all over Europe Russia and the Middle East.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn

 

Gibbo.

[Northmoor]

2 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

If he hadn't met with quite such a lot of resistance there would have been 3m gauge all over Europe Russia and the Middle East.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn

 

I think it's widely accepted he would have run out of slave labour long before the Third Reich had achieved much of this.

[PhilJ W]

40 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

If we're going to mention the what-if of WW2 not happening (how we wish): in the "Imaginary Railways" thread, there was such a discussion three years ago where I mentioned how had some major strategic events not happened, the railways of the UK would have been very different.  As you can see I've just repeated myself above.

 

How would any of these affected British locomotive policy?  Based on #3 and #7, some of the largest locomotive classes might have become Class 76 and 87 respectively.

If as you said the Irish potato famine hadn't occurred the Irish railways would probably now be standard gauge and possibly a bridge or tunnel across the Irish Sea.

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

If as you said the Irish potato famine hadn't occurred the Irish railways would probably now be standard gauge and possibly a bridge or tunnel across the Irish Sea.

 

Alternatively, with the influence of Inchicore-trained engineers, the railways of the island of Britain would now be 5'3" gauge.

[AlfaZagato]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Alternatively, with the influence of Inchicore-trained engineers, the railways of the island of Britain would now be 5'3" gauge.

I wish the same had happened here.   Confederate 5' gauge make so much more sense the 4'8".   

[Gibbo675]

4 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I wish the same had happened here.   Confederate 5' gauge make so much more sense the 4'8".   

Hi Alfa,

 

Interestingly had the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company engaged John and George Rennie to build the railway 5' gauge may well have become standard gauge. However George Stephenson was contracted to perform the task of building the railway and settled upon 4' 8" as that is what he had used to build the Stockton and Darlington Railway. As Stephenson was also later contracted to build the locomotives it was deemed sensible that the locomotives would be to the same gauge so as to be tested on the S&DR before delivery to the L&MR.

 

The extra half inch was later added to the width of the gauge as wheels were later given coned profiles of 1:20 and it was then decided that the flanges did not require to touch the inside faces of the rails, this also reduced flange and rail wear. Incidentally the coning of tyres and reduction of flange and rail wear are the same reasons that Brunel added a quarter inch to his 7' gauge track.

 

Gibbo.