Imaginary Locomotives

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It is a little obscure as to why an auto-fitted 57xx was not used instead.

 

There were plenty of other classes that were being autofitted, as you describe in your post. The demand for auto-fitted locos wasn't that high.

 

What surprises me is the number of 2021/2101s that were auto-fitted. Not exactly speedy engines.

 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, John Besley said:

A pair of Auto trailers running as a DMU would make an interesting model - bit like a Budd rail car...

 

It would certainly confuse the cognoscenti if observed on a layout! 

 

But hey, an Airfix auto trailer is cheap enough to buy for chopping up as an experiment and as a two car unit would make an interesting strengthener on a blt in place of the usual Tank loco/B set combination!

 

[DenysW]

The pre-WW1 German attempt to answer this, mostly Bavarian, but a few in Prussia, was the PtL/2/2 (nick-named glass boxes). A one-man-operated steam engine pulling a couple of branchline coaches and a post wagon. The last one was withdrawn in 1960. The stoker was eliminated by a (mostly) self-fed boiler, and the cab was huge to allow the driver to remain adequately presentable to do the guard's work.

 

An interesting variant on the thinking that ends up with the steam rail-car.

[Northmoor]

The issue with the GWR not expanding the DMU fleet is that they used them on services other than where the greatest financial savings could have been made, which shows they weren't confident in the technology (and let's be honest, the GWR was very conservative with tech development).  We've mentioned using DMUs on branch lines, but it the available traffic won't fill two carriages six times a day, a DMU will just mean you lose a bit less money; the infrastructure and station staffing costs means the operator still hemorrhages cash.  The real benefit is on higher-frequency, high-volume traffic, like Johnster says, in the South Wales Valleys, where for significant parts of the day, the passengers could fill six coaches two or three times/hour.  Here, the cost savings of the mass changeover from steam to DMUs must have been substantial.   

[john new]

On 01/01/2022 at 00:39, JimC said:

Which probably should have been replaced with railcars since having a Riddles Std 2 or for that matter a 4575 towing a coach or two with a dozen passengers in was a pretty wasteful exercise. They aren't things I've devoted much thinking time to but I wonder why there was a ~ 15year pause between the last of the GWR cars and the first BR? 

 

It is often argued big diesels didn't happen due to foreign exchange issues, fuel imports versus UK coal, labour/union issues etc., etc., during and post-war. It is logical to assume that also applied to smaller diesels too. Add in the need to retrain staff, re-equip works and running sheds, build new fuel depots it is likely the potential revenue savings in crew costs and a potentially better availability % did not create a  sufficiently convincing saving to justify the capital cost or, more significantly, the political and labour issues that would need to be overcome. 

 

Edited January 2, 2022 by john new
Typo

[Hroth]

Perhaps not the GWR itself, but perhaps post-nationalisation the Western Region might have struck out on their own with a "pre pilot scheme" DMU based on the autotrailer concept. They had experience with the now-ageing* railcar fleet as singles and multiples, it could be that an autotrailer based system wide DMU would have hastened the development of our now familiar dmu fleets.

 

* 10 to 20 years old and WW2 by Nationalisation?

[tythatguy1312]

I believe that's the Derby Lightweight, or at least the closest approximation

Edited January 2, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[brack]

Experience shows that running a system half dieselised was more problematic than going the whole hog, as maintaining the two in the same facilities/sheds causes no end of trouble. Knowing something is cheaper and works better in the long run isn't the same as bring able to make the shift. I'm quite aware that my running costs would be significantly reduced were I to replace my 2003 vw polo with an electric vehicle, i also know that such a switch is pretty much inevitable in the future, but I simply don't have the capital to make the initial purchase or install a charging point at this moment, or more accurately I cannot justify using the capital/credit I have access to when there are more pressing demands on it.

 

Perhaps fair to say the GWR/WR had proved the concept of diesel railcars, as indeed all the big 4 had proven the 6 coupled diesel electric shunter as being vastly better for shunting stock, but felt they had more pressing needs/uses for the capital they had (like hundreds of obsolete steam shunting locos).

