Imaginary Locomotives

[Suzie]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

...I'm pretty certain the Virginian's network was destrung by some aspect of the ever-expanding cluster**** that is Norfolk-Southern...

 

...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...

 

The virginian become 1-way after the merger, meaning that all the electric locos would end up at one end with no way to get back via the non-electric parallel route. The locos went to the Pennsylvania and became class E33.

 

It was the piecemeal nature of the electrification that killed the American use of electrification for freight. When trains changed locos frequently in the steam era it was no big deal to change for an electric loco just to go over the mountains, but when a single set of Diesels could go all the way changing locos became a chore.

 

If the Milwaukee Road had filled in the middle 216 miles with electrification it would have worked (they already had 645 miles in the two electrified sections), 3KV DC was not the end of the world, but the accountants in the most short term outlook in history saw selling all the electrification equipment for scrap as a more profitable exercise than running a railway efficiently.

[RLBH]

On 16/04/2021 at 10:59, Flying Pig said:

The LMS managed a more sophisticated solution for 10000/1 though at the cost of a much higher axle load.

I seem to recall that the LMS pair actually did less damage to the track than the later BR 1Co-Co1 arrangement, despite the higher axle load, because the suspension was superior.

[RLBH]

4 hours ago, Suzie said:

the accountants in the most short term outlook in history saw selling all the electrification equipment for scrap as a more profitable exercise than running a railway efficiently.

American railroads and the British government take the same capital-limited approach to electrification - while it saves money later, they'd rather not spend the money now to get the benefit. Diesel traction may be more expensive in the long run, but you can buy more or fewer locomotives depending on the budget, rather than having to commit to an expensive programme of electrification up front then stick with it to see the benefits.

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, RLBH said:

I seem to recall that the LMS pair actually did less damage to the track than the later BR 1Co-Co1 arrangement, despite the higher axle load, because the suspension was superior.

These LMS bogies re-appeared under the EM2 ancient Greek pantograph pantheon and in AIA form with the North British D600 Warships, where AFAIK they were considered satisfactory.  

[ScottishRailFanatic]

As promised, here’s Palace Mk2! 
This version has the following changes:

- Duchess boiler

- Amendment to chassis to a 2-8-2 with larger rear pony truck

- Extended County-style splashers 

- Extended tender sides

 

Any improvements to the design I’ve missed out?

 

[Corbs]

Cool! IF I was being critical (I ran into similar issues when I did a GWR 2-8-2 a while ago) - the driving axles are spaced too far apart, if you squeeze them all together as with the LNER P2 where the flanges are almost touching, they should fit more comfortably under the boiler, then you can move the rear pony truck forward as all it's doing at the moment is holding the cab up (cabs are relatively light in comparison).

[john new]

22 hours ago, RLBH said:

American railroads and the British government take the same capital-limited approach to electrification - while it saves money later, they'd rather not spend the money now to get the benefit. Diesel traction may be more expensive in the long run, but you can buy more or fewer locomotives depending on the budget, rather than having to commit to an expensive programme of electrification up front then stick with it to see the benefits.

This assumes your accountancy regime, whether micro or macro/national sized, lets you spend it now. When computerising new services/replacing older gear back in the 90s we were forced to lease kit (more expensive overall) because if we bought outright it was less kit on the ground in year one. We all knew at local level it was not the most cost-effective way of doing it but it was the best way to utilise the £n we had available within the rules then applicable.

 

At national level now someone has made the decision to spend a % of their £ megabucks budget on HS2, without reopening the debate on whether HS2 is good or bad, that same % of the rail budget is therefore not available for other projects like the electric spine, GWR mainline, trans-Pennine wiring, cross-rail2  etc. 

 

 

[Mike 84C]

Looks much better, Corbs is right about the driver spacing, tight is right or even compact! But please throw away the King type axleboxes go for ones as fitted to 47's or 53's just plain spoked. I think a Chapelon trapezoidal firebox would work best fitting between the frames at the front and over them at the back, a slightly longer combustion chamber, keeping the tube length about 14-6"/ 15' so maybe the smokebox would have to be lengthened a bit rearwards. As regards the rear pony truck, Nord Super Pacifics had them under the cab so did Pacifics for the BAGS in Argentina and a number of different types in the USA. Had a thought about where to hang the brake blocks, the Americans tended to hang them lower than GB say in the 19.30hrs/ 20.00hrs position. Must have made the maintenance much easier but then it wasn't invented here! Hope this helps.

