Imaginary Locomotives

[RLBH]

11 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I don't know about that as there was a massive coalfield in Somerset. The prime reason for building the S&DJR and the GWR building lines at Radstock and Writhlington.  1,250,000 tons per annum is a lot of coal.

Wrong type of coal, I should think - either not good enough quality for the GWR's finely-fettled locos that had to be fed best Welsh (or at least the top-link ones did), or else such good quality that there was more money to be made selling it to other customers.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I don't know about that as there was a massive coalfield in Somerset. The prime reason for building the S&DJR and the GWR building lines at Radstock and Writhlington.  1,250,000 tons per annum is a lot of coal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_Coalfield

Yes but as that Wikipedia page says, the number of pits had halved by the mid-30s, which is the period we are talking about the GWR starting to consider alternative power sources.  

[The Johnster]

Coal from South Wales to the far west of England was carried in ships mostly; Exeter was the limit of through working from Radyr with 72xx locos.  The attraction of the hydraulics was the power/weight ratio that could be achieved with them; a production Warship weighed in at 90 tons at the same power as the 142 ton of the English Electric Type 4 D200.  52 tons is more or less a free coach and a half, not to be sneezed at on the South Devon banks, or Stormy and Skewen in South Wales for that matter!  The V200 was a proven design, and those were rare as rocking horse doodoo in 1955 when the modernisation plan decisions were made.

 

The Hydraulics were ultimately a failure for a variety of reasons, not least of which that the WR caned them to death while the Germans used theirs on easier work on secondary main lines that weren't worth the bother of electrifiying even by their much more lenient assessment of what was worth electrifying.  They suffered from license manufacturing faults, North British and Beyer Peacock going under, and lack of room on board for providing air brakes or electric train heating as well, but the replacement of Kings by Hymeks on 14 coach South Wales trains was never going to end well.

 

Whether they would have been built anyway had railways not been nationalised in 1948 is another discussion and the answer is anyone's guess.  My opinion, FWIW, is that the overall pattern, dieselisation over the decade 1958-68, would have happened anyway and many of the independent manufacturers' products would have been built anyway; the locos that might not have would have been BR products like Westerns, Peaks, 25s and so on.  An independent GW might have produced dmus based on auto-trailer practice, and even converted some of the later ones to 2 car sets with underfloor engines, but locos would have been outsourced from Brush, English Electric, and the rest and may well have simply been the same product in different liveries for different railways; Cravens, Metro-Cammell, et al providing the same role for dmus.  

 

Once the government had forced the big 4 to adopt 25kv as the electrification standard, which they would have been under pressure to do anyway, the same situation would apply to electric traction, which would have led to some interesting neverwazza emus.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

1,250,000 tons per annum is a lot of coal.

 

... about 0.6% of the total annual output of British coal mines at that date, so on the scale of British coal fields, hardly massive.

 

That's about 400 10 ton wagon loads per working day - say ten train loads.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

...The Hydraulics were ultimately a failure for a variety of reasons, not least of which that the WR caned them to death...

I'd suggest instead ...the WR proved the designs to be technically inadequate for the required duty cycle. (The prime mover outputs whatever it will when the driver has the lever against the stop, and the transmission components have to tolerate that throughput for the required duty cycle. If it breaks, then design improvement is required.)

 

There's an imaginary loco project for someone, design a robust high output DH for BR use.

[Suzie]

6 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

There's an imaginary loco project for someone, design a robust high output DH for BR use.

 

Here is my 7000HP suggestion from page 52:-

 

 

Should be quite hard to overload that pair I think. Still trying to get hold of some old Hymek bodies and peak chassis to have a go at making one up.

[relaxinghobby]

 

Big multiple diesels would never have been necessary if.......

 

A loco called Inveighable.

I'm not sure if this would work, a Bulleid pacific converted to a mallet or articulated steam bogie type? Perhaps something unofficial could have been contrived in a dark corner of the erection shops at Eastleigh away from official eyes? I think I once saw an outline or weight diagram of such a loco in a book somewhere but can't can't remember exactly, maybe I was hallucinating on steam oil or plastic wield?

That magnificent steam raiser of Bulleid’s could supply three large cylinders at speed so surely it could manage four smaller ones at lower goods train speeds.

I've drawn in the coloured steam bogies with about five foot wheels but there are no dimensions so it's all guess work, plenty of room for the front steam bogie to swivel but I'm not so sure for the rear as there is less play under the tender or maybe just minimal swing to that bogie. The engine and tender would have to be welded up into one long chassis and there is a suggestion of where to put the steam pipes, one on each side, the supply to the rear a little fatter perhaps 10 in diameter?

