Imaginary Locomotives

[brack]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

hardly replicate the experience of working everyday on steam  locos, some high mileage and in poor condition, with drivers of variable ability and attitude

Hold on now, everything I've ever read on internet forums tells me that such things were not possible in the wondrous realm of Swindon.

Blasphemy!

[melmerby]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

 

How do train lengths compare between then and now?  I seem to remember trains like the CRE were rather longer than today's excursions, and stalling on banks is hardly the unique preserve of the Kings.  Tangmere stalled on Dainton not so long ago.....

 

Another thing that occurs to me.

What about carriage weights?

Weren't the company carriages heavier than the ubiquitous Mk1?

Just been looking at some interwar years trains and 16 coaches (c600 Tons) wasn't uncommon out of Paddington, typically 13 over the Devon banks (c475 Tons)

 

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Also look to the fact that Churchward went straight to a third driving axle, instead of fiddling around with Atlantics like any company northwest.

 

Fact checking: Churchward, having had experience with the de Glehn atlantics and in parallel having experimented with some prototype 4-6-0s, had the first two batches of Saints built as a mix of 4-4-2s and 4-6-0s, with twice as many of the former. The 4-4-2s were not rebuilt as 4-6-0s until 1913. 

 

As to northwest, east and northeast would be more apposite. Howich and Gorton built atlantics in moderate numbers but it was really the east coast companies that favoured them in large numbers. One has also to bear in mid that the 4-6-0 had not generally got off to a very good start in Britain, at least as an express passenger locomotive, with attempts to enlarge the conventional and highly successful inside-cylinder 4-4-0 producing lacklustre locomotives at best. Yes, I know Cardean looks impressive...

 

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Another thing that occurs to me.

What about carriage weights?

Weren't the company carriages heavier than the ubiquitous Mk1?

 

Rolling resistance is a significant factor too - perhaps more significant once underway, on the level and downhill.

[PhilJ W]

40 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

 

As to northwest, east and northeast would be more apposite. Howich and Gorton built atlantics in moderate numbers but it was really the east coast companies that favoured them in large numbers. One has also to bear in mid that the 4-6-0 had not generally got off to a very good start in Britain, at least as an express passenger locomotive, with attempts to enlarge the conventional and highly successful inside-cylinder 4-4-0 producing lacklustre locomotives at best. Yes, I know Cardean looks impressive...

 

 

The GE 1500 class (B12) was a very successful engine. It was designed within the restrictions of the GER, notably the short turntables and weak bridges.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Fact checking: Churchward, having had experience with the de Glehn atlantics and in parallel having experimented with some prototype 4-6-0s, had the first two batches of Saints built as a mix of 4-4-2s and 4-6-0s, with twice as many of the former. The 4-4-2s were not rebuilt as 4-6-0s until 1913. 

 

One has also to bear in mid that the 4-6-0 had not generally got off to a very good start in Britain, at least as an express passenger locomotive,

The first three Saint prototypes were built as 4-6-0s, No. 171 was however converted to a 4-4-2 and acted as prototype to the other 4-4-2s built soon after

The first Star was No. 40 built as a 4-4-2 in 1906 but was converted to a 4-6-0 in 1909. No more Stars appeared as 4-4-2s

It was obvious that Churchward was seeing whether the 4-4-2 (as in the imported Frenchmen) had any advantages over a 4-6-0. Quite clearly the 4-6-0 was prefered as the 4-4-2s were all converted to 4-6-0s. within 3 - 8 years.

[PenrithBeacon]

 

 

13 hours ago, Northmoor said:

But were they greatly over-powered for the rest of the route (I don't know, I'm asking)?  

 

How do train lengths compare between then and now?  I seem to remember trains like the CRE were rather longer than today's excursions, and stalling on banks is hardly the unique preserve of the Kings.  Tangmere stalled on Dainton not so long ago.....

 

I agree with Johnster, the King's biggest problem was their route restriction, which a GWR Pacific wouldn't have solved.

The first part of your post:

The LMS Pacifics were designed to go up Shap unaided, but they could only do this by mortgaging the boiler ie a short burst of power given by a fireman who was, for a short time, working well beyond is normal capacity. For the rest of the journey the locomotive and fireman was working at normal, sustainable, capacity.

 But I think you knew that already.

Train lengths:

We have become used to fixed train lengths in our era. But this wasn't the case in steam days. Many of the expresses of that generation loaded to 13-16 coaches but then the weren't expected to average 80-90mph over the journey as modern fixed formation trains are. It was sufficiently unusual for expresses in the steam era to average 60 or more for it to rate a mention in the mags of the period.