Likewise the NER's electrification schemes were obvious successes, but circumstances meant they couldn't be expanded - indeed shildon-Newport was dewired at the same time as the woodhead electrification was planned/begun.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

Perhaps not the GWR itself, but perhaps post-nationalisation the Western Region might have struck out on their own with a "pre pilot scheme" DMU based on the autotrailer concept. They had experience with the now-ageing* railcar fleet as singles and multiples, it could be that an autotrailer based system wide DMU would have hastened the development of our now familiar dmu fleets.

 

* 10 to 20 years old and WW2 by Nationalisation?

This is pretty much in line with my thinking, with the A38/9 Hawksworth trailers produced as powertwin dmus in 1949, possibly after trials with a set of converted older types.  The next development might have been 3-car suburban sets based on the 1953 A43/4 conversions (or ths similar 1938 Lydney-Sharpness composite trailers), the 'cyclops' compartment stock, with an all 3rd as a central trailer.  This could have been done alongside or instead of the auto trailers, and compatibility with the steam system would have been desirable if it was possible, so that unpowered auto trailers could be used in conjunction with the dmus. 

 

The suggested compartment stock dmus might have led to a generation of flat-ended 'cyclops' suburban sets not dissimilar to the Southern Regions demus.  The A39s were similar in internal layout to the later 'cross country' 3 car sets, and I envisage gangwayed 3-car sets in BR green livery with speed whiskers running in the 1960s.  The WR was pretty distinctive in it's use and design of dmus (and a few other matters), in reality, preferring 'cross country' and 'inter city' types and not using any 57' or 2-car sets until the '70s.  Perhaps my proposed A39 based sets would have had hydraulic transmission...

 

Had there not been Nationalisation in 1948, I would imagine that the LMS and LNER would have bought dmus in the mid to late 50s and early 60s, and these would very likely have been the same Metro-Cammel, BRCW, Cravens and so on 57footers that BR bought.  LNER ones would have been green and cream, and the Southern would have done exactly what the Southern Region of BR did in reality (and they accuse Swindon of being 'individualistic'!), in the same liveries.  In fact, the companies would have very likely bought in diesel locomotives very similar to the 1955 Modernisation Plan types, with similar results, abject failure in different liveries...

 

And before anyone suggests it, I've got too much going on at Cwmdimbath to build models of any of these...  If anyone fancies a go at the A39s, they are 64footers and can sit on Bachmann or Lima underframes.  The cyclops sets would be harder, but 57' underframes could probably be used if you accept a little overhang.  The centre trailers were converted from 55' C66 or C75s.  The differing lengths of this range of coaches came about because of the different combinations of standard sized compartments used in a sort of 'modular' combination.

 

 

[whart57]

A way dieselisation might have proceeded might have been following the Netherlands Railways changes to freight handling. In the 1930s the NS bought 50 of these petrol engined shunters

 

 

The context was two-fold. On the one hand the phasing out of unbraked goods vehicles meant goods train speeds could be increased. However time savings made by running trains faster would be lost if there was shunting required at intermediate stations. So the idea was to drop off a string of wagons and leave it to the local station staff to sort them out. However most stations didn't have enough shunting work to justify firing up a steam engine for the day, or tying up a trained driver. Hence the light IC shunter which could be started up when needed and could be driven around within station limits by a trained shunter. They could even be driven from the footboard.

 

These lightweight shunters proved very successful in all respects except one, they were too slow and not powerful enough to do trip workings to a nearby wayside station or private siding. So version 2 was more powerful, diesel engined and had a proper cab, though retaining the capability of being driven from the footboard

 

 

This is the well-known "sik" of the Dutch railways. Introduced in the 1930s the last examples hung on into the 21st century. Apart from yard shunting they also provided the main motive power on many of the rural tramlines and light railways that stayed open for freight after the passengers had moved over to buses. The picture above is from 1986 at Vinkeveen where it was exchanging wagons with a mainline diesel in order to take them on to Uithoorn.

