Imaginary Locomotives

[Zomboid]

I've no argument that hymeks were good locos (actually the type 3 was a bit of a sweet spot, with 33s and 37s also being successful machines, I don't think BR bought a bad type 3).

 

Trying to replace them with 25s and 31s was never going to reflect well on the type 2s which had been sent to do a type 3s work. Probably on the basis of availability, but if they had 37s available at the time as well then who knows what they were thinking.

[Michael Edge]

9 hours ago, rodent279 said:

 A similar arrangement, though different design, was used in the EM1 electrics, though the bogies were also physically linked together with a sturdy pin through an eye between the bogies. Whether this transferred all the traction forces, or was just to assist in steering the bogies through curves I don't know.

It was to transfer traction forces and was inherited from the earlier NER Bo+Bos (EF1) but the EM1s rode abominably despite the very long wheelbase, so much so that they were fitted with tractor style sprung seats for the drivers.

[Flying Pig]

9 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The Bulleid-Raworth bogie, in its 1-Co version, carried the buffers and draw gear, so therefore had to be built to withstand and transfer all the buffing, braking and traction forces between locomotive and train. That's why they were massive and over-engineered, compared to say a class 37 bogie.

 

Conventional powered bogies have to transfer tractive forces to the loco body, albeit they don't usually need to take drawbar loads directly.  However, most designs manage to do that while incorporating secondary suspension between the bogie and the loco body.  As far as I can tell, the B-R bogie has only the primary springing between the bogie frame and axlebox, and that a steam-era plate design, so it isn't really suprising if it was firm when fresh and deteriorated badly.  The LMS managed a more sophisticated solution for 10000/1 though at the cost of a much higher axle load.

 

The idea of an articulated bogie makes sense if it can relieve the bogie pivot of traction and braking forces.  It should the be possible to incorporate secondary suspension to give the loco a better ride.  Was that not done on the EM1s?

 

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

actually the type 3 was a bit of a sweet spot, with 33s and 37s also being successful machines, I don't think BR bought a bad type 3

 

I keep saying this, but if BR could have begun dieselisation with type 3s, the great majority of steam locos could have been painlessly cleared out with much less waste than was actually the case.  The cost might have been retaining class 7+ steam for a few years while reliable type 4 and 5 power was sorted out (which is pretty much what the Southern did), but steam would have been gone by about 1970 anyway.

[Northmoor]

6 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

I keep saying this, but if BR could have begun dieselisation with type 3s, the great majority of steam locos could have been painlessly cleared out with much less waste than was actually the case.  The cost might have been retaining class 7+ steam for a few years while reliable type 4 and 5 power was sorted out (which is pretty much what the Southern did), but steam would have been gone by about 1970 anyway.

I completely agree, most of the waste of dieselisation was in creating low-powered diesels to replace low-powered steam locos, on traffic that the top management wanted to be out of altogether.  My only caveat is that steam could have been economically retained for almost another ten years (just like in Germany, who were using older locomotives than in the UK), for traffic that the diesel replacement was no more suited to and sometimes less so.  Large numbers of low speed and short distance coal to power station trips were still using vacuum or unbraked stock during this period.  Putting your high value assets on this traffic (which was declining anyway) instead of written-down ones, doesn't make much economic sense to me.

[Flying Pig]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

Large numbers of low speed and short distance coal to power station trips were still using vacuum or unbraked stock during this period.  Putting your high value assets on this traffic (which was declining anyway) instead of written-down ones, doesn't make much economic sense to me.

 

And so we get to the late-period 9Fs of which RMweb is so fond, the only caveat being that they would not have been suitable for continuous loading and unloading of HAAs so would have become surplus quite quickly during the 1970s.

 

To add to my previous remarks - EE was building 1500hp units around the Mk II 12SVT by the time the Modernisation Plan appeared,which would have been a good starting point. Charge cooling raised that to 1750hp by the end offthe 1950s which gave us the 37s of course.

[Zomboid]

BR could well have just pretty much standardized on type 3s, and simply used two of them for trains needing more power, much like the American approach.

 

A deltic on one engine is a type 3, pretty much.

[Clive Mortimore]

11 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The Bulleid-Raworth bogie, in its 1-Co version, carried the buffers and draw gear, so therefore had to be built to withstand and transfer all the buffing, braking and traction forces between locomotive and train. That's why they were massive and over-engineered, compared to say a class 37 bogie. A similar arrangement, though different design, was used in the EM1 electrics, though the bogies were also physically linked together with a sturdy pin through an eye between the bogies. Whether this transferred all the traction forces, or was just to assist in steering the bogies through curves I don't know.