This could have been a quick and viable alternative to the Leader class, no new untried technology to cause trouble. Imagine such a loco on the difficult and heavy empty carriage trains between the busy London Terminus of Waterloo and the sidings at Clapham Junction and on the fast ballast trains taking granite chips in the giant bogie hoppers from Dartmoor way out west all the way to the East Kent lines 150 or more miles?

Perhaps like the GWR hybrid Dukedogs of the 1930s, this could be a successful lash up of old 0-6-0 frames and pistons fitted up under a modified pacific boiler and tender frame. It could have been secretly concocted at weekends by a few interested foremen and junior but ambitious design engineers, the successful running of the loco would have saved them from any serious disciplinary action. It's unofficial nature is why there are no photos of it but it could have been real, only tested at night so the public and train spotter enthusiasts never found out about it.

The tender sides would need some cutting down to allow better visibility when running in that direction. There are plenty of Bulleid locos surviving so perhaps one could be created today?

[Corbs]

Why make the chassis solid at all? If you mount the rear power bogie and tender via a bearing under the cab, and have the rotating steam pipe pass through the centre of the bearing, then you have an articulated loco without needing a swivelling front bogie.

[Satan's Goldfish]

1 hour ago, relaxinghobby said:

 

Big multiple diesels would never have been necessary if.......

 

A loco called Inveighable.

I'm not sure if this would work, a Bulleid pacific converted to a mallet or articulated steam bogie type? Perhaps something unofficial could have been contrived in a dark corner of the erection shops at Eastleigh away from official eyes? I think I once saw an outline or weight diagram of such a loco in a book somewhere but can't can't remember exactly, maybe I was hallucinating on steam oil or plastic wield?

That magnificent steam raiser of Bulleid’s could supply three large cylinders at speed so surely it could manage four smaller ones at lower goods train speeds.

I've drawn in the coloured steam bogies with about five foot wheels but there are no dimensions so it's all guess work, plenty of room for the front steam bogie to swivel but I'm not so sure for the rear as there is less play under the tender or maybe just minimal swing to that bogie. The engine and tender would have to be welded up into one long chassis and there is a suggestion of where to put the steam pipes, one on each side, the supply to the rear a little fatter perhaps 10 in diameter?

This could have been a quick and viable alternative to the Leader class, no new untried technology to cause trouble. Imagine such a loco on the difficult and heavy empty carriage trains between the busy London Terminus of Waterloo and the sidings at Clapham Junction and on the fast ballast trains taking granite chips in the giant bogie hoppers from Dartmoor way out west all the way to the East Kent lines 150 or more miles?

Perhaps like the GWR hybrid Dukedogs of the 1930s, this could be a successful lash up of old 0-6-0 frames and pistons fitted up under a modified pacific boiler and tender frame. It could have been secretly concocted at weekends by a few interested foremen and junior but ambitious design engineers, the successful running of the loco would have saved them from any serious disciplinary action. It's unofficial nature is why there are no photos of it but it could have been real, only tested at night so the public and train spotter enthusiasts never found out about it.

The tender sides would need some cutting down to allow better visibility when running in that direction. There are plenty of Bulleid locos surviving so perhaps one could be created today?

 

Someone that understands these machines a bit better will probably be a long in a minute, but from my understanding you'd be better off with your starting point being a big tank engine. The problem with driving wheels under a conventional tender that works when the tender is full of coal and water, but becomes too light for good adhesion as those resources are used up. In your design I guess the tender and engine are 1 fixed unit? this helps a bit as the entire vehicle weight is on a fixed frame, but I'd hazard a guess there would still become issues as the centre of gravity for the vehicle moves from the middle towards the front as the coal and water are consumed. With a conventional big tank engine, the weight is more evenly distributed, so could you concoct an engine based on that but with Bulleid streamlining and steam bogies maybe?

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

 

Here is my 7000HP suggestion from page 52:-

 

 

Should be quite hard to overload that pair I think. Still trying to get hold of some old Hymek bodies and peak chassis to have a go at making one up.

Hmm. Not convinced. A C-C Hymek with a 2200kW or more engine, as seen in DB class 218, may be a little more credible.

C-C wheel arrangement for good adhesion, longer body to give adequate room for air brakes and possibly eth kit.

A hydraulic 47 perhaps?

[Suzie]

The Krauss-Maffei ML4000 was a C-C 'double Hymek' with a pair of 16 cylinder engines but had an axle weight of 26t so I think D-D will be more appropriate for the weight restrictions likely to be encountered in the west giving just less than 20t axle weight more in line with B-B Hymeks.

