Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

The WR sort of went down this route in the eary 60s with the D95xx, though this was considered as a replacement for the 94xx rather than the 15xx, which was designed as a heavy dock shunting loco capable of negotiating sharp curvature and inspired by the success of the USATC locos used at Barry and Newport during the war.  The Southern were so impressed that they bought some! 

 

Both 94xx and 15xx were employed on Paddington-Old Oak ecs workings, allegedly because the GW and WR were concened about the image of 8750s, which looked old fashioned with their big domes, in prominent public view from the lawn at Paddinton.  Sir James Milne, the last GW General Manager, ensured that the first 10 of the 94xx class, the only ones built by the GW before nationalisation, were used on this work.  But the basic function of the 94xx was to replace the remaining pre-grouping South Wales 0-6-2Ts, as part of the GW's ongoing policy towards these locomotives.  More than half the 210 strong class were allox South Wales depots, replacing TVR A & 04s, Rhymney P, R, & Ms, and the like, many of which had been rebuilt with GW standard boilers.  In fact, Collett originally designed the no.10 boiler used on the 94xx and 15xx, and the 2251, for use on the pre-grouping locos.

 

The loco in the photo is not really comparable to a 15xx, which was specifically designed for sharp curvature.  It look more suitable for 94xx work; transfer freight and the shorter haul colliery trips.  I very much doubt that a loco like this would be imported from Germany or built here under license in the late 40s or early 50s when the 94xx were being produced though; eyebrows were raised even 10 years after nationalisation when the V200 inspired Warships were built under license. 

 

The question then becomes one of whether a home producer would have been able to build something like this in 1947.  800hp diesel electrics were being developed, like 'Hawk' and 10800, which were later incorporated into the 1955 plan as the D80xx, D82xx, and D84xx, much along the lines of American 'road switchers'.  Diesel hydraulic industrial locomotives were available, and presumably upping the size  and power of these could have been done, to produce a centre-cab with low bonnets and the transmission beneath the cab floor, perhaps with an engine at each end.  I am not knowledgeable enough to comment regarding the possibility of the hydraulic pump and transmission, along with the gearbox and jackshaft, being made small enough to fit under the cab within the British loading gauge and simultaneously able to handle 800hp power output from the engine(s) in the late 40s.

 

An interesting proposal, though, and a perfectly cromulent might have been.  My feeling is that it would have been a little underpowered to replace the Rhymney locos, though capable of TVR 04 work.  The real replacement for the TVR A was the late build 41xx series and the standard 3MT tank.

[Mol_PMB]

There are some other might-have-beens with Irish inspiration.

The Irish Metrovick-Crossley locos (A and C class) had just the same engine reliability problems as BR's Co-Bos, and they were solved by re-engining both classes with EMD prime movers.

Similar to what happened with the 57s and more recently the 69s, but several decades earlier.

After that they were very successful and long-lived, with the A class lasting over 40 years.

I wonder what a GM-engined Co-Bo would have looked like, and whether they would have survived a couple more decades? I can visualise them in Regional Railways colours on Manchester-Barrow services...

 

 

[Andy Kirkham]

39 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I wonder what a GM-engined Co-Bo would have looked like, and whether they would have survived a couple more decades? I can visualise them in Regional Railways colours on Manchester-Barrow services...

An interesting thought, but re-engining didn't save the Class 29s; I don't know if that is because they were still rubbish. But I suspect it is just that by 1970 or so, BR just had more locos than it needed due to loss of freight traffic, and anything non-standard had tO go, even if it worked OK.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Andy Kirkham

[Andy Kirkham]

9 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

... and that set me thinking on the GNR(I) and GWR parallels. The Western Region was heavily into diesel-hydraulics based on German technology, and the GNR’s only main-line diesel loco was also a DH from Germany. What if the GWR/WR had ordered a batch of these instead of the 1500 panniers?

 

Is that machine as conspicuously tall as it seems? The entrance door completely below the level of the glazing seems a very continental thing. Did Ireland have a more generous loading gauge than GB as well as a wider track gauge?

