Imaginary Locomotives

[DenysW]

Not sure about the loading gauge as I don't think the German platforms were as high as ours, so the cylinders might be an issue. The Bavarian railways did start with imported British locos, so I assumed the differences would be tolerable. The axle loadings at about 16 tons don't look excessive. Top speed of 40 kph, so a design pretty specific to banking.

 

It's reported as about 1.1 - 1.2 MW output (depending on which batch), with a starting tractive effort greater than 70,000 lbf (depending on how you calculate the compounding). With the possible exception of some of the US logging locos it's the most powerful tank I've seen.

 

The grate is a surprisingly small 25 sq. ft., so that may limit its usefulness.

[DenysW]

No problem, flying pig. One reason I like this site is that people disagree and correct - without trolling. It's never personal.

[PenrithBeacon]

10 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

What about the loading gauge?

Would it have fit through the bridges?

 

Looking at it, I think it would be more powerful than the entire fleet of Midland 4-4-0 locos... 

 

 

 

DLDO did do a weight diagram of an 0-6-6-0 but the 0-10-0 was prefered

[Murican]

On the subject of the Lickey Incline, what if the LMS used its Garratt for use as the banker for said incline?

[sir douglas]

1911 proposals by the Midland for Lickey banker Meyers, taken from Donald Binns' Kitson Meyer book

[Murican]

Given what we've spoken about regarding the Gresley Mountains and Gresley P2s, what would have been possible names for a W2 4-6-4?

[DenysW]

LMS Garratts on the Lickey Bank. Well LMS had a chance to, and didn't. About the same tractive effort as the original Lickey Banker, much longer, and a generally bad fit with sheds across the network for coaling, watering, and ash dumping. LNER's Garratt was tried in the 1950s after the Worsborough Bank was electrified, and was not successful in the new duty. Same results, much more coal seems to have been the summary.

[Murican]

Here are my ideas for what the Gresley I1 (above) and the Peppercorn I2 (below) would look like. Taken from a book screenshot I found on the LNER site.

 

 

The same book apparently had the idea for an LNER 4-8-4.

[Murican]

35 minutes ago, DenysW said:

LMS Garratts on the Lickey Bank. Well LMS had a chance to, and didn't. About the same tractive effort as the original Lickey Banker, much longer, and a generally bad fit with sheds across the network for coaling, watering, and ash dumping. LNER's Garratt was tried in the 1950s after the Worsborough Bank was electrified, and was not successful in the new duty. Same results, much more coal seems to have been the summary.

In that case, would a Meyer or Mallet worked better as a successor to Big Berta?

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

No problem, flying pig. One reason I like this site is that people disagree and correct - without trolling. It's never personal.

 

You've not been on the many many track/gauge threads....

 

[Ben B]

I suppose being as we're talking about the Lickey Incline and 'What-if's', I've had a soft spot for the 'Big Bertha' since seeing it in a book when I was little, and was genuinely quite upset as a child to read it had been scrapped.  I think 4-year-old me, who'd visited the SVR and watched Thomas avidly just thought all steam locomotives got preserved.  Would be a nice what-if scenario, what-if the loco had been mothballed in Derby, then saved by the City of Birmingham as a historically-significant one--off, and entombed in the old industrial museum in the city?  Ah well, one can daydream   Sorry for the thread-drift.

[Cunningham Loco & Machine Works]

On 14/07/2021 at 10:29, Corbs said:

Turbinloks at work. The air pump is danged noisy, though!

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but they're disconcertingly quiet otherwise.

Doesn't look like it's too easy to keep the turbine steam tight, either.

[AlfaZagato]

BR tried Gresley's U1 Garratt on Lickey.    Evidently, local crews despised the smoke, so normally ran cab-end-first up the hill.   Running thusly led to water not consistently covering the firebox, which led to crews filling more water, which led to priming and a shortened boiler life.   Eventually replaced with a 9F wearing Bertha's electric light.

 

I'd imagine, unless they pulled a crew off of the Toton coal run, that any LMS-built Garratt would have had the same issue.

[rockershovel]

10 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

BR tried Gresley's U1 Garratt on Lickey.    Evidently, local crews despised the smoke, so normally ran cab-end-first up the hill.   Running thusly led to water not consistently covering the firebox, which led to crews filling more water, which led to priming and a shortened boiler life.   Eventually replaced with a 9F wearing Bertha's electric light.

 

I'd imagine, unless they pulled a crew off of the Toton coal run, that any LMS-built Garratt would have had the same issue.

 

why would the smoke particularly be an issue with the Garratt? I don't recall seeing this mentioned with the 0-10-0, and I can't imagine the smoke deflectors on the 9F contributed significantly at banking speeds. 