That is why the Peaks and English Electric type 4s were not allowed to propel independent snowploughs. If they hit a big drift the plough and bogie was likely to stand still and the body continue to move forward. When looking at photos of either class if involved in a crash the lead bogie and the body never seem to be in the right relationship with each other.

[Flying Pig]

23 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

BR could well have just pretty much standardized on type 3s, and simply used two of them for trains needing more power, much like the American approach.

 

A deltic on one engine is a type 3, pretty much.

 

Which is how the LMS twins were planned to operate.

[The Johnster]

Hear hear.  Sub 1.5khp traction proved largely ineffective except for double headed 20s which found a niche on MGR work. The concept was that Type 1 and 2 locos would replace steam up to class 5, based on information from the Rugby Testing Plant which seems to have badly underrated the power of the steam locos it tested, apparently in the order of about 25%.  A Hall or Black 5 really needed Type 3 replacement, and the Type 4 D200 was considered inferior to a Britannia by Sir Brian Roberstson when he rode on it’s inaugural train out of Liverpool St.  Higher powered Type 4s like the Peaks and 47s were capable of 9F work, but 8P steam needed Type 5 replacement, something unforeseen in the 1955 Modernisation Plan. Only the Deltics and the various E3xxx electrics could cut that particular mustard in the 60s. 
 

1960s timetable improvements came about as a result of relaying junctions and limiting loads; no real improvement over steam timings was achieved until the introduction of HSTs and more powerful electrics.  Sub class 5 work had more or less gone post Beeching, with the passenger work done by dmus.  

[Flying Pig]

38 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Only the Deltics and the various E3xxx electrics could cut that particular mustard in the 60s. 
 

1960s timetable improvements came about as a result of relaying junctions and limiting loads

 

 

I'm not sure these statements go together. 

 

[Compound2632]

On 14/04/2021 at 23:22, BernardTPM said:

The Great Western did use 6 wheel bogies on some heavier coaches, mainly restaurant/kitchen coaches and some sleepers.

 

On 14/04/2021 at 23:35, Coach bogie said:

 

I live and learn, even about the Great Western.

[Zomboid]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Only the Deltics and the various E3xxx electrics could cut that particular mustard in the 60s. 

The 4REP units might have something to say about that.

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

BR could well have just pretty much standardized on type 3s, and simply used two of them for trains needing more power, much like the American approach.

 

A deltic on one engine is a type 3, pretty much.

I keep saying it-a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's would have fulfilled 90% of BR's traffic requirements. All but the heaviest freights and fastest passengers would have been catered for.

[Flying Pig]

2 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I keep saying it-a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's would have fulfilled 90% of BR's traffic requirements. All but the heaviest freights and fastest passengers would have been catered for.

 

Naah - forget the type 1s altogether.  Start early with 1500hp EE type 3s and change up to 1750hp for later batches. Leave off building type 4s until 2700hp DP2oids are available.  Deltics (of course ) in small numbers for the ECML and Western, pending HST in the 1970s and/or more electrification. Two standard DMUs based on the Mk1 body - high and low density, perhaps with power options for demanding routes.  08s, 03 and that's yer lot until more type 5 freight locos are needed in the 70s.

[AlfaZagato]

Wasn't I arguing this a few pages ago?  Not necessarily the specific classes, but the concept of MU working with smaller locomotives?  Honestly, I think, in the US, only the UP really chased 'superpower.'   ATSF & BN, even the Milwaukee pushed MU working.

 

 

Actually, is there any inkling on the seeming aversion the UK builders had towards US designs?  Just thinking about it, I'm surprised that North British ended up building MAN designs.   If they had picked up, say, EMD, we might still have some aspect of NBL left.    Imagine a 21 with a 567.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

The 4REP units might have something to say about that.

Yes, they might, I unforgivably forget them.  The Clacton electrics were pretty quick as well, another one I forgot in my lococentric missive.

 

All glory to the Hypnotoad.

[Hroth]

27 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Actually, is there any inkling on the seeming aversion the UK builders had towards US designs?  Just thinking about it, I'm surprised that North British ended up building MAN designs.   If they had picked up, say, EMD, we might still have some aspect of NBL left.    Imagine a 21 with a 567.