[Mol_PMB]

Ireland did have a slightly more generous loading gauge width-wise, but it wasn't that different in height. On many English diesels the door threshold was a fair way above the footplate. I suspect this basic design could have been massaged to fit the UK loading gauge, as occurred with the Warships.

 

[Ramblin Rich]

1 hour ago, Mol_PMB said:

I wonder what a GM-engined Co-Bo would have looked like, and whether they would have survived a couple more decades? I can visualise them in Regional Railways colours on Manchester-Barrow services...

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

An interesting thought, but re-engining didn't save the Class 29s; I don't know if that is because they were still rubbish. But I suspect it is just that by 1970 or so, BR just had more locos than it needed due to loss of freight traffic, and anything non-standard had tO go, even if it worked OK.

Would you really want to keep the Co-Bos? Definitely not the most attractive diesels in the shed; I've said before, they look like they're been run into an ugly wall. Fast!

The Irish Metrovicks were quite handsome by comparison. The Co-Bos suffered due to having to incorporate a gangway in the cab front, but even so an asymmetric wheel arrangement just looks wrong. They were always going to suffer early withdrawal by being non-standard.

[Mol_PMB]

6 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

 

Would you really want to keep the Co-Bos? Definitely not the most attractive diesels in the shed; I've said before, they look like they're been run into an ugly wall. Fast!

The Irish Metrovicks were quite handsome by comparison. The Co-Bos suffered due to having to incorporate a gangway in the cab front, but even so an asymmetric wheel arrangement just looks wrong. They were always going to suffer early withdrawal by being non-standard.

A good point, perhaps my imagination was getting the better of me!

I was once lucky enough to drive one of the WAGR 2-Do-2s on a mainline railtour, still with its Crossley engine. The engine room was black with oil from top to bottom and and I recall leaving an embarassing set of black footprints across the white marble platform of Perth Central Station!

I agree that the styling of the Irish and Aussie locos was better than the Co-Bos. But in this imaginary thread it would be interesting to see a Co-Bo in a more imaginative livery that broke up the awkward shape.

[Ramblin Rich]

7 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

..... it would be interesting to see a Co-Bo in a more imaginative livery that broke up the awkward shape.

Black. Black! EVERYTHING BLACK! *

Preferably with a blanket over it like you do with noisy parrots....

I admit it, I really don't like class 29s

 

 

 

* slightly obscure Fast Show reference

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

An interesting thought, but re-engining didn't save the Class 29s; I don't know if that is because they were still rubbish. But I suspect it is just that by 1970 or so, BR just had more locos than it needed due to loss of freight traffic, and anything non-standard had tO go, even if it worked OK.

Indeed, the Class 29s were only withdrawn due to being non-standard; their reliability was markedly improved over the MAN-engined version. 

 

As well as building new steam for too long, BR built far too many type 1s and 2s and for too long, considering what was already happening to the traffic for which they were designed.  They were still building Class 20s and 25s in 1967/8 - the former to replace the already given-up-as-a-bad-job Clayton Class 17s - while withdrawing the traffic they were being built for.  They (Claytons) tended to double up on freights both to cope with reliability worries and to be able to haul the load, when a Class 37 would have been more economical (one engine to maintain instead of four).  There should really have been perhaps 500 Class 37s (an extra 200-odd) with a commensurate reduction in Type 1s and 2s; there is a reason they are still in main line service at almost 60 years old.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Northmoor
Missing word

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Andy Kirkham said:

Is that machine as conspicuously tall as it seems? The entrance door completely below the level of the glazing seems a very continental thing. Did Ireland have a more generous loading gauge than GB as well as a wider track gauge?

The layout of a Diesel Hydraulic with a jackshaft in this position will likely be with the pump, torque converter, and gearbox beneath the cab, which will have a raised floor to accommodate it; there will be steps inside the cab door, offset to one side to allow the door to open inwards.  The cab has been moved upwards sufficiently to require tapering inwards towards the roof to clear the loading gauge.  
 

Compare Warships and Westerns, which both towered over the coaches.  Both had steps inside the doors, and the Westerns had a complete vestibule separate from the cab. 

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Indeed, the Class 29s were only withdrawn due to being non-standard; their reliability was markedly improved over the MAN-engined version. 

