Imaginary Locomotives

[Welchester]

1 hour ago, john new said:

The GWR investigated electrifying into the West Country but again without implementation. 

 

It has been suggested that this was simply a ploy to prevent Welsh colliery owners increasing the price of steam coal.

[PhilJ W]

9 minutes ago, Welchester said:

 

It has been suggested that this was simply a ploy to prevent Welsh colliery owners increasing the price of steam coal.

The problem for the GWR was that once it was out of the ground the coal started loosing its calorific value. Much of Cornwall was further away by rail from the coal fields than Paddington.

[john new]

29 minutes ago, Welchester said:

 

It has been suggested that this was simply a ploy to prevent Welsh colliery owners increasing the price of steam coal.

Quite possible. I know from my management years that reports can be commissioned for several reasons. Options could have been -

1. The coal prices issue you have mentioned
2. Or similar issue, perhaps loco footplate men stirring so suggest a major single manning proposal to shut them up
3. The most likely, serious logistics costs with steam in the far-west were costing the GWR £n,000s pa in just carting loco coal around, so chose to make a genuine assessment of how much it would cost to go electric and will the mega £ capital investment generate sufficient savings each year over the payback period to justify the repayments on the capital investment. It didn’t so they didn’t proceed.

I think I have read that (3) was the reason but don’t know enough about the GWR’s internal Director level politics to know whether it was the operating sections and the loco engineers trying to progress the technology and the Board blocked it (insufficient cash savings) or a Board proposal to modernise ultimately proved to be a bad investment if proceeded with as more expensive overall than the status-quo.

[Zomboid]

At the time there wasn't a national grid, and presumably they'd have followed the normal practice of early electrification of operating their own power station. Which would probably have been coal fired. So they'd have been carrying coal to the south west for traction power either way.

 

What kind of locos would they have used, though? Something bizarre like the Ae4/7? An auto coach with a pantograph?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

At the time there wasn't a national grid, and presumably they'd have followed the normal practice of early electrification of operating their own power station. Which would probably have been coal fired. So they'd have been carrying coal to the south west for traction power either way.

 

What kind of locos would they have used, though? Something bizarre like the Ae4/7? An auto coach with a pantograph?

 

More likely coal would have been brought round by sea.

[Welchester]

11 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The problem for the GWR was that once it was out of the ground the coal started loosing its calorific value. Much of Cornwall was further away by rail from the coal fields than Paddington.

 

I take your point, but the GWR used Welsh steam coal throughout its system, not just in the West Country, and any reduction in price represented an enormous saving for the Company.

[john new]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

At the time there wasn't a national grid, and presumably they'd have followed the normal practice of early electrification of operating their own power station. Which would probably have been coal fired. So they'd have been carrying coal to the south west for traction power either way.

 

What kind of locos would they have used, though? Something bizarre like the Ae4/7? An auto coach with a pantograph?

It is some time since I read the articles about the GWR plan for the SW electrification but none are currently to hand. If anyone does have copies to hand it might give some clues.

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

What kind of locos would they have used, though? Something bizarre like the Ae4/7? An auto coach with a pantograph?

 

It's been discussed previously, possibly on this thread, but I can't find the posts just now.  There was a very nice picture of a what-if GWR electric loco.

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It's been discussed previously, possibly on this thread, but I can't find the posts just now.  There was a very nice picture of a what-if GWR electric loco.

Did it have a copper capped pantograph?

[Compound2632]

53 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Did it have a copper capped pantograph?

 

Good for conductivity.

[ScottishRailFanatic]

I’m sure some of you have heard of the proposed GWR Cathedral class, so I decided to take it one step further. I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the Palace class!

[Zomboid]

The trailing axle doesn't seem to do much. Would work just as well as a 4-8-0.

[Flying Pig]

I did a GW 4-8-0 once and called it a Super King.  In retrospect, I'm not sure naming it after a cigarette was the effect I was looking for.

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

There must be a serious flat on that front driving wheel...

[John Besley]

6 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I’m sure some of you have heard of the proposed GWR Cathedral class, so I decided to take it one step further. I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the Palace class!

That trailing truck will be in the way of the rear ashpan damper for cleaning out the ashpan... should the tender have higher sides?

[ScottishRailFanatic]

16 minutes ago, John Besley said:

That trailing truck will be in the way of the rear ashpan damper for cleaning out the ashpan... should the tender have higher sides?