 

So in an "imaginary engine" spirit, what would British equivalents have looked like? One issue I see is that I doubt the British unions - ASLEF in particular - would have been happy with trained shunters driving things.

 

[RedGemAlchemist]

39 minutes ago, whart57 said:

So in an "imaginary engine" spirit, what would British equivalents have looked like?

I imagine the end result would be akin to the Triang Dock Authority 0-4-0DM.

[jcm@gwr]

5 minutes ago, RedGemAlchemist said:

I imagine the end result would be akin to the Triang Dock Authority 0-4-0DM.

 

Or a development of the Wickham trolley?

[brack]

Reminds me of this:

 

 

Already got the footboard on (although it didn't always have them).

 

Could be driven from inside or alongside the cab.

 

[The Johnster]

ASLEF certainly would not have accepted this without a struggle; they did not have good relations with the NUR, which represented other 'Traffic' grades, including shunters, travelling shunters, and guards.  The 'Footplate' grades were a different line of promotion, and men from the Traffic line could not apply for Footplate grade jobs except by sacrificing their seniority and starting again as new entrant engine cleaners.  ASLEF, and indeed footplate culture in general, was pretty protectionist.  It might be possible to have reached a compromise solution in which the little tractor diesels were manned by shunters within yards, not on running lines, and under drivers' supervision, but there is a demarcation here, in that movements in the yard are by handsignals given by staff on the ground under the authority  of the yard foreman .

 

The drivers therefore did not 'sign the road' within yards. route knowledge applied to running lines.  Drivers, and passed firemen, had to sign that they were familiar with a route in regards to permanent speed restrictions, route availability, signals including subsidiary signals, signal box opening hours, gradients, permitted loads for all classes of trains, track circuits and so on.  In a yard, they were under the handsignalled instruction of a man on the ground acting under the yard foreman's authority, and he moves the loco in accordance with these handsignalled or verbal instruction, so does not need to know where he is going, as his speed will be controlled by the man on the ground, who does.  Of course, in practice, drivers were intimately familiar with the yards and private sidings they worked in, but this was not covered by route knowledge.  The signals allowing entry to and exit from the yard, and the speed limits of those movements were covered by route knowledge.

 

Would a shunter trained to drive the little yard locos be allowed to apply for jobs in the Footplate Grade line of promotion?  Would the yard loco need to have a qualified driver from the Footplate Grade and with route knowledge if it was required to move outside the yard confines, on a trip. transfer, or pickup working for example?  Would it's Traffic Grade driver be allowed to drive it on running lines with a Footplate Grade man who had signed the road as a route pilot?  Would the Traffic Grade man be allowed to act as a route pilot to a Footplate Grade driver of a 'proper' locomotive?  Traffic Grade guards and travelling shunters had to sign for route knowledge and be passed out on signalling and other matters relating to working trains on running lines, and in this respect were 'equal' to the Footplate Grades.

 

There were some drivers who were NUR men and not members of ASLEF, and some who were members of both; would this have made a difference?  A lot of questions to be sorted out, and my basic instinct is that this is a good idea but would not have been taken up by the main line companies in the UK.  Ideal solution for some private sidings, though.

[PhilJ W]

7 hours ago, Hroth said:

Perhaps not the GWR itself, but perhaps post-nationalisation the Western Region might have struck out on their own with a "pre pilot scheme" DMU based on the autotrailer concept. They had experience with the now-ageing* railcar fleet as singles and multiples, it could be that an autotrailer based system wide DMU would have hastened the development of our now familiar dmu fleets.

 

* 10 to 20 years old and WW2 by Nationalisation?