Elsewhere electrification of the GWR has been mentioned. No chance of this, the railway wasn't even prepared to spend the money to ease the restrictions on the King's never mind the huge sums needed for electrification.

[PenrithBeacon]

18 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The first three Saint prototypes were built as 4-6-0s, No. 171 was however converted to a 4-4-2 and acted as prototype to the other 4-4-2s built soon after

The first Star was No. 40 built as a 4-4-2 in 1906 but was converted to a 4-6-0 in 1909. No more Stars appeared as 4-4-2s

It was obvious that Churchward was seeing whether the 4-4-2 (as in the imported Frenchmen) had any advantages over a 4-6-0. Quite clearly the 4-6-0 was prefered as the 4-4-2s were all converted to 4-6-0s. within 3 - 8 years.

The GWR Atlantics had a narrow firebox so it isn't too difficult to see that there wasn't any advantage over the 4-6-0s. If Churchward had equipped them with a wide firebox like Ivatt on the GNR then they would have been vastly better.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

The GE 1500 class (B12) was a very successful engine. It was designed within the restrictions of the GER, notably the short turntables and weak bridges.

 

Very true.

 

38 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The GWR Atlantics had a narrow firebox so it isn't too difficult to see that there wasn't any advantage over the 4-6-0s. If Churchward had equipped them with a wide firebox like Ivatt on the GNR then they would have been vastly better.

 

In that respect, Churchward followed the de Glehn atlantics, which were enormously successful locomotives.

[Tiptonian]

38 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The GWR Atlantics had a narrow firebox so it isn't too difficult to see that there wasn't any advantage over the 4-6-0s. If Churchward had equipped them with a wide firebox like Ivatt on the GNR then they would have been vastly better.

 

.....which begs the question, who is going to be the first "basher" on here to come up with a wide-firebox GWR Atlantic?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

 

 

 

Elsewhere electrification of the GWR has been mentioned. No chance of this, the railway wasn't even prepared to spend the money to ease the restrictions on the King's never mind the huge sums needed for electrification.

Rubbish.

They were quite prepared to pay more for a locomotive than other companies to get a better made product. Their engineering excellence was well known.

They weren't exactly known for being parsimonious, unlike the LNER.

They did order a Gas Turbine which was AFAIK somewhat more expensive than the LMS Diesels.

 

Why ease the restrictions on the King's routes when generally they weren't needed elsewhere?

The LMS didn't ease the route restrictions imposed on the Princesses & Coronation, using your logic they should have done.

 

59 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The GWR Atlantics had a narrow firebox so it isn't too difficult to see that there wasn't any advantage over the 4-6-0s. If Churchward had equipped them with a wide firebox like Ivatt on the GNR then they would have been vastly better.

Why should they? In what respects?

Again using your logic the other companies should have had a proliferation of 4-4-2s. They didn't, the 4-6-0 became the standard locomotive.

The GWR standardised on narrow firebox 4-6-0s for the heaviest of passenger traffic in the early years of the 20th Century, just like the other companies did later on.

AFAIK The other companies didn't keep many Atlantics.

Edited May 22, 2020 by melmerby

[Clive Mortimore]

30 minutes ago, Tiptonian said:

 

.....which begs the question, who is going to be the first "basher" on here to come up with a wide-firebox GWR Atlantic?

Can't do that, this is an imaginary locomotive thread.   What ever next standard class 2-12-4 tender locos fitted with slow speed control for unloading MGR hoppers (vacuum fitted ones of course).

[The Johnster]

But the Kings were needed elsewhere; they were the perfect locomotive for the very heavy South Wales expresses, and would have handled the traffic significantly better than Castles.  There would have been a lot of advantage to allowing them down to Swansea.  Canton got them in 1961 when restrictions were eased to allow them through the Severn Tunnel to work South Wales-Paddington trains and to access the North to West line from the Bristol direction; they were also then allowed between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury.  

 

Engineering excellence for higher build cost certainly (one of mine can pull two of his b*****s backwards), proved in exchange testing over Claughtons, the original A1s, and Royal Scots with ex-works locos and chosen crews.  But the real situation was that drivers varied, and so long as the bad ones managed to avoid getting into trouble they were never weeded out.  There was no formal training other than passing out on rules and regulations, and men taught bad habits as firemen continued them as drivers and taught them to their own regular firemen in turn.  Not all men went to improvement classes or took an interest of that sort.

 

As a group in general they were very small c conservative and resistant to change, so improvement was slow and erratic.  They were left to their own devices in learning how to cope with different locomotives, and were expected to climb aboard types they had never seen before and keep time with them; there was no 'traction knowledge'.  The general standard was low compared to current steam drivers, though of course experience was much higher.  