[DenysW]

The Bavarian design is a compound Mallet with a huge tractive effort, but maybe not the grate or boiler to support it for very long. Presumably long enough for the banking duties relevant to the Bavarian branch lines. Sir Douglas posted the Kitson Mayer version proposed to Derby: back down to about 40,000 lbf tractive effort, and a similar sized grate to the Bavarians. 

 

Smoke seems to be an issue with banking engines that work through tunnels. The LNER Garratt is reported as working tender-first on the Worsborough bank as frequently the third locomotive in the tunnels. The Virginian Railroad also used bankers (see its AE class - massive power, but 8 mph, and 30 tons/axle) and also had problems with smoke in tight-fitting tunnels. The Lickey Bank seems straight(ish) and tunnel-free, so I'm surprised the LNER Garratt had issues.

 

The LMS Garratts were preferentially run conventionally - tender-first apparently giving issues with coal dust. Covers were tried without much success. 

[PenrithBeacon]

13 hours ago, Murican said:

In that case, would a Meyer or Mallet worked better as a successor to Big Berta?

The issue with these designs is the throw over on curves. While the Lickey is mostly straight the points at both ends aren't.

Garretts articulation methods meant that the locomotive was much better fit in the loading gauge.

[Michael Edge]

4 hours ago, DenysW said:

The Bavarian design is a compound Mallet with a huge tractive effort, but maybe not the grate or boiler to support it for very long. Presumably long enough for the banking duties relevant to the Bavarian branch lines. Sir Douglas posted the Kitson Mayer version proposed to Derby: back down to about 40,000 lbf tractive effort, and a similar sized grate to the Bavarians. 

 

Smoke seems to be an issue with banking engines that work through tunnels. The LNER Garratt is reported as working tender-first on the Worsborough bank as frequently the third locomotive in the tunnels. The Virginian Railroad also used bankers (see its AE class - massive power, but 8 mph, and 30 tons/axle) and also had problems with smoke in tight-fitting tunnels. The Lickey Bank seems straight(ish) and tunnel-free, so I'm surprised the LNER Garratt had issues.

 

The LMS Garratts were preferentially run conventionally - tender-first apparently giving issues with coal dust. Covers were tried without much success. 

The Garratt was always worked chimney first on the Worsbrough to keep the firebox crown covered, the two tunnels at Silkstone Common were not very long but on a curve and nominally 1 in 40 gradient. Additiionally most of the trains were going up at not much more than walking pace and a double load (60 wagons) would have two O4s on the front and frequently another one and the Garratt on the back.

[John Besley]

10 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The issue with these designs is the throw over on curves. While the Lickey is mostly straight the points at both ends aren't.

Garretts articulation methods meant that the locomotive was much better fit in the loading gauge.

Didnt they end up useing half a dozen panner tanks per train in the end?

[rodent279]

10 minutes ago, John Besley said:

Didnt they end up useing half a dozen panner tanks per train in the end?

Which can't have been any better, in terms of smoke emissions, surely?

[rockershovel]

I should think that being the third, or even fourth engine through a tunnel would be perfectly foul. I seem to remember there were issues with face-masks provided for crews on the Garratt?

[Hroth]

25 minutes ago, John Besley said:

Didnt they end up useing half a dozen panner tanks per train in the end?

 

That was when they used the LMS 3F tanks.

 

It was usually a couple of 94xx Panniers. Apparently the last steam banker was Helmingham Hall, which replaced a failed Type 3 diesel in October 1965.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Hroth

[RedGemAlchemist]

On 10/07/2021 at 23:07, Compound2632 said:

 

Funny you should say that. Here's F.W. Webb's 3-cylinder compound 0-4-0:

 

 

On 12/07/2021 at 20:30, rockershovel said:

One for the Hornby fans    

Both of these genuinely look like something I'd have designed.

[Corbs]

14 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

why would the smoke particularly be an issue with the Garratt? I don't recall seeing this mentioned with the 0-10-0, and I can't imagine the smoke deflectors on the 9F contributed significantly at banking speeds. 

I read it was not the smoke that was an issue on the Lickey, but the sheer length of the loco made buffering up difficult (especially at night).

Hence turning the loco so the cab was closer to the train being banked.

I think the story about the smoke being an issue may be confused with the Garratt being used as a banker on the GC route where the incline was often in a tunnel and the crew were inhaling two or three locos worth of smoke.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Corbs

[PenrithBeacon]

2 hours ago, John Besley said:

Didnt they end up useing half a dozen panner tanks per train in the end?

I haven't seen any footage showing so many. The most I've seen is two Panniers or Jintys and a 9F.

[Flying Pig]

There are pictures (google 'lickey incline bankers') of five or six 3Fs descending the bank together, but four is the most banking locos I found actually working together and that was 94xx panniers.

 

An alternative approach for banking the Lickey would have been to electrify from Bromsgrove to Blackwell, perhaps on the same AC system as the Morecambe branch.