Imaginary Locomotives

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

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.

 

The Americans had a viable main-line diesel-electric locomotive format in series production by the late 1930s, as well as fully viable main-line electric locomotives. 

 

I rather suspect that the only thing that will happen as a result of the news from Rolls-Royce, is that some other country whose governing class have a better idea of where their interests lie, will take over their markets and Cherry-pick RR

 

[Welchester]

27 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

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 great thing about oil, from the point of view of the owning classes, was that it didn't rely on a vast army of (unionised) men for its extraction and distribution. All good news to the shareholders, but not to the working man.

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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.

Agreed, and the critical mass would be very slow to develop ahead of the turntables.  Railways were victims of their own success here; a 45' table capable of taking a Victorian 6 wheeler is part of a railway that encourages, indeed enables, population and industrial growth in the area it serves, so 40 or 50 years later when it needs a 60' or 75' table at that location there is no land to buy to site it because it is all occupied by housing or factories.  Your infrastructure costs now involve a new loco shed further out of town, where land prices are already increasing as the concrete jungle you started continues to spread with the aid of trams and motor buses, and the consequent increase in light engine mileage, or a radical rebuild of the existing shed which reduces it's capacity.  Triangles are looking less unattractive now, aren't they?

[Flying Pig]

9 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 Triangles are looking less unattractive now, aren't they?

 

Nope.  They use up even more land or, if running via existing junctions, they consume main line paths every time an engine is turned.  What was required was loco lifts that could be winched up and rotated above adjoining properties, thus obviating the need to buy more land.  Astonishing that nobody thought of that until Peco.

[brack]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There were infrastructure costs in moving from 8-wheelers to 10-wheelers and then to 12-wheelers, specifically longer turntables.

It's why the GNRI never went bigger than 440 or 060, couldnt fit them in dundalk works (they had to couple the tenders as it was).

[MikeOxon]

in view of all the other 'freaks' amongst the earliest GWR locomotives, I'm surprised no-one considered an underslung boiler. 

 

Since 'Ajax' started life with 10 ft diameter driving wheels and a very small boiler, only 8' long by 3' diameter, it was surely feasible to place this boiler below the driving axle (something similar was done with the LNWR 'Cornwall' but, because of smaller wheels, was much more complex)

 

Some interesting plumbing would be needed to direct the hot gases from the firebox into the low boiler and then past the raised cylinders to the chimney but, alongside all the other weird features of early locomotives, I feel sure this could have been arranged.  So here's my imagined engine 'Ajax II':

 

[runs as required]

Without looking it all up, I thought the GWR did rather well out of all the 1930s UK Government's version of " US New Deal" public infrastructure works (including a triangular junction on the up side of the Severn tunnel mouth ?).

[The Johnster]

So that's where Triang got the chimney for their 2721 from...

 

This might have been more effective than Harrison's Hurricane, but the solid wheels look as if they'd give a very firm ride and would have I'm sure been quite destructive to the rails of the period.  My mind's visualisation of it insists that the wheel be painted red; maybe from childhood Meccano experiences.

[The Johnster]

There was never a triangle at either end  of the Severn Tunnel, though there was a turntable at STJ shed.  I think you might be confusing things with the Patchway/Stoke Gifford/Filton complex, which dates to the opening of the Badminton cut-off in 1899.  This was extended to cater for the increasing traffic, especially bananas, from Avonmouth docks and chords put in to access the Bristol-South Wales line in both directions from Stoke Gifford (Bristol Parkway).  The line was quadrupled from Filton Jc to Dr Day's, and another two chords put in from Filton and Patchway to access Avonmouth.  I believe some traffic terminating at Stoke Gifford yard used these triangles for turning locos for there return journeys.  The triangle of land enclosed by the Patchway-Stoke Gifford chord, and the Avonmouth Direct and Bristol-South Wales lines was for many years used as a spent ballast dump, and is now the site of a depot for the Class 800/1 GW electrification scheme trains.  Royal Mail's Bristol sorting office occupies the triangle on the opposite side of the Avonmouth Direct.  

 

There is a good end on view of the runway at British Aerospace's Filton site from the Bristol-South Wales line, which crosses the site on a high embankment, and I witnesse a Concorde taking off from it during my railway career.

Edited June 18, 2020 by The Johnster

[JimC]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

This might have been more effective than Harrison's Hurricane, but the solid wheels look as if they'd give a very firm ride

 

You could, I reckon, get 13ft wheels to fit in the Broad gauge loading gauge, which would give room for a more substantial boiler. 

[melmerby]

Separate turning triangles or wyes were (and still are) very common in the US & Canada

e.g. Flagstaff AZ 2018 track plan but wye now OOU

Edited June 18, 2020 by melmerby

[rockershovel]

On 22/05/2020 at 17:33, Bishop of Welchester said:

 

The great thing about oil, from the point of view of the owning classes, was that it didn't rely on a vast army of (unionised) men for its extraction and distribution. All good news to the shareholders, but not to the working man.