 

The locos, once in service, deteriorated and deviated a good bit from the engineering excellence referred to earlier in the hands of shed fitters who had to make do with the equipment to hand to keep them in traffic.  The vision of an ex-works King purring down the West of England main line like a sewing machine with the CRE, brass and copper gleaming in the summer sun, must be held up against that of a work-worn 43xx struggling on the Gwent levels with a 60 wagon transfer freight between Severn Tunnel and Cardiff Tidal, barely able to make 25mph and with the fireman struggling to keep up with the steam leaks and worn valves, or the rough and tumble of Valleys work with a 56xx that had run a few miles since it was last outshopped.  

 

As to the Churchward atlantics, I tend to agree with Penrith.  Churchward's purpose with them was to attain a more direct comparison with the French locos, and he found no advantage to the atlantic layout on the GW.  Neither did the  LSW, LNW, or Caledonian incidentally.  I suspect that what was on his mind was the accepted wisdom of the time that was being challenged, that it was unadvisable to have more than 2 coupled axles on an express passenger loco.  Interesting to compare with the GC or L&Y in those days, both of which had big atlantics and 4-6-0s, but tended to use the 4-6-0s for fast freight or the heavier, easier timed, passenger turns.  The Saints and Stars proved that 4-6-0s can run fast and efficiently even if they did knock themselves to bits when they'd accumulated a few miles (as did most steam locos), and, with the Castles, could be used anywhere on the system for any fast job

 

Had Churchward gone the other way, and built a wide firebox atlantic, he might have had a fast and efficient loco for the Bristols, but would surely have appreciated another driven axle everywhere else.  The French locos were used on fast Oxfords, not a hilly job.  They certainly led to the adoption of the de Glehn 4-cyl front end layout which was used for the LMS's pacifics, but proved a weakness with the Ell-tweaked double chimney Kings.

[The Johnster]

32 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Can't do that, this is an imaginary locomotive thread.   What ever next standard class 2-12-4 tender locos fitted with slow speed control for unloading MGR hoppers (vacuum fitted ones of course).

What a good idea!  Actually, 9Fs would probably have sufficed...

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

The GE 1500 class (B12) was a very successful engine. It was designed within the restrictions of the GER, notably the short turntables and weak bridges.

 

As the drawing here shows, the 1500s were a bit weird compared to the standard British 4-6-0.  The centreline of the firebox is over the middle coupled axle, rather than somewhat forward of the rear axle as was usually the case.  Proportionally, the boiler is intermediate between a 4-4-0 and a 4-6-0 which may have made it an easier design proposition at the time.  I believe that getting draughting and steaming right for early 4-6-0s taxed many UK designers when they changed up from the familiar 4-4-0.

 

 

 

[JimC]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Elsewhere electrification of the GWR has been mentioned. No chance of this, the railway wasn't even prepared to spend the money to ease the restrictions on the King's never mind the huge sums needed for electrification.

I think you need to supply some evidence for that, since everything I know is to the contrary. The GWR started a policy of rebuilding bridges to a 22 ton weight limit at the end of the 19thC. Introducing the Kings on the tight timescale was only practical because enough bridges on the key routes had already been upgraded that the rest could be done quickly. To the best of my knowledge the policy continued, which is why the Kings were able to be used on more lines after WW2. 

As for imaginary wide firebox GWR atlantics, I sketched this one a while back. Its a shortened version of the Bear's boiler on a Star chassis. Goodness only knows what the axle weights would be, but probably King territory.

[brack]

Mention has been made of gwr not wishing to fork out for electrification.

This is true. At the same time as they were investigating diesel electrics in the 30s they looked into main line electrification, but decided against both ideas, not least because of the cost involved.

[Hroth]

27 minutes ago, JimC said:

As for imaginary wide firebox GWR atlantics, I sketched this one a while back. Its a shortened version of the Bear's boiler on a Star chassis. Goodness only knows what the axle weights would be, but probably King territory.

 

Of course, Churchward had already looked at the Atlantic concept, albeit in the context of "compound vs simple" and decided that the 4-6-0 was more surefooted.  All the locos built as Atlantics were fairly quickly restored to 4-6-0 locos.

[Flying Pig]

51 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

What a good idea!  Actually, 9Fs would probably have sufficed...

