Imaginary Locomotives

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

As Watkin was a man of grand (grandiose?) ideas and a Director of CF du Nord and the South Eastern Railway, what would the impact of SER/Nord going for a roll-on/roll-off train ferry in the 1880s? Mostly for freight, maybe one sailing a day in each direction with passengers? The train ferry across the Forth was an example, but a small one - 30-34 wagons only, and a short crossing. I also couldn't find out how often it was cancelled due to bad weather.

 

I'm thinking he might have upgraded (some of) SER's loading gauge from small to compatible with Nord's. We might then have seen Nord locomotives turning around at Kings Cross-York Road!

Watkin was also involved with the Metropolitan and Great Central. The Metropolitan widened lines  are a tight squeeze anyway.  

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Watkin was also involved with the Metropolitan and Great Central. The Metropolitan widened lines  are a tight squeeze anyway.  

 

And of course the Channel Tunnel. His dream was a direct service between the two greatest cities of Western Europe. We still don't have it.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Compound2632

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, DenysW said:

We might then have seen Nord locomotives turning around at Kings Cross-York Road!

I suspect that it wouldn't have taken long for an Edwardian channel tunnel to be electrified, in the manner that some of the crossings of the Rockies were. Or perhaps we'd have ended up with some Cab-Forward loco designs.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I suspect that it wouldn't have taken long for an Edwardian channel tunnel to be electrified, in the manner that some of the crossings of the Rockies were. Or perhaps we'd have ended up with some Cab-Forward loco designs.

 

The work carried out by Watkin's Channel Tunnel company was in the early 1880s, which is I think just a whisker too early for electric traction. They had the example of the Severn, Mont Cenis, and Hoosac Tunnels, all steam-worked.

[PhilJ W]

12 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I suspect that it wouldn't have taken long for an Edwardian channel tunnel to be electrified, in the manner that some of the crossings of the Rockies were. Or perhaps we'd have ended up with some Cab-Forward loco designs.

When the Channel tunnel was seriously considered electrification was in its infancy. The proposed traction was compressed air locomotives. One was used in the initial tunnels built in the 1880's.

https://www.lookandlearn.com/history-images/U316453/Beaumont-Compressed-Air-Locomotive-used-in-the-Channel-Tunnel-Works?img=18&search=4+March+1882

To operate the trains 2-4-2 locomotives were envisaged with centrally mounted air tanks and a driving position at each end.

[Zomboid]

I would still argue that it would have been electrified pretty early in the scheme of these things, as it would have been very long and there's not really much scope for ventilation shafts. There's only so much that a large bore and cab forward locomotives can do for you.

 

Edit- Compressed air might have been viable initially, but after one generation of that, electrification would probably have been ready to use.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Zomboid

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I would still argue that it would have been electrified pretty early in the scheme of these things,

 

Yes. And I'm wondering what the adhesion and tractive effort of those compressed air locomotives would have been. Rope haulage might have been a better bet.

[PhilJ W]

The City and South London Railway was designed to be cable hauled. But by the time it opened in 1890 electric traction had been sufficiently developed for it to be used.

[JimC]

6 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I would still argue that it would have been electrified pretty early in the scheme of these things, 

Especially as it would surely not have been finished until the state of the art was much more advanced.

 

[DenysW]

As soon as Watkin's Channel Tunnel plan stated to get serious-ish, we're told the xenophobic hand of the Government squashed it. That's why I though a ro-ro train ferry. Much more tide and weather dependant than a tunnel, but much easier to close down without destroying it. 

[scots region]

My personal preference is a bridge from Dover to Calais. Though I can’t see how a 19th century British Government could agree to it, perhaps a written promise from Wilhelm II to never declare war in his lifetime. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by scots region

[DenysW]

With his fingers crossed behind his back, and not mentioning that this excludes the French, or the famed Belgian Bypass.

[john new]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

And of course the Channel Tunnel. His dream was a direct service between the two greatest cities of Western Europe. We still don't have it.

Sadly for common sense in transport matters UK wide resistance to the idea of a more closely integrated Europe has not changed over time nor, for many, does even the continuation of a governmentally united British mainland seem desirable. As for the islands that you might consider to be geographically British several are already NOT fully part of the UK. That this non-integration was the wish of a majority of those who turned up to vote recently we all know. This is not a political rant, just an observation that there isn't the national will amongst either the ordinary populace or the governmental agencies for the type of integration that in the short or medium-term will allow HS2 & HS1 to be connected such that (Cardiff or Manchester or Leeds) to Birmingham - London - Paris or Brussles/Koln will ever take place and nor will a Didcot International ever form a pax-interchange hub for the south of England as Lille has done for France.