 

After all a C-C Hydraulic with a pair of V12s would be a Western!

Edited February 22, 2019 by Suzie

[The Johnster]

On 20/02/2019 at 21:15, Compound2632 said:

 

... about 0.6% of the total annual output of British coal mines at that date, so on the scale of British coal fields, hardly massive.

 

That's about 400 10 ton wagon loads per working day - say ten train loads.

1912, the peak year, saw Cardiff docks export 14 million tons, equating to 38,356 tons daily.  3,856 wagons, over 750 trains daily assuming an average of 50 wagons per train.  Call it a loaded train every 2 minutes.  Just to give a bit of perspective...

 

Then add Newport, Barry, and Swansea. 

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, Suzie said:

The Krauss-Maffei ML4000 was a C-C 'double Hymek' with a pair of 16 cylinder engines but had an axle weight of 26t so I think D-D will be more appropriate for the weight restrictions likely to be encountered in the west giving just less than 20t axle weight more in line with B-B Hymeks.

 

After all a C-C Hydraulic with a pair of V12s would be a Western!

 DB's 218's have a single engine 1800/2000kW V12, with a weight of just under 80 tonnes. A B-B would come in at under 20t axle load, but a C-C would give better adhesion, and allow a longer body for air brakes and possibly eth kit.

I think a 2 unit D-D would be somewhat overkill for most jobs in the WR, a pair of

C-C's as described, working in multi, would manage the heaviest trains, while a single would do most of the other work.

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

1912, the peak year, saw Cardiff docks export 14 million tons, equating to 38,356 tons daily.  3,856 wagons, over 750 trains daily assuming an average of 50 wagons per train.  Call it a loaded train every 2 minutes.  Just to give a bit of perspective...

 

Then add Newport, Barry, and Swansea. 

 

Nearer 45,000 tons daily, assuming the population is at chapel on Sundays.

[RLBH]

8 hours ago, Suzie said:

The Krauss-Maffei ML4000 was a C-C 'double Hymek' with a pair of 16 cylinder engines but had an axle weight of 26t so I think D-D will be more appropriate for the weight restrictions likely to be encountered in the west giving just less than 20t axle weight more in line with B-B Hymeks.

 

After all a C-C Hydraulic with a pair of V12s would be a Western!

If you're doing a two-engined D-D Hymek, why not just double head?

 

Actually, didn't the ML4000 cart around a load of ballast to get its' adhesion up to scratch for North American duties? I'm fairly sure I've seen a suggestion that either Swindon or Beyer-Peacock had drawn up a C-C with two MD870s. Certainly it ought all to fit, it's basically just a diesel-hydraulic version of a Deltic. A three-way tryout between that, DP1, and a Sulzer-engined proto-Falcon is an occasional daydream of mine.

[thaddeus]

25 minutes ago, RLBH said:

If you're doing a two-engined D-D Hymek, why not just double head?

 

Actually, didn't the ML4000 cart around a load of ballast to get its' adhesion up to scratch for North American duties? I'm fairly sure I've seen a suggestion that either Swindon or Beyer-Peacock had drawn up a C-C with two MD870s. Certainly it ought all to fit, it's basically just a diesel-hydraulic version of a Deltic. A three-way tryout between that, DP1, and a Sulzer-engined proto-Falcon is an occasional daydream of mine.

 

I think there is a outline diagram for a proposed 3500-4000hp C-C Swindon style Western in Brian Webbs book with internal layout details. The cooler groups and resulting grills are bigger but does not show a lot of other differences to a standard Western.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Change of subject a sec from Hydraulics; following from a link on the imaginary rolling stock thread I thought I'd have a play with an 'export' version of a class 58... but still in railfreight colours so think that just makes it a domestic single ended 58?.... IMO I quite like how it looks, the roof overhang on the pointy end definitely suits it better than a class 20 style nose. Only bit I'm not convinced on is the steps positioning; on a real 58 are they part of the bogie as per Hornby's effort or are they separate and could be moved to the end of the body?

 

 

Ok, carry on!

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Nearer 45,000 tons daily, assuming the population is at chapel on Sundays.

Call it a loaded train every 90 seconds in that case; really, we are looking at one a minute as things eased off a little overnight, and it takes them a minute or so to clear into the sidings.  If you take the access as being the TVR Roath branch/GW connection from Pengam, the Rhymney to East Dock, and the Taff's connections to the West Dock, that's a loaded train every 3 or 4 minutes on each approach; just as well they were all permissive block!