[JimC]

Look at Castles (or the Bear) for GW brake arrangements with driving wheels that almost touch. 

[2251]

On 17/04/2021 at 13:04, 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.

There is a detailed discussion in vol 3 of the History of the Great Western Railway, pages 152-156. There is no information about the locomotives, but it shows very clearly that the proposal was not economic.

 

The costings showed that electrification (it was proposed to wire "all lines west of Taunton") would required net capital expenditure of £4.36 million. That would result in a net annual working saving of £100,500 but by the time depreciation was added, the bottom line annual saving compared with steam would only be £32,714. That represented only a 0.75% return on capital,  and the unsurprising conclusion was not to proceed further. 

[Compound2632]

40 minutes ago, 2251 said:

There is a detailed discussion in vol 3 of the History of the Great Western Railway, pages 152-156. There is no information about the locomotives, but it shows very clearly that the proposal was not economic.

 

The costings showed that electrification (it was proposed to wire "all lines west of Taunton") would required net capital expenditure of £4.36 million. That would result in a net annual working saving of £100,500 but by the time depreciation was added, the bottom line annual saving compared with steam would only be £32,714. That represented only a 0.75% return on capital,  and the unsurprising conclusion was not to proceed further. 

 

But that sounds like a stich-up. The figures would have been thoroughly skewed by the large costs and small savings for long branch lines such as those to Barnstaple and Minehead. Had an analysis been done of electrification between just Exeter and Plymouth?

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But that sounds like a stich-up. The figures would have been thoroughly skewed by the large costs and small savings for long branch lines such as those to Barnstaple and Minehead. Had an analysis been done of electrification between just Exeter and Plymouth?

To be fair, the GWR at that time may not have appreciated the economics of electrification being based on traffic frequency, not tonnage.  I agree electrifying one-coach branch lines would be a nonsense, but they probably looked at electrification as eliminating the one set of infrastructure (for steam), not duplicating it with another.

[rodent279]

I suppose, regarding coal deliveries still being required to fuel the necessary power station/s, at least they would be concentrated into 2 or 3 sites, and could be supplied by block trains, rather than having to run smaller trains to dozens of loco sheds distributed throughout the area.

Plus of course there would be no ash to dispose of, or water supplies to provide and maintain.

If only the trunk routes were electrified, that would mean the branches still have to be worked by steam. Even if you used a large fleet of diesel railcars for passenger traffic on the branches, that still leaves freight services to be catered for, to the likes of Minehead, Barnstaple etc. Unless you go for diesel locos for those, you still need the steam infrastructure.

And if you are going to use diesels for branch line passenger & freight, why not use diesels for the trunk routes as well?

I guess what I'm saying, not very eloquently, is electrification probably only made sense if you could eliminate totally the use of steam traction, and all the associated infrastructure, in the entire region.

Edited April 23, 2021 by rodent279

[AlfaZagato]

Were the GWR railcars capable of any reasonable haulage?  If one could manage 5-7 wagons, I'd imagine that would be sufficient for regular branch service - especially as use of one of the parcels cars for the job could eliminate 1-2 wagons a day.

 

I might be underestimating traffic on the stereotypical 'bucolic GWR branch.'  Still, I know a handful of such actually existed.

 

 

If that was the case, then yes, electrifying the trunk routes, while leaving branches to other modes of transport would make financial sense.

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Were the GWR railcars capable of any reasonable haulage? 

 

Discussed here.  I don't think reloading traffic into a parcels car just for the trip along the branch would be regarded as efficient.

 

 

[rodent279]

I'm sure a railcar could manage a couple of vans a couple of times a week, but that leaves the question of how you'd handle the seasonal traffic-the summer broccoli for instance?

[Northmoor]

18 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'm sure a railcar could manage a couple of vans a couple of times a week, but that leaves the question of how you'd handle the seasonal traffic-the summer broccoli for instance?