 

As well as building new steam for too long, BR built far too many type 1s and 2s and for too long, considering what was already happening to the traffic for which they were designed.  They were still building Class 20s and 25s in 1967/8 - the former to replace the already given-up-as-a-bad-job Clayton Class 17s - while withdrawing the traffic they were being built for.  They (Claytons) tended to double up on freights both to cope with reliability worries and to be able to haul the load, when a Class 37 would have been more economical (one engine to maintain instead of four).  There should really have been perhaps 500 Class 37s (an extra 200-odd) with a commensurate reduction in Type 1s and 2s; there is a reason they are still in main line service at almost 60 years old.

I've said this before-a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's would have handled all but the fastest passenger and heaviest freights, and would have really been all that BR needed. I suspect a lot of the reason for the proliferation of motive power in the same power range from different manufacturers was possibly political-a way of subsidising private locomotive builders and equipment suppliers by the back door.

[AlfaZagato]

27 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I've said this before-a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's would have handled all but the fastest passenger and heaviest freights, and would have really been all that BR needed. I suspect a lot of the reason for the proliferation of motive power in the same power range from different manufacturers was possibly political-a way of subsidising private locomotive builders and equipment suppliers by the back door.

I think there was also a hesitation to go all-in with one make, in the face of generally failing industry. 

 

Capacity may have also been an issue.   I doubt EE could have kept up the gap if Brush and the like had been ignored.

[Ramblin Rich]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I've said this before-a fleet of 20's, 37's & 40's would have handled all but the fastest passenger and heaviest freights, and would have really been all that BR needed. I suspect a lot of the reason for the proliferation of motive power in the same power range from different manufacturers was possibly political-a way of subsidising private locomotive builders and equipment suppliers by the back door.

...except the 40s turned out to be a bit underpowered for the work they were intended for and rather overweight. An evolutionary move to higher engine power and better, lower weight construction would still have needed to happen. We could have had 2000hp versions based on the 37 but still needed something like  Lion/DP2/class 47 in the 2750hp range eventually. And if we wanted to avoid all eggs in the EE basket, Sulzer engines would still be in the mix.

I'd go for bigger fleets of 33s as a mid range loco with good power/weight ratio, keep BRCW in business and roll out fleet version of Lion. Just out of loyalty to Birmingham. 

[The Johnster]

Why bother with 40s when you could have 37s, nominally 250hp less at the engine output, less of a difference at the rail head, and 40 tons (or two loaded minerals or a coach and a third lighter), as well as taking up less space at the depots.  BR could have run pretty much everything with 20s in pairs for mineral work, 37s for general mixed traffic and 47s for heavy freight or fast passenger work.  By the mid 70s there would be a demand for a fast passenger loco that could manage more than 95mph with 350tons, but by then the HST was on the horizon.  There was no real need for any of the Type 1s apart from the 20s, or any of the Type 2s, or the hydraulics, or the Deltics.

 

But that wasn't how the 1955 Modernisation Plan worked; there was an intention to try out as many different prototypes as possible, the WR was given far too much autonomy and so was the East Coast route in the matter of the Deltics, prima donnas about as far from the Plan design brief as possible; at least the railway didn't buy them outright!  The Plan might have been more effective than it was; after all, the idea of trialling a large number of prototypes in  service at a time when there was very little experience in the UK of running main line diesel locomotives in general traffic was basically sound, but far too many types were ordered in large numbers before being fully trialled.  Some types that performed to spec were really not needed, especially the 24s, 25s. 26s and 27s, though I accept that the dissappearance of the traffic they were intended to haul was not fully appreciated in 1955.  The 47 should have been capable of working in mulitple, and a standard system of mulitple working should have been established across all motive power including electrics and multiple units, as should a standard cab layout and fault finding system so that traction knowledge could apply to all motive power.

 

08s should have been kept off transfer and trip freights that they were too slow to be used for, and single 20s used instead.  There should have been two types of multiple unit, in 2, 3, and 4 car alternatives, a high density type and a low density type, all on the standard 64' underframe and irrespective of diesel, 3rd rail electric, and the overhead electric systems.  The high density sets should have been geared for rapid accelleration to a top speed of 70mph, and the low density sets for less rapid accelleration to 90mph.