 

The impact of several centuries of history has left these unhealed societal rifts.

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by john new
Added extra note

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, john new said:

Manchester

 

Just so.

[The Johnster]

As well as the issues John New brings up, there is also a congenital reluctance among the British to spend the money required on big railway investment.   This is, IMHO, in a large part down to the 'race memory' of the George Hudson Railway Bubble of the 1840s and the Overend Gurney bank collapse, also railway related, 20 years later.  The new middle classes, who are still the people whose benefit the country is run for and to some extent by, suffered horribly in these events; they'd all been promised that railways would make them rich, even that nice Prince Albert that the Queen had married thought they were A Good Thing, and now here they were in the workhouse or 'on the parish'.  They have never trusted railways since, and are unlikely to now.  Railway = spending other peoples' money badly, asking for more, giving an inadequate and overcrowded service, and asking again for more.  Sound familiar?

[DenysW]

All true, but the question was would a ro-ro train ferry Folkestone-Boulogne service have made enough sense to pay for the lesser investment than a tunnel or a bridge - and opened up London to seeing from Nord locos? And what would that have done to UK locomotive design?

[Compound2632]

 

On 31/10/2021 at 22:01, DenysW said:

All true, but the question was would a ro-ro train ferry Folkestone-Boulogne service have made enough sense to pay for the lesser investment than a tunnel or a bridge - and opened up London to seeing from Nord locos? And what would that have done to UK locomotive design?

 

I doubt that locomotives would have travelled on the train ferry - they certainly didn't either on the Firth of Forth at one extreme or the Golden Arrow at the other.

 

Anyway, those marvellous Nord compounds:

 

 

were designed by a chap who grew up in Sydenham.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Compound2632
image re-inserted

[John Besley]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

I doubt that locomotives would have travelled on the train ferry - they certainly didn't either on the Firth of Forth at one extreme or the Golden Arrow at the other.

 

Anyway, those marvellous Nord compounds:

 

 

were designed by a chap who grew up in Sydenham.

Didnt the GWR have a couple at one time...

[billbedford]

12 hours ago, DenysW said:

I'm thinking he might have upgraded (some of) SER's loading gauge from small to compatible with Nord's. We might then have seen Nord locomotives turning around at Kings Cross-York Road!

 

The SER and Nord had more or less the comparable loading gauges until after WW1 when the Nord was brought into line with other French lines. 

[The Johnster]

Space was at a premium on train ferry loading decks, so the locomotive would not board the ship.  Coaches are propelled aboard by a pilot engine or dropped over a flying bridge by cable, and drawn or winched off at the arrival port.  Crossings were about 3 hours in those days and it made sense for the loco that brought the train into the departure port to be turned and serviced to earn it's keep working something back, rather than sitting on a ferry for several hours. 

 

So, sadly, the idea of those lovely de Glehn compounds at Victoria. or purring through the middle roads at Ashford, or SECR D's gleaming in the sunshine at Gare du Nord, would never have been a reality even had ro-ro train ferries been available.  The 'Night Ferry' was of course just such a working, but the locos stayed on terra firma on their own sides.

[Zomboid]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Anyway, those marvellous Nord compounds:

 

 

were designed by a chap who grew up in Sydenham.

Lovely looking machine. Why the uneven axle spacing on the tender though?

[billbedford]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Space was at a premium on train ferry loading decks, so the locomotive would not board the ship.

 

I think it more likely that the ships were not built for the axle loading of working locos. 

[PhilJ W]

11 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

I think it more likely that the ships were not built for the axle loading of working locos. 

More likely that the weight of a locomotive could unbalance a ship. That is why only small and light shunting engines or reach wagons were used.

[Zomboid]

It'll be a combination of everything. The boats could have been built to take the locos, but the railway systems weren't sufficiently interoperable that the locos would have been able to work much away from their home system so that would have been a pointless expense. And they would have sit idle on the boat for the duration of the crossing when they could more usefully have been pulling a train away from the port. Hence boats for carriages and wagons only and special equipment to load/unload the boats.

 

A system designed to take locomotives on a RO/RO basis would have looked quite different to the one that existed.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Zomboid

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Lovely looking machine. Why the uneven axle spacing on the tender though?

 

Some scientifically-minded Alsatian on de Glehn's drawing office staff had calculated the optimum axle spacing for even weight distribution on the axles? (Failing to consider the changing weight distribution as coal and water are consumed - or perhaps not; did they calculate the mean weight distribution over an average journey?)