 

The Pengam connection handled iron ore and coke traffic for the then new East Moors steelworks, and there was the ordinary dock traffic as well.  Coal trains queued up beyond Pontypridd on the Taff, and storage sidings were built further and further out from the port, as at Aber on the Rhymney.

 

Most pits did not cut or raise on Sundays, but there were men down there just the same; this was when maintenance was carried out underground.  

[The Johnster]

6 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Change of subject a sec from Hydraulics; following from a link on the imaginary rolling stock thread I thought I'd have a play with an 'export' version of a class 58... but still in railfreight colours so think that just makes it a domestic single ended 58?.... IMO I quite like how it looks, the roof overhang on the pointy end definitely suits it better than a class 20 style nose. Only bit I'm not convinced on is the steps positioning; on a real 58 are they part of the bogie as per Hornby's effort or are they separate and could be moved to the end of the body?

 

 

Ok, carry on!

The obvious objection to this would be that there is little point in not using space at that end for a cab, which gets you back to square one.   Pairing them nose to nose like the 20s they failed to replace would have produced more power than was needed; there is a limit to the load you can haul imposed by train lengths, determined by signal spacings and braking distances as well as siding and loop lengths.

[The Johnster]

18 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Someone that understands these machines a bit better will probably be a long in a minute, but from my understanding you'd be better off with your starting point being a big tank engine. The problem with driving wheels under a conventional tender that works when the tender is full of coal and water, but becomes too light for good adhesion as those resources are used up. In your design I guess the tender and engine are 1 fixed unit? this helps a bit as the entire vehicle weight is on a fixed frame, but I'd hazard a guess there would still become issues as the centre of gravity for the vehicle moves from the middle towards the front as the coal and water are consumed. With a conventional big tank engine, the weight is more evenly distributed, so could you concoct an engine based on that but with Bulleid streamlining and steam bogies maybe?

I would also be a very long fixed wheelbase if the tender and loco are one fixed unit, and would be in trouble on any sort of curve; this really needs to be articulated to work at all.  Bulleid and articulated steam locomotives was not a happy combination...

 

To be fair the OP does stipulate that it is a Mallet.

 

Don't see the need for air smoothing with the speeds attainable on those diameter driving wheels, and given the problems with the Spam Cans' oil baths they would probably have been candidates for rebuilding with Walchearts.  Are we talking about 2 cylinder engine units or 3?.  If 2, you might get away with inside cylinders Q1 style; there's your chassis for an attempt at modelling it, then!

Edited February 22, 2019 by The Johnster

[The Johnster]

15 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Hmm. Not convinced. A C-C Hymek with a 2200kW or more engine, as seen in DB class 218, may be a little more credible.

C-C wheel arrangement for good adhesion, longer body to give adequate room for air brakes and possibly eth kit.

A hydraulic 47 perhaps?

I'm not convinced either, rodent.  The Bulleid/40/4/5/6 bogies are convenient for modelling it as a fantasy, but negate one of the Hymek's greatest strengths, the power/weight ratio.  A Hymek was a Type 3 that weighed the same as a Derby Type 2 and was more than 25% lighter than a 105 ton EE type 3 for 50hp less prime mover output; this beast is going to weigh more than that just in bogies!

 

A hydraulic 47 would have been a nice 'foil' to Falcon, effectively an electric transmitted 52...

[Satan's Goldfish]

22 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The obvious objection to this would be that there is little point in not using space at that end for a cab, which gets you back to square one.   Pairing them nose to nose like the 20s they failed to replace would have produced more power than was needed; there is a limit to the load you can haul imposed by train lengths, determined by signal spacings and braking distances as well as siding and loop lengths.

 

Agree.... I don't know who they imagined the export market for these was though.

[The Johnster]

I think the rationale was that a pair of them nose to nose class 20/American style would be useful for the sort of railways in Commonwealth countries, notably Oz, that feature long heavy trains and long single track sections.  GM has had this sort of thing sewn up for years, and the 'export' 58s were never going to make much headway!

[Joseph_Pestell]

53 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

The obvious objection to this would be that there is little point in not using space at that end for a cab, which gets you back to square one.   Pairing them nose to nose like the 20s they failed to replace would have produced more power than was needed; there is a limit to the load you can haul imposed by train lengths, determined by signal spacings and braking distances as well as siding and loop lengths.

 

Two possible solutions:

Make each half shorter and a Co-Bo

Make each half shorter and articulate the whole thing as a Co-Co-Co

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Only bit I'm not convinced on is the steps positioning; on a real 58 are they part of the bogie as per Hornby's effort or are they separate and could be moved to the end of the body?

 They are bogie mounted.