 

That being said, there was all the coal anyone could want in the U.K. - whereas the inconvenient habits of oil (hiding away in remote deserts being the main one, at the time) would commit all sides to engage in complex, protracted and ultimately critical theatres of war in both World Wars. 

[john new]

45 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

That being said, there was all the coal anyone could want in the U.K. - whereas the inconvenient habits of oil (hiding away in remote deserts being the main one, at the time) would commit all sides to engage in complex, protracted and ultimately critical theatres of war in both World Wars. 

 

And the UK still does in the Selby Coalfield. If the government hadn't abandoned the fumes scrubbing research we could perhaps still be self sufficient (or partially so) for electricity generation and without using nuclear.

[AlfaZagato]

Old nuclear tech was safe when used responsibly - i.e. not run as an accessory to weapons development.   Modern improvements increase safety further.   Y'all also stand on the infamous North Sea, which could be a great source of tidal hydroelectric.

 

 

I don't know, really, how to tie that into imaginary locomotives.   Even with a modern thorium-salt reactor, I don't think Atomic Thomas would be a great idea. 

 

Has anyone thought to run an electrolysis job on a condensing locomotive?   Split the water, burn the hydrogen as fuel for boiling?   Start the electrolysis off of existing overhead or third rail, too.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, JimC said:

 

You could, I reckon, get 13ft wheels to fit in the Broad gauge loading gauge, which would give room for a more substantial boiler. 

I tell you what you could do

Put huge driving wheels behind the boiler, then you can have any size boiler to fit in the loading gauge.

 

What? Some bloke called Crampton has already patented it. Bummer!

 

 

[john new]

1 hour ago, john new said:

 

And the UK still does in the Selby Coalfield. If the government hadn't abandoned the fumes scrubbing research we could perhaps still be self sufficient (or partially so) for electricity generation and without using nuclear.

I have no personal problem with the idea of peaceful uses of nuclear power, the problem is my birthday falls on the Hiroshima anniversary. This acts as the reminder that with all technology, since Ugg first weaponised a tree branch to kill Uggtha, there are nutters who will use it for military and terror uses.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by john new
Typo

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

That being said, there was all the coal anyone could want in the U.K. - whereas the inconvenient habits of oil (hiding away in remote deserts being the main one, at the time) would commit all sides to engage in complex, protracted and ultimately critical theatres of war in both World Wars. 

Actually until WW2, Britain was self sufficient in oil (although obviously demand has skyrocketed since).  There is a surprising quantity of land-based oil reserves in the UK.

[melmerby]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Actually until WW2, Britain was self sufficient in oil (although obviously demand has skyrocketed since).  There is a surprising quantity of land-based oil reserves in the UK.

And we were fracking long before the protesters got to hear of it.

[PhilJ W]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Actually until WW2, Britain was self sufficient in oil (although obviously demand has skyrocketed since).  There is a surprising quantity of land-based oil reserves in the UK.

 

22 minutes ago, melmerby said:

And we were fracking long before the protesters got to hear of it.

Actually fracking is used to release gas rather than oil. It has been used for a long time to extract gas from offshore gas fields such as the North Sea. The oil and gas reserves in the North Sea has been known about since Victorian times but the technology (and the money) to extract it wasn't there. A lot of the oil produced in the UK before 1939 was shale oil.

Edited June 19, 2020 by PhilJ W

[rockershovel]

Britain wasn’t remotely self-sufficient in oil until the 1970s, in the sense of providing its needs from domestic production. The conversion of navies from coal to oil firing fundamentally changed the strategic pattern of both World Wars - the great production regions of the Caucasus, Caspian and Mesopotamia were essential to both sides (Saudi Arabia was not, then, a major producing region). The development of aviation and motor transport completely changed consumption patterns. 

 

It might be said that British owned companies, operating in the Empire and associated territories, met the needs of the Empire, but that’s a slightly different matter. 

 

Fracking is used to produce both gas and oil, depending on the field geology and reservoir composition. It’s a common oilfield technique. “Fracking” as commonly understood in the press and the population at large, is a specific application of the technique in conjunction with developments in horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and fracking fluid technology, which mean that shallow, close-grained structures which weren’t previously of interest, can now be worked with a measure of success. The recent US oil drilling boom in places like Bakken is a good example; the Saudis have large reserves of it, but have other things to amuse themselves with.  

 

UK onshore reserves are a good question, too. There was indeed, once an oil shale mining industry in Scotland, but that finally closed in the 1960s. There were significant minor reserves around Eakring in Nottinghamshire, and in Lincolnshire; I worked on a well in Gainsborough in the 1970s, and around Petts Wood in Sussex in the 1980s. BP’s Wytch Farm field is based onshore in Dorset. But there are a lot of “notional” reserves which are known to exist, more or less, but they mostly have no realistic extraction plan; the reserves around Gatwick, which appear occasionally in the less well-informed financial pages when some minor speculator feels like trying to ramp up some shares, are a good example. 