You'd send it by road, at (once the railways had lost their obligation) half the price and probably half the time, end-to-end.

[AlfaZagato]

51 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'm sure a railcar could manage a couple of vans a couple of times a week, but that leaves the question of how you'd handle the seasonal traffic-the summer broccoli for instance?

As @Northmoor said, or possibly by having full-on diesel locomotives - or old steam locos, held for just such a purpose.

[PhilJ W]

The predecessors of the 08 shunters started to come on stream in the mid 30's and the GWR were looking into diesels for trip working from the early 30's. The class 14's were thirty years too late. 

[JimC]

51 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

As @Northmoor said, or possibly by having full-on diesel locomotives - or old steam locos, held for just such a purpose.

Trouble is you start looking at 3 sets of infrastructure, steam, diesel and electric, 3 sets of staff etc etc and the operational complications as well. 

[rodent279]

3 minutes ago, JimC said:

Trouble is you start looking at 3 sets of infrastructure, steam, diesel and electric, 3 sets of staff etc etc and the operational complications as well. 

So, regards electrification, either you do the lot, and do away with steam completely, or you leave alone. Doing just the trunk routes probably didn't add up, because you'd still need either steam or diesel to handle passenger and freight on the branches. Hence you can't eliminate the infrastructure and other overheads required for steam completely.

Edited April 23, 2021 by rodent279

[Compound2632]

All very well, but other electrification schemes that were under serious consideration before the Great War focused on main lines: York-Newcastle, Derby-Manchester, Preston-Carlisle. Whilst the latter two were reasonably self-contained "mountain" sections, with only a handful of branches, the York-Newcastle was more akin to the Great Western west of Taunton - a main line with many secondary lines branching off or crossing it. Of course in the NER's case many of those secondary lines were main lines in their own right, not country branches. 

 

Exeter-Plymouth would be more akin to, though both shorter and less intensively worked than, the Midland and LNWR proposals. It would, in fact, have been ideal: Brunel had built it as an electrified railway, except that he didn't have the electrical technology. But the principle was there.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Compound2632

[john new]

10 hours ago, 2251 said:

There is a detailed discussion in vol 3 of the History of the Great Western Railway, pages 152-156. There is no information about the locomotives, but it shows very clearly that the proposal was not economic.

 

The costings showed that electrification (it was proposed to wire "all lines west of Taunton") would required net capital expenditure of £4.36 million. That would result in a net annual working saving of £100,500 but by the time depreciation was added, the bottom line annual saving compared with steam would only be £32,714. That represented only a 0.75% return on capital,  and the unsurprising conclusion was not to proceed further. 

 

The above is exactly why feasibility studies get commissioned and also highlights why consultants sometimes get criticised because the delivered report is not acted upon, therefore seen as a waste of money. It is all about who really wants an answer and how they frame the question to get the answer they want. It was why I phrased a post earlier the way I did. When the spec' was written who decided that building in every possible route mile was what they wanted a price for? That brings in questions like (1) was whoever wrote the details deliberately attempting to show retaining steam was cheaper overall (Say  a CME team wedded in steam), (2) was it the Board being naively simplistic because they didn't truly understand what they were asking of the consultant or (3) they did know what they were asking for and genuinely wanted to see if it was financially possible. 

 

On the ECML a decision was made that comfort and speed (The steam flyers) were a better investment than the German high speed diesel units but someone had to do that assessment.

[PhilJ W]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Exeter-Plymouth would be more akin to, though both shorter and less intensively worked than, the Midland and LNWR proposals. It would, in fact, have been ideal: Brunel had built it as an electrified railway, except that he didn't have the electrical technology. But the principle was there.

Atmospheric and cable operated lines where just waiting for the technology. There is still the question of the line through Dawlish, even today there is a question mark with regard to electrification. 

[rodent279]

But is stopping every train to change engines at Taunton/Exeter, and again at Plymouth, a desirable outcome?

Really you want a change of engines made at either Exeter or Taunton, and the replacement (electric) loco working through to destination. That would make more sense than a change from steam to electric at Taunton, then back to steam at Plymouth.