That’s an excellent point - I was questioning whether to put that in there. A high-sided tender might do better, I’ll update it tomorrow.

[John Besley]

6 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

That’s an excellent point - I was questioning whether to put that in there. A high-sided tender might do better, I’ll update it tomorrow.

While your about it check the set up on the front boige as it doesn't look right, might be better off with one from a Castle .... and adjust the splashers as they need to be above the wheels, what type of boiler are you proposing, it might be better with a boiler off a Princess, bear in mind the length of the firebox for hand firing...

[ScottishRailFanatic]

8 minutes ago, John Besley said:

While your about it check the set up on the front boige as it doesn't look right, might be better off with one from a Castle .... and adjust the splashers as they need to be above the wheels, what type of boiler are you proposing, it might be better with a boiler off a Princess, bear in mind the length of the firebox for hand firing...

Looks like this has gone from minor amendments to complete redesign! I’m looking forward to this... 

[rodent279]

That, or the boiler from a PLM Chapelon 4-8-0.

[MikeRich]

On 13/04/2021 at 15:39, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Welcome to the team! Prepare to dive down a nearly bottomless pit of alternative histories, design mysteries and 'what-if' paradoxes! 

Thank-you, and now I'm wondering further 'what ifs?'

 

Perhaps the LMS should have built locomotives for the Woodhead route - perhaps to bring coal to Merseyside. An electric locomotive comparable to the EM2s but with the styling of 10000/10001 is rather tempting. 

 

Or maybe British Railways decided it did need Type 3 diesels from the start and commissioned a small number of prototypes based on 10000/10001 but with the Bulleid styling. They might not have been pretty, but they would have been really useful engines - albeit inevitably cursed with faulty train heating boilers.

[Pacific231G]

On 16/04/2021 at 18:59, john new said:

 

 

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 

 

But was it? Canals, even Britain's rather feeble narrow canals, continued to carry a great deal of freight, though a diminishing proportion of  the total, throughout  the era when railways were dominant.  and more of it the low value high bulk freight that needed low cost more than speed, . Coastal shipping was also very important and in Britain probably handled the freight that in most of Europe travelled on the major inland waterways. It was the dominance of road transport from the end of the war that really eradicated the canals as commercial undertakings and all but eradicated coastal shipping.  The number of working horses engaged in transport actually went through the roof when the railways really got going as the tsunami of freight they created mostly needed horses to take it the last mile or three. Before the railways, most of that freight simply didn't exist. Again, it was the application of internal  combustion to road transport that really killed off the working horse. Cable haulage was just another form of steam haulage and, except on steep inclines, a far less efficient and practical one. There are still plenty of cable hauled railways - they're called funiculars. 

Where coal was less available and hydro power more abundant, electrification proceeded far earlier. Switzerland is the obvious case but Italy's railways went for electric traction early enough for steam locos to not see the sort of development they did elsewhere (there was no Italian André Chapelon)  and in France the Midi went for 1500V DC electrification pretty early on while even rural tramways with three trains a day were being electrified at alarmingly high AC voltages , 10 kV seems a lot of volts to run above village streets (the high voltage meant that a fairly long line could be fed without need for intermediate sub-stations so, for example, the entire extensive network of Haute Vienne was all fed from  Limoges taking power from a hydro station) I think the ability of electric traction to handle long steep gradients without any drama was also a factor.   

 

What I do find curious are the US railways that electrified but then reverted to diesel haulage. It's also interesting that, until the  late 1940s, the assumption seems to have been that steam would gradually give way to electric traction but diesel traction would largely be confined to shunting and railcars.  I assume that the war gave a major impetus to the development of more powerful compact diesel engines and diesel electric technologies in general. 

[john new]

On 18/04/2021 at 18:02, Pacific231G said:

But was it? Canals, even Britain's rather feeble narrow canals, continued to carry a great deal of freight, though a diminishing proportion of  the total, throughout  the era when railways were dominant.  and more of it the low value high bulk freight that needed low cost more than speed, . Coastal shipping was also very important and in Britain probably handled the freight that in most of Europe travelled on the major inland waterways. It was the dominance of road transport from the end of the war that really eradicated the canals as commercial undertakings and all but eradicated coastal shipping.  The number of working horses engaged in transport actually went through the roof when the railways really got going as the tsunami of freight they created mostly needed horses to take it the last mile or three. Before the railways, most of that freight simply didn't exist. Again, it was the application of internal  combustion to road transport that really killed off the working horse. Cable haulage was just another form of steam haulage and, except on steep inclines, a far less efficient and practical one. There are still plenty of cable hauled railways - they're called funiculars. 