 

Not in any particular order of probability.

 

• An aversion to buying US stuff when the UK was already deep in (war) debt to the US.
• Still not keen on importing diesel fuel or diesel powered locos when there was plenty of "cheap" coal available*
• Supporting British loco manufacturers when the oil/coal price differential became negligable

The list could no doubt be expanded!

 

* Until coal prices rose with increasing miners wages, etc.

 

 

[The Johnster]

14 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Wasn't I arguing this a few pages ago?  Not necessarily the specific classes, but the concept of MU working with smaller locomotives?  Honestly, I think, in the US, only the UP really chased 'superpower.'   ATSF & BN, even the Milwaukee pushed MU working.

 

 

Actually, is there any inkling on the seeming aversion the UK builders had towards US designs?  Just thinking about it, I'm surprised that North British ended up building MAN designs.   If they had picked up, say, EMD, we might still have some aspect of NBL left.    Imagine a 21 with a 567.

Early diesel developement in the UK was very heavily influenced by US practice, and was apparent in the body styling and gangway connections, but the policy of the 1955 plan was to use British made components as far as possible.  German engines were allowed, but build here (sometimes indifferently according to all accounts) under license.  American diesel prime movers were generally low powered, 1.5k tops, and the concept was multiple running to the extent that many 'power units' were built without cabs.  There was a difficulty with these 'first generation' diesels in supplying generators that could handle the higher power outputs, one of the reasons for the WR adopting hydraulic transmission.  Generators were heavy, bulky with respect to the limitations of the loading gauge; there were no takers for Type 3s in the original 1955 Plan tender invitations, and the only Type 4s were the 40s and Warships, scraping into the power band.  The power/weight ratio of the 40s rendered them effectively Type 3 equivalents; when you took into account the 38 ton (more than a coach, nearly two loaded 16ton minerals) weight and 250hp difference between them and the 37s there is not much difference once the loco is in traffic.

 

Traffic conditions in the US were different; axle loads were higher, the loading gauge much more generous, vehicles heavier, and trains much longer.  Here, there was no point in trains of more than 60 wagons/20 coaches length unless special signalling arrangements were in place for them.  Plenty of takers for Type 1 and 2 locos for which there were readily available engines and generators that could handle the outputs, and these were all designed for multiple working with gangways in the case of the Type 2s.  The loco we needed was simply not available in 1955, and arguably not in 1960; Deltic dates from 1955 but was unacceptable to anyone except on the ECML where it's prima donna maintenance regime was considered worth it. 

 

I'd agree that a Type 3 capable of multiple working would have been able to handle pretty much any job BR could have thrown at it, triple headed for the heaviest fastest passenger work and the more brutal freight hauls.  But a triple headed 37 lashup weighs 315 tons, about the trailing load of most 1960s passenger trains, and the extra length is going to be pushing things in some loops and refuge sidings.

 

Ivatt was on the right track with the twins, 1.5khp equivalent to a Black 5 and double headed 3khp equal to a Duchess.  But BR was clearly more impressed with the Bullied/Rawory locos and ordered 40s, which were impressive to look at but not particularly inspiring in performance; their best work was probably hauling freight around the Midlands and north of England; the weight gave them plenty of Brake Force.  That the behemothic frame and bogies re-appeared under the 44, 45, and 46 is probably the result of looking for a chassis beefy enough to handle the weight of the generators, sort of transition locos between first and second generation diesels which had supercharged engines but retained a 1950 frame and bogie that was really a bit obsolete when it was used under the 40s and should have not been recycled for the Peak classes. 

 

What could have been the alternative?  The best available at the time was probably the A1A under the 31s, but because of the excess length bogie mounted buffers and drawgear were required.  The 31 is another overweight, the same size and weight as a Western for half the power. 

 

A 37 was beyond possibility in 1955, as were the 33 and Hymek. 

[Zomboid]

11 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

37 was beyond possibility in 1955, as were the 33 and Hymek. 

The Ivatt twins were type 3s. Possibly a little on the heavy side to be go anywhere locos like 37s, but a reasonable 1500hp loco should have been achievable in 1955.

