Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, John Besley said:

We need to see some CAD designs of the "New BR Standards"....

 

Indeed - this is not the 'Imaginary Locos Names & Numbers' thread; fictional histories are of little interest when not accompanied by some form of diagram / drawing / illustration to back them up.

 

CJI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Following on from Corbs' splendid turbine-locomotive images, would an LMS turbine Johnson 4P 0-6-0 have worked in terms of reduced coal consumption? According to Wikipedia, Stanier 'reluctantly' sanctioned construction of the last 45 Johnson units at the Operating Division's request, even though the Black 5 design was available, and had about the same tractive effort. LMS 6202 did give 6% lower coal use with a turbine optimised for 75 mph; would the Johnsons have been appreciably better than this if only required to do stationary to 25 mph with loaded wagons, and maybe 50 mph returning with empties? And then triggered development of  selectable gears (changed manually with the loco stationary) to cope with the different duties, and with reversing?

 

LMS ended up with just under 1000 Johnson 4Ps, so increased efficiency could well have been justifiable. Not sure about the Whole life Cost aspects: the turbine element might only have had the 10 year life of LMS 6202.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you mean 4Fs.  While giving them turbines may have improved performance in some running conditions, they are best suited to continual operation at a given speed and under a given load.   Mineral work isn’t like this even the long distance Toton-Cricklewoods, as the route is not level and the nature of mineral work in general is that the trains are frequently held at signals or put inside loops or layby sidings, not to mention colliery shunting.  The GC’s ‘windcutters’ and ‘Annesley runners were an exception, and not really in existence until the 60s when traffic on the London Extension was so light that even lowly class 9s could be given guaranteed clear runs over long distances. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know if any of you have heard of a certain gravity-powered aerial ropeway at Forterra in Claughton, but it seems to be an ingenious idea. While the technology has been around for about a century now, it’s still a great concept, and it led me to wonder: if large freight consists were kept at controlled speeds through air or vacuum brakes, could the need for bankers be removed entirely with a similar (much larger) rail-level system if installed on the likes of the Lickey Incline and similar locations?

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

While giving them turbines may have improved performance in some running conditions, they are best suited to continual operation at a given speed and under a given load.   Mineral work isn’t like this even the long distance Toton-Cricklewoods, as the route is not level and the nature of mineral work in general is that the trains are frequently held at signals or put inside loops or layby sidings, not to mention colliery shunting

 

Much of the inefficiency of stop-start operation arises from intermittent working of the boiler.  It is difficult to get full benefit from superheating for example, as the temperature varies with work rate and will be low after the train has stood for any length of time.  This is the case whether reciprocating or turbine drive is used.

 

BTW why Johnson 4Fs?  Surely Matthew Kirtley originated the pattern of 0-6-0s built by the Midland Railway?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

I don’t know if any of you have heard of a certain gravity-powered aerial ropeway at Forterra in Claughton, but it seems to be an ingenious idea. While the technology has been around for about a century now, it’s still a great concept, and it led me to wonder: if large freight consists were kept at controlled speeds through air or vacuum brakes, could the need for bankers be removed entirely with a similar (much larger) rail-level system if installed on the likes of the Lickey Incline and similar locations?

It would restrict capacity as you would need a heavy freight path to be available in each direction simultaneously, and of course delays to trains in one direction would prevent the train travelling in the other from using the incline. I imagine that bankers are much more useful.

 

Also, how dare you suggest we use fewer locomotives on this thread? Go away and imagine a new locomotive for banking duties on the Lickey Incline while you think about what you've done!

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

LMS ended up with just under 1000 Johnson 4Ps, so increased efficiency could well have been justifiable. Not sure about the Whole life Cost aspects: the turbine element might only have had the 10 year life of LMS 6202.

 

42 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

BTW why Johnson 4Fs?  Surely Matthew Kirtley originated the pattern of 0-6-0s built by the Midland Railway?

 

I am frequently confounded by the attribution of certain LMS stand classes - the 4P compound 4-4-0s, 2P 4-4-0s, and 4F 0-6-0s - to S.W. Johnson, who retired as Locomotive Superintendent of the Midland Railway in 1903, twenty years before the grouping and before any of the Midland classes from which the LMS standards were developed were designed. The 4P compounds were derived from the Deeley compounds, which differed is certain fundamental respects from the Smith-Johnson compounds (Deeley stated that the Midland had no Smith compounds); the 2Ps were derived from the 483 Class, which were rebuilds of Johnson 4-4-0s in name only, being new engines of fundamentally new design; likewise the 4Fs were new engines of new design - both the latter classes being the only Midland designs built new with superheaters.  

Edited by Compound2632
Last sentence edited for clarity.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I am frequently confounded by the attribution of certain LMS stand classes

 

I agree, but it is a popular sport among train buffs to bash Midland locomotive practice and my point was that if you are going to imply that the 4F was antiquated in conception, you might as well get your attribution right.  Sorry, @DenysW , I hope this doesn't come over as too personal, but the trope is in my view a little worn.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

It would restrict capacity as you would need a heavy freight path to be available in each direction simultaneously, and of course delays to trains in one direction would prevent the train travelling in the other from using the incline. I imagine that bankers are much more useful.

 

Also, how dare you suggest we use fewer locomotives on this thread? Go away and imagine a new locomotive for banking duties on the Lickey Incline while you think about what you've done!

Ask and you shall receive, @DK123GWR!

 

I have far too many 9F-based designs in my portfolio… 

FBCCE05E-E29E-4BC0-A172-0145E2A88F6A.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John Besley said:

We need to see some CAD designs of the "New BR Standards"....

Shame I don't have the kind of apps, much less patience, to do that.

 

Although I could try to do some drawings at some point in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Think you mean 4Fs.  While giving them turbines may have improved performance in some running conditions, they are best suited to continual operation at a given speed and under a given load.   Mineral work isn’t like this even the long distance Toton-Cricklewoods, as the route is not level and the nature of mineral work in general is that the trains are frequently held at signals or put inside loops or layby sidings, not to mention colliery shunting.  The GC’s ‘windcutters’ and ‘Annesley runners were an exception, and not really in existence until the 60s when traffic on the London Extension was so light that even lowly class 9s could be given guaranteed clear runs over long distances. 

 

Yet didn't the Swedes successfully use turbines in 2-8-0's on ore trains, for some 20 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Murican said:

Something like it was proposed before the 08 made it pointless. Though of course things going a bit better for steam in the Boyd-verse enabled Riddles to build a small number of them.

Just a thought seeing as how Riddles was involved with the WD designs might a variation of the Austerity Tank been used along with Outside cylinders - from my own personal experience the Austerity is a very good loco for shunting and short trip work, while they are fine for branch line work as well from the firemans point of view you have to keep an eye on them all the time to keep on top of them with care you can keep them on the red line with out blowing off all day - great little engines 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Besley said:

Just a thought seeing as how Riddles was involved with the WD designs might a variation of the Austerity Tank been used along with Outside cylinders - from my own personal experience the Austerity is a very good loco for shunting and short trip work, while they are fine for branch line work as well from the firemans point of view you have to keep an eye on them all the time to keep on top of them with care you can keep them on the red line with out blowing off all day - great little engines 

That is a nice alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Yet didn't the Swedes successfully use turbines in 2-8-0's on ore trains, for some 20 years?

To quote http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swedturb/swedturb.htm:

 

"The main purpose of the TGOJ was the transportation of iron ore from mines around and at Grangesberg to the Baltic port of Oxelosund