Where coal was less available and hydro power more abundant, electrification proceeded far earlier. Switzerland is the obvious case but Italy's railways went for electric traction early enough for steam locos to not see the sort of development they did elsewhere (there was no Italian André Chapelon)  and in France the Midi went for 1500V DC electrification pretty early on while even rural tramways with three trains a day were being electrified at alarmingly high AC voltages , 10 kV seems a lot of volts to run above village streets (the high voltage meant that a fairly long line could be fed without need for intermediate sub-stations so, for example, the entire extensive network of Haute Vienne was all fed from  Limoges taking power from a hydro station) I think the ability of electric traction to handle long steep gradients without any drama was also a factor.   

 

What I do find curious are the US railways that electrified but then reverted to diesel haulage. It's also interesting that, until the  late 1940s, the assumption seems to have been that steam would gradually give way to electric traction but diesel traction would largely be confined to shunting and railcars.  I assume that the war gave a major impetus to the development of more powerful compact diesel engines and diesel electric technologies in general. 

Agreed, I did say I was being flippant. In  my article on Why displace the horse (in the Early Railways 6 Conference papers) I did give a much fairer overview. Although the graph is an approximation it is an assessment of how horse, steam and modern traction evolved/are evolving as %s of their peak use. Clearly steam was extremely important in transport development during the nineteenth century but you can see why I was making a flippant case  regarding steam being the short-term interloper. 

• 400+ years of horse traction (250 as the dominant power)
• 200+ years for steam (circa 100 years as the dominant power)
• 180+ years for modern electric/IC (circa 50 years and ongoing as the dominant power)
  • Hydrogen etc, wasn't included but clearly now needs adding into the mix as the desirability of diesel is being challenged.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by john new
Lost image(s) restored August 2022

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Although the graph is an approximation it is an assessment of how horse, steam and modern traction evolved/are evolving as %s of their peak use.

 

 

What is the justification for lumping all forms of mechanical power other than steam under 'modern traction'?  

[john new]

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

What is the justification for lumping all forms of mechanical power other than steam under 'modern traction'?  

Complexity of the graph, electric would follow the same timeline, though flatter though to start with; then how do you split IC between oil, diesel, and petrol (and more latterly hydrogen) in a graph, which in context, was aimed at showing the curve for the horse's history as a prime mover. With electric, also would you further break it down into battery, OH (Also by voltage?), rail pick up (Several formats). 

 

As Pacific251G stated the sheer scale of horse usage by rail companies was phenomenal - circa 28,000 in 1915 but still only down to around 9,000 after WW2. Somewhere I have more accurate figures but my notes from the work I did pre the 2016 Conference are not currently to hand. Pre-COVID there were still at least six, possibly more, horse worked tourist railed trams systems worlwide.

[AlfaZagato]

10 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

What I do find curious are the US railways that electrified but then reverted to diesel haulage. It's also interesting that, until the  late 1940s, the assumption seems to have been that steam would gradually give way to electric traction but diesel traction would largely be confined to shunting and railcars.  I assume that the war gave a major impetus to the development of more powerful compact diesel engines and diesel electric technologies in general. 

At least two of the US 'heavy' lines that electrified, Great Northern and Milwaukee Road, electrified early to DC.   Neither line ever fully wired, either.   The Milwaukee had two separate electrified divisions, with unique systems - meaning steam or diesel had to take over at either end of either division.  After about 50-60 years in service, either way, the system was heavily used and worn.   Both lines decided that expanding their existing diesel fleets was more cost-effective than updating aging infrastructure.   

 

I think the Pennsy's AC network, of similar vintage but higher and richer traffic, is still partially in use as Amtrak's North East Corridor.   More local to me is the South Shore.  They dieselized freight some time ago, though passenger service is still interurbans.   I'm pretty certain the Virginian's network was destrung by some aspect of the ever-expanding cluster**** that is Norfolk-Southern.  Maybe CSX - who are somehow worse.