 

The class 33 was ordered in 1957, so not that far off. Though I'm not sure that the Type 1/2/3/4 system had been adopted by then.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

A 37 was beyond possibility in 1955

 

As I've already mentioned, EE were already building locomotives for export using the 12SVT Mk II which could deliver 1500hp - i.e. almost the equivalent of the LMS locos but with a smaller engine and hence suitable for conventional six wheeled bogies at a usable axle loading.  That's at the low end for type 3 but would still have been an adequate traction unit to begin mass dieselisation and upgrading later batches to full class 37 status when the 12CSVT came along would have been fairly simple.

 

I think there was a pernicious idea that top link power needed to be dieselised first, or at least early, and that drove the purchasing of the underpowered early type 4s.  It's understandable given the rampant modernism of the 1950s and 60s, but not particularly rational.  The last steam in service should not have been mid-powered 5MTs and 8Fs (which could have been replaced off the shelf ten years earlier) five years after 8Ps had given way to class 40s.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, it certainly highlighted the inordinate rush that caused so much junk to be procured. Claytons, anything from NBL, even the class 25's were not that brilliant juxtaposed* with the 26 and 27

 

The better types were certainly four stroke EECo. with exception of the class 40 and the class 33 from BRCW. It is entirely moot as to how lion would have faired although with the success of the class 33 I would suggest that large numbers would have been good engines.

Despite numbers built the class 47 got off to quite a ropey start and should BR have chosen DP2 in its original form instead of the overly complicated class 50 that arrived five years later then again things could have been quite different.

 

Do remember that the original plans for electrification were considerably cut back from what was proposed. It is interesting to think that there could have been at least a couple hundred class 85's or similar rather than all of those class 47's if the ECML had been juiced up sooner.

 

*A word for The Johnster's appreciation.

 

Gibbo.

[john new]

When Hawksworth(?), Ivatt and Bullied were CMEs I get the idea the usual 5 point process was the idea:-

1. idea and check it’s’ feasibility and likely cost-effectiveness
2. develop prototypes
3. test
4. refine
5. roll out a series of standards 

Then the subsequent plans went a bit awry due to various issues. The BR steam standards were built in a rush and market forces overtook them, as for the rush to dieselise it seemed to be an idea introduced (without the other checks), skipping steps 2-4, and the roll out a notch-potch of good and bad.

 

Hindsight gives 20:20 vision, the conceptual ideas (1) were broadly correct when made but then failed in the execution.

 

Whatever you think of Thompson’s actual designs like Riddles his step (1) idea of looking at reducing the sheer variety of LNER loco types was sound.

 

Even before the grouping options to swap out steam were being experimented with/installed; we must not overlook that the pioneer electric loco was nineteenth century. 1840 Davidson.

 

If anything, and I appreciate this is being flippant, steam was the interloper that eradicated canal, horse and cable traction (arguably also far too rapidly with experimental items just like the modernisation plan diesels)  and then by being so widespread and embedded seriously delayed a much earlier transition to electrification and internal combustion 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by john new
Finished off the post (had to answer phone earlier)

[Budgie]

On 11/04/2021 at 16:25, DK123GWR said:

Not unless I can find a suitable RTR chassis for it. I'm not yet at the level of being able to fit valve gear in places that aren't designed for it.

 

I couldn't think of one, but then I saw the picture of the GWR steam railmotor to be released by Kernow, in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. You could use the power bogie from one of those. 

[john new]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

...snipped ..

Do remember that the original plans for electrification were considerably cut back from what was proposed. It is interesting to think that there could have been at least a couple hundred class 85's or similar rather than all of those class 47's if the ECML had been juiced up sooner.

 

*A word for The Johnster's appreciation.

 

Gibbo.

Counter-factual history is an interesting topic. If the NER had been able to do what Raven had clearly wanted/expected when he arranged for No.13 to be built, given that the specification anticipated the subsequently intended class working over the NBR inclines on the route beyond Newcastle into Edinburgh, also probably fewer Gresley/Thompson/Peppercorn A* class steam pacifics too. The early Gresley A1s in the 1920s would only have been needed working the ECML Ex-GNR section KIngs Cross - Leeds/York, Leeds-York &/or Ripon-Darlington, north of Edinburgh, the ex-GCR main line etc. Had the NER passenger electrics been successful how much further south would the ECML have been wired?

 

Sadly real world events over took the conceptual plan; Gresley examined high speed diesels and determined steam could do it with more comfort, the GWR investigated electrifying into the West Country but again without implementation. 

[AlfaZagato]

Back to imaginary locomotives, how about a Garratt-Shay?  Totally impractical, but cool