Imaginary Locomotives

[whart57]

The Southern probably didn't last long enough to need new shunter. 

 

An interesting possibility though is if nationalisation hadn't happened but electrification of mainlines did. Would the Southern have gone for electrically hauled freight? The train engine could not shunt yards so would the solution have been small shunting diesels like the AW ones mentioned earlier or the Dutch siks. Continuing with steam shunters would not have been an option. 

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

The Southern probably didn't last long enough to need new shunter. 

 

An interesting possibility though is if nationalisation hadn't happened but electrification of mainlines did. Would the Southern have gone for electrically hauled freight? The train engine could not shunt yards so would the solution have been small shunting diesels like the AW ones mentioned earlier or the Dutch siks. Continuing with steam shunters would not have been an option. 

Probably they would have purchased diesel shunters 'off the shelf'. Versions of the 03, 04 and 08 locomotives would cover most requirements. The Bullied electric and diesel electric locomotives could have been developed into freight locomotives. The same applies to the other three big four companies, the LNER were introducing electric services that were well advanced when war broke out (Shenfield and Woodhead) and even had a prototype electric locomotive ready. The LMS had an express DMU as well as 10000 and 10001 on the drawing board. The GWR had the diesel railcars in service and were tinkering with the idea of diesel locomotives or even electrification west of Exeter. 

[AlfaZagato]

SR CC1 & CC2 were built for freight, ostensibly.  Apparently good for 1000t in such service.

 

Also keep in mind that 18000 & 18100 were ordered by GWR before nationalization.   10800 was similarly ordered by LMS.

[whart57]

23 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Probably they would have purchased diesel shunters 'off the shelf'. Versions of the 03, 04 and 08 locomotives would cover most requirements.

 

What about 01s and 02s?

 

If we look at a couple of Kent stations after 1959 I can make my point. Faversham had quite a bit of freight through there being brewing and malting there and there being a goods only branch to Faversham Creek. Probably enough work for an 03, and the capability of doing over 25 mph probably useful for running down to the Creek.

 

Then what about Herne Bay? A town as big as Faversham and in the 1960s having a fair bit of coal traffic plus a rail served gas works half a mile from the station but no rail connected industry. Would an 03 be overkill?

[PhilJ W]

Interesting to Imagine how diesel and electric traction would have developed without nationalisation. All four were dipping their toes into diesel traction. The Southern of course were well committed to electrification as was the LNER and too a lesser extent the LMS. The EMU rolling stock would have been vastly different for a start with both the LNER and LMS preferring sliding door stock, (classes 306, 502 and 503) but the Southern influence prevailed and compartment stock became the norm. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by PhilJ W

[whart57]

36 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Interesting to Imagine how diesel and electric traction would have developed without nationalisation. All four were dipping their toes into diesel traction. The Southern of course were well committed to electrification as was the LNER and too a lesser extent the LMS. The EMU rolling stock would have been vastly different for a start with both the LNER and LMS preferring sliding door stock, (classes 306, 502 and 503) but the Southern influence prevailed and compartment stock became the norm. 

 

The Southern probably looked at what happened with an incoming train in the morning rush hour at Waterloo or Cannon Street or one leaving in the evening and thought "Sliding doors? We'll never get open or shut"

[PhilJ W]

35 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

The Southern probably looked at what happened with an incoming train in the morning rush hour at Waterloo or Cannon Street or one leaving in the evening and thought "Sliding doors? We'll never get open or shut"

When I worked in London I travelled in both 306 and compartment stock. I and many others preferred the 306 stock to the compartment stock when there was a 'crush' load.

[The Lurker]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

SR CC1 & CC2 were built for freight, ostensibly.  Apparently good for 1000t in such service.

 

 

and looking forward a few years, the southern region put up catenary in yards to allow them to be shunted by the class 71s. No reason why an independent SR could not have come to the same solution for its larger yards, albeit that of course Bulleid was also dipping his toe into diesel traction as mentioned above. Maybe a development of  the higher geared Bulleid shunter would have found use on the shorter goods only branches and for trip working. 

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

What about 01s and 02s?

They used the same 204hp Gardner engine as the 03/04's. The only advantage would be on sharply curved track. For steam shunter replacement in Southampton docks the Southern region chose the 07's an 0-6-0, and more or less 'of the peg' locomotive.

[The Johnster]

Everybody highlights the WR for continuing as if it was the GW but it was really the Southern where Nationalisation was ignored almost completely.  They continued until 1967 with 3rd rail main line expansion, long after 25kv had been adopted as a national standard, and none of their electric or electro-diesel locos were related in any way to BR policy or the 1955 plan.  They were responsible for the PEP project, which had a huge influence on the later 'Sprinter' series of demus, demus themselves being a Southern Region idea.  I reckon they would have developed the E50xx and E60xx had they remained an independent company, and probably the EP series emus and TC sets in any case.