Not forgetting the Irish Park Royal DMU's that were in layout identical to the GWR diesel railcars with their side mounted vertical engines and were in service before the BR DMU's. Post WW2 more powerful engines had been developed such as the Albion units used in the class 128's, originally developed for tanks. To upgrade the push-pull stock to diesel could not a a diesel power car be coupled between a pair of push pull coaches and able to carry parcels and even passengers?

[brack]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

To upgrade the push-pull stock to diesel could not a a diesel power car be coupled between a pair of push pull coaches

Producing something like the walker railmotors used in queensland and on the GNR(I), though minus the articulation?

 

 

 

 

[62613]

37 minutes ago, brack said:

Producing something like the walker railmotors used in queensland and on the GNR(I), though minus the articulation?

 

 

 

 

That almost looks like an earlier version of one of the units running in East Anglia.

 

[JimC]

20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

  It is a little obscure as to why an auto-fitted 57xx was not used instead.

Large (4'7) panniers were very rarely chosen for auto fitting in the days before the dedicated autoclasses, and by and large those few that were were of the oldest and weakest classes. As noted 4'0 wheel classes esp 2021 were the preferred choice. Larger wheels were almost all 4 coupled types. The gear seemed to be added and removed with such frequency that I wonder if taken off when a loco was stripped down it was reinstalled on the next candidate going to the desired location. 

 

But as to why those apparent policies, I haven't found anything. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by JimC

[tythatguy1312]

It may be due to the 57xx being more powerful, and thus it could've been seen as a waste to shove 1 between 2 autocoaches for commuter or rural service. As for why the GWR wouldn't consider keeping 50 of them in storage to be more of a waste, I'm unaware

[whart57]

14 hours ago, 62613 said:

That almost looks like an earlier version of one of the units running in East Anglia.

 

 

The concept of a motor carriage in between two driving carriages was another Dutch innovation in 1934. This picture though shows a unit in post-war years. (But before the 1956 re-classification of compartment classes into 1st/2nd instead of 2nd/3rd)

 

 

The diesel motor and electrical generator were in the middle carriage and traction motors were fitted to the six wheel bogies carrying both centre and outer cars.

 

Up to four three car units could be coupled together, though two or three was more usual.

 

The purpose of these units however was to replace steam on the so-called Middle Net, which were the lines from Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam going East to Arnhem and then linking up with the Deutsche Reichsbahn. I don't think any units ever crossed the border to Kleve or Emmerich. In 1934 the lines going north to south from Alkmaar through Amsterdam and on to the border station of Roosendaal where trains were handed over to the Belgians had already been electrified and plans existed to electrify the Middle Net too. These units would then have moved on to other non-electrified sectors such as the line to Groningen. World War Two intervened though

 

Just before WW2 did intervene though Werkspoor delivered an extended five car version

 

 

Now in our imaginary world could we have the LNER and LMS in their hidebound ways trying to make steam modern, the Southern electrifying as fast as it could and the GWR deploying streamlined diesel sets like these on its lines to Bristol, the West and Birmingham via Oxford. Forty years before Intercity 125.

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, whart57 said:

the GWR deploying streamlined diesel sets like these on its lines to Bristol, the West and Birmingham via Oxford. 

 

What would be the objection to using them on the direct Birmingham route via Bicester? Lack of capacity?

[BernardTPM]

As these are not locomotives, wouldn't they best be discussed in the 'Fictional Units' thread?

Edited January 3, 2022 by BernardTPM

[tythatguy1312]

3 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

wouldn't they best be discussed in the 'Fictional Units' thread?

I believe such a division is meaningless given discussion of a shrunk NSW Tangara Set took place in this thead

[BernardTPM]

9 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I believe such a division is meaningless given discussion of a shrunk NSW Tangara Set took place in this thead

Then that was in the wrong place too!

To be honest it would be better to rename this thread and combine them together - perhaps as "Imaginary motive power".

[JimC]

A process which if taken to its logical extreme leaves us with a single topic of "stuff". I submit that this thread generates quite enough traffic already. Mea culpa, I shouldn't have started this diversion.