 

[AlfaZagato]

All of that is well and good, and about what happened in the UK eventually.   I simply don't think the concept existed in 1955.   Design and traffic offices were still in the steam mindset.   

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 47

 

Once you've mentioned the 47 you're up against the historical reality that showed that very little else was needed, certainly for the changed traffic requirements of the 1960s and 70s.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The layout of a Diesel Hydraulic with a jackshaft in this position will likely be with the pump, torque converter, and gearbox beneath the cab, which will have a raised floor to accommodate it; there will be steps inside the cab door, offset to one side to allow the door to open inwards.  The cab has been moved upwards sufficiently to require tapering inwards towards the roof to clear the loading gauge.  
 

Compare Warships and Westerns, which both towered over the coaches.  Both had steps inside the doors, and the Westerns had a complete vestibule separate from the cab. 

 

I wouldn't say Warships and Westerns towered over the coaches... a few inches difference perhaps.

 

 

 

 

[ScottishRailFanatic]

On 21/09/2021 at 08:36, Mol_PMB said:

... and that set me thinking on the GNR(I) and GWR parallels. The Western Region was heavily into diesel-hydraulics based on German technology, and the GNR’s only main-line diesel loco was also a DH from Germany. What if the GWR/WR had ordered a batch of these instead of the 1500 panniers?

 

I see your German DH, and I raise you a Class 19!

[33C]

I've seen this loco in a cheap, Chinese train set, battery driven. Yellow or red and 00 gauge. 

[rodent279]

The one I'd like to know more about is the super Clayton that was built. Information seems scarce, I don't think it did more than a couple of test runs. Not imaginary, I know, but you could imagine if a fleet of production locos had been built.

Edited September 23, 2021 by rodent279

[Gibbo675]

12 hours ago, rodent279 said:

The one I'd like to know more about is the super Clayton that was built. Information seems scarce, I don't think it did more than a couple of test runs. Not imaginary, I know, but you could imagine if a fleet of production locos had been built.

Hi Rodent,

 

Ask @jessy1692 as he built one and is likely to as much as any one else:

 

Gibbo.

 

[jessy1692]

50 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

Ask @jessy1692 as he built one and is likely to as much as any one else:

 

Gibbo.

 

Cheers Gibbo, evening @rodent279, ask away although iv probably forgotten quite a bit since I built it! As much background as I could gather went into the build thread and it got published in Traction Modelling a few years back with some extra pics.

 

Never thought anyone would do one RTR so thought I'd give it a go.

 

Drop me a line if you want any drawings.

Cheers

James

Edited September 23, 2021 by jessy1692

[Mike 84C]

Interesting idea using GM prime movers for re-engining BR diesels. From what I have read it took quite a while for GM to be persuaded to sell  567's to CIE, I got the impression it was a reputational thing, they wanted to sell the complete package, new loco plus back up. Which of course would make GM more profit.

   As regards the WAGR X class didn't they make something like 1200+ mod's to the Crosley prime mover?

[Mol_PMB]

Yes, you’re right that GM were initially reluctant to supply just engines to CIE. I think a combination of the trial re-engining of two C class and an order for 181s persuaded them. 

 

WAGR did indeed do a huge number of modifications to the X class to make them acceptable. But they never reached the reliability of their EEs or GMs. 

 

Now, imagine that BR had ordered their Crossley-Metrovicks as 2-Do2 like the Aussie ones! 

[rodent279]

On 23/09/2021 at 20:15, jessy1692 said:

Cheers Gibbo, evening @rodent279, ask away although iv probably forgotten quite a bit since I built it! As much background as I could gather went into the build thread and it got published in Traction Modelling a few years back with some extra pics.

 

Never thought anyone would do one RTR so thought I'd give it a go.

 

Drop me a line if you want any drawings.

Cheers

James

Thanks, I don't intend to build one, my scratchbuilding skills are about on a par with my ballet dancing skills.....

I'm just interested to know more about it.

That's s very good model you made, I reckon an RTR model would be hard pressed to better it. I love the red & cream colour scheme, it's a pity there wasn't a production run.