 

We've done MGR 9Fs about eleventy times on this thread and its kin

 

 

So how about a compromise - a 9F with a booster under the tender, slow speed running powered by booster only.  And as it's my fantasy, the usual GPCS firebox, Lempor exhaust and roller bearings everywhere, inluding the  hinges of the fireman's snap tin.  Oh and air brakes, but fed by a turbo-pump (I hate the sound of a reciprocating air pump on preserved locos that shouldn't have one).

[Gibbo675]

14 minutes ago, brack said:

Mention has been made of gwr not wishing to fork out for electrification.

This is true. At the same time as they were investigating diesel electrics in the 30s they looked into main line electrification, but decided against both ideas, not least because of the cost involved.

Hi Brack,

 

Interesting comment there, you are quite right about the costs involved. In the 1930's diesel technology was still relatively new and compared to the established railway technologies very expensive, the same with the electrical traction technologies.

It seems to me that transportation technologies are not disposed of until they reach their zenith, steam locomotion had another ten to fifteen years of development which was interrupted by WWII before being steadily displaced by diesel, electric and gas turbine technologies from the 1950's onwards.

Perhaps the shuttering of the Rolls Royce aero-engine plant is the harbinger of new flight technology along with the ceasing of production of internal combustion engines by 2035.

 

Gibbo.

[ColinK]

8 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

 

 

 

I painted an Airfix Evening Star in that livery when I was a kid.

 

[Flying Pig]

12 minutes ago, ColinK said:

I painted an Airfix Evening Star in that livery when I was a kid

 

There was a rail blue one on RMweb a while back and the builder followed up with a working version.

 

 

[rockershovel]

The Ivatt “Big Boiler” Atlantics seemed to have a considerable reputation on the ECML, and lasted well into BR days on secondary duties and occasional back-ups. I suspect the real reason the Atlantic was superseded was that the 4-6-0 had better all-round traction and the Pacific type had all the main features, and more power and/or durability. 

 

 

[The Johnster]

The GWR in the 30s was a different beast to the Edwardian halcyon days, and this should be taken into consideration if we are discussing 1930s electrification or dieselisation programs.  It was already obvious that the writing was on the wall for steam in the 30s, though it was another 3 decades before this was achieved.  Take a decade out for WW2 and the aftermath austerity...  The company was in a pretty good shape in 1923, and the shareholders must have thought it was xmas when they were handed the very profitable railways of the South Wales coalfield on a plate by the Grouping.  A lot of investment was put in in the 20s to improve infrastructure, and everyone was expecting a good return on the risk.  

 

Then the miners came out on strike, leading to a general strike in 1926.  They were defeated, utterly, but by the time they'd gone back to work the world's economy was starting to turn against coal, and it had become obvious that oil was the new kid on the block.  The coal trade recovered, but never to pre-1926 levels, and then, for unrelated reasons, the US stock market crashed 3 years later plunging the world into a depression that was not relieved by coming off the gold standard in '33; only the second war saved us, at a cost of 60million dead, a third of them Russians.  

 

So, the company was looking to cut back on investment in the 30s, as were all the railway companies.  The cost of electrification west of Newton Abbott or any dieselisation scheme were probably going to return profit benefits, but they'd just been caught out big time by wider events (so had the LNER) and there was little appetite for more if the result was going to be that sort of fiduciary hammering.  It's an attitude recognisable from more recent times, and even now the wires only go to Cardiff and Bristol.

 

There should have been electrification on the GW in the 30s, west of NA and through the Severn Tunnel with electric pilot locos doing the work to reduce smoke emission from steam locos, but in reality it was never likely to happen.  That the company looked at it shows that it was trying to think ahead, but AFAIK there were never any new proposals and then WW2 intervened.  But it is interesting that the railway never really developed steam much beyond the 1927 King, perhaps because there was an intention to replace it in the relatively near future.  By 1939, the GW was ahead of the (British) game with diesels and continued during the war, but any serious challenge to steam was off the table once the war started and for some time afterwards; the country was broke, and broken, and there were other priorities.

[rockershovel]

Interesting comment above, about training of steam drivers. A classic example of the neglect of technical training and  standards, to be found at every level of British industry from about 1830 onwards. 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

The Ivatt “Big Boiler” Atlantics seemed to have a considerable reputation on the ECML, and lasted well into BR days on secondary duties and occasional back-ups. I suspect the real reason the Atlantic was superseded was that the 4-6-0 had better all-round traction and the Pacific type had all the main features, and more power and/or durability. 

 

There were infrastructure costs in moving from 8-wheelers to 10-wheelers and then to 12-wheelers, specifically longer turntables. I believe that was one reason the GER 1500s were so bunched-up for a 4-6-0. There would need to be a critical mass of the longer locomotives to justify the expense of new tables; this might also limit the routes on which they could be used.