[AlfaZagato]

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?  Could have allowed a more common design to be developed.  Or 86's fitted with shoes.

[brack]

11 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?

Depends how expendable you consider the local population to be...

[Miss Prism]

11 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?  

 

No. The clearances are not suitable for that potential.

[PhilJ W]

35 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?  Could have allowed a more common design to be developed.  Or 86's fitted with shoes.

Its easier to make stock dual voltage. On the Continent they have triple voltage locomotives. 

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

They used the same 204hp Gardner engine as the 03/04's. The only advantage would be on sharply curved track. For steam shunter replacement in Southampton docks the Southern region chose the 07's an 0-6-0, and more or less 'of the peg' locomotive.

The 01 used the 153hp version of the Gardner engine.

 

41 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Its easier to make stock dual voltage. On the Continent they have triple voltage locomotives. 

In the case of the DB Class 184 electric, four-voltage: 15kV AC, 25kV AC, 1500V DC and 3000V DC.  I think the French and Belgians had a four-voltage class too.  The best we managed in the UK has been the Class 92, probably the most expensive and under-utilised class built in the last 50 years.

[DenysW]

Quote

AlfaZagato asked: 

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?  Could have allowed a more common design to be developed. 

It's my belief that the third rail was chosen (and loosely described as 'cheaper') because it was/is far more compatible with the UK Loading Gauge - especially because the SE&C seems to have used even smaller loading gauges than the rest of the UK. We often note in rmweb that LNER electrified the Woodhead cross-Peninine route. We rarely follow up by saying that one of the short tunnels was converted into a cutting, and another had to be duplicated. Third rail cheap but inefficient (high resistance losses). Overhead expensive but more efficient. Whole life Cost calcs anyone?

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

Can AC be routed via the third rail?  I know in small-scale practice, yes, but could 25kv be ran that way?  Could have allowed a more common design to be developed.  Or 86's fitted with shoes.

 

1 hour ago, brack said:

Depends how expendable you consider the local population to be...

 

Its bad enough keeping the loons away from 25 kv AC overhead, let alone a mere 750v DC third rail!

[MikeOxon]

25kv wires need a lot more clearance around them to prevent flash-overs (arcing)  In my local area, Railtrack wanted to raise a road bridge at Steventon, to provide greater clearance for the overhead wires but it is a listed structure from Brunel days and permission was refused.  it was decided that trains could 'coast' under the bridge, which remained in place.  The irony is that serious cracks have now been found in the bridge, which may require its demolition anyway!!!

[Compound2632]

It's worth remembering that at the time the SR chose to standardise on the ex-LSWR 660 V DC third rail system rather than the LBSCR's 6.6 kV AC overhead system, 1,500 V DC had been adopted as the national standard for overhead electrification. Thus in terms of resistive losses etc., the third rail system didn't look too bad. It's given good service for over a century - which is rather longer than main line steam had at the time the third rail was adopted!

Edited January 6, 2022 by Compound2632

[JimC]

28 minutes ago, MikeOxon said:

the irony is that serious cracks have now been found in the bridge, which may require its demolition anyway!!!

Gosh, what a coincidence. Not saying the cracks are anything but real, but its amazing how much more difficult it is to repair something you don't want there anyway...

[PhilJ W]

The Metropolitan Railway considered three phase AC electrification OHLE but in the end went with the Underground group four rail system. The reason for the four rail system was that it was feared that stray currents would cause electrolytic corrosion of the tube tunnel segments. The Mersey tunnel also used the four rail system  for the same reason.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

The 01 used the 153hp version of the Gardner engine.

 

In the case of the DB Class 184 electric, four-voltage: 15kV AC, 25kV AC, 1500V DC and 3000V DC.  I think the French and Belgians had a four-voltage class too.  The best we managed in the UK has been the Class 92, probably the most expensive and under-utilised class built in the last 50 years.

SNCF class CC40100, 10 off, SNCB derivative class 18, 6 off, all now withdrawn.

[11ty12]

I return with another edit: a Robinson Mogul made out of an LNER D9

[whart57]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Everybody highlights the WR for continuing as if it was the GW but it was really the Southern where Nationalisation was ignored almost completely.  They continued until 1967 with 3rd rail main line expansion, long after 25kv had been adopted as a national standard

 

Third rail electrification has more often than not been chosen over OH systems for suburban passenger systems. I can think of the Rotterdam and Amsterdam metro systems started in the 1960s and 70s, Bangkok's "Skytrain" from the 1990s, Atlanta's rapid transit built for the Olympics (I stand to be corrected on that one). I presume the reasoning is that the power electrics can be self contained within bogies and you don't have to run high voltage cables through passenger compartments. The electric fields might be strong enough to mess up pacemakers

[Johnson044]

A rather handsome machine! Proportions are nice and it convinces. Pig to oil the link motion though. Wheels less in diameter by 6" would be a big improvement, I think.