[lanchester]

17 hours ago, john new said:

 

And the UK still does in the Selby Coalfield. If the government hadn't abandoned the fumes scrubbing research we could perhaps still be self sufficient (or partially so) for electricity generation and without using nuclear.

The coal wouldn't come from the Selby field though. Although there are prodigious quantities there, with five or six winnable seams, the decision from the start was only to exploit the Barnsley seam. The reason being, much of the land is only a few feet above sea level (the Ouse is tidal up to Naburn, and before the Victorians put the lock in, was tidal to beyond York). The expected subsidence of up to a metre, just from winning the Barnsley, was about as much as could be coped with. Diverting the ECML would have been just the start of what was needed. I lived in Stillingfleet until quite recently - Google for pictures of floods around the Cawood swing bridge - pretty well any year will do - to see the extent of flooding on otherwise prime agricultural land even without additional coal-related subsidence. (Although abandoning dredging since the last commercial traffic ended in the early 2000s, paper webs to York Press, I think, hasn't helped).

 

As it happens, the Selby field closed more or less according to the original plans, although much less coal was won, largely because the geology turned out to be less favourable than the surveys had indicated.

 

The Vale of Belvoir/North East Leicester Prospect, would probably have had similar constraints - well above sea level but the land is very poorly drained.

 

I suspect that, if Mrs T and Arthur Scargill had never been born, we still wouldn't have a deep mining industry by now - but we might have got there without wrecking quite so many lives. Mind you,  who on earth would you get to work down a pit these days? 

[rockershovel]

9 minutes ago, lanchester said:

The coal wouldn't come from the Selby field though. Although there are prodigious quantities there, with five or six winnable seams, the decision from the start was only to exploit the Barnsley seam. The reason being, much of the land is only a few feet above sea level (the Ouse is tidal up to Naburn, and before the Victorians put the lock in, was tidal to beyond York). The expected subsidence of up to a metre, just from winning the Barnsley, was about as much as could be coped with. Diverting the ECML would have been just the start of what was needed. I lived in Stillingfleet until quite recently - Google for pictures of floods around the Cawood swing bridge - pretty well any year will do - to see the extent of flooding on otherwise prime agricultural land even without additional coal-related subsidence. (Although abandoning dredging since the last commercial traffic ended in the early 2000s, paper webs to York Press, I think, hasn't helped).

 

As it happens, the Selby field closed more or less according to the original plans, although much less coal was won, largely because the geology turned out to be less favourable than the surveys had indicated.

 

The Vale of Belvoir/North East Leicester Prospect, would probably have had similar constraints - well above sea level but the land is very poorly drained.

 

I suspect that, if Mrs T and Arthur Scargill had never been born, we still wouldn't have a deep mining industry by now - but we might have got there without wrecking quite so many lives. Mind you,  who on earth would you get to work down a pit these days? 

 

Soft Northern Jessies! Come to East Anglia, where the land floods more years than not! 

 

I worked for a drilling company in Nottingham in the early 80s, and we routinely deployed pumps, hoses and settlement tanks in winter in the York and the Ouse and Soar valleys, it was a nice little earner for specialised gear with few other applications. 

 

I suspect you are right about the ongoing decline of the coal mining industry, particularly since the 1960s. I’d take issue with your query about “who would work down a pit now”, one thing I’ve seen in my travels in the FSU countries is that what matters, is the cultural context. Mining is a way of life, not a job. 

 

 

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

 

Actually fracking is used to release gas rather than oil. It has been used for a long time to extract gas from offshore gas fields such as the North Sea. The oil and gas reserves in the North Sea has been known about since Victorian times but the technology (and the money) to extract it wasn't there. A lot of the oil produced in the UK before 1939 was shale oil.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom, the first hydraulic fracturing of an oil well was carried out shortly after discovery of the West Sole field in the North Sea in 1965"

[tomparryharry]

Turning Wyes on the Western. Not sure If I've said it before, but just a few. 

 

Bristoi,

Newport Maindee,

Newport Park Junction/Ebbw Jct.

Penarth Curve,

Caerphilly,

Pontypridd,

Stormstown,

Barry,

Carmarthen.

 

I've probably forgotten a lot, and quite a few more that I don't know about. It makes sense to exchange a double junction chord, especially if you've got a traffic flow going over it.

 

Didcot (Foxhall) forgot about that.....

[The Johnster]

Bristol includes 4 separate triangles in the Stoke Gifford complex, Dr. Day’s, and North Somerset.  You also forgot Landore, Dynefor Jc, Reading West, Westbury, and Gloucester.  Stormstown and Barry were lifted tears ago. 
 

Other long gones include Pontypool Rd, Porthcawl, and, at a push, a return loop at Pilning. I’ve prolly left out loads as well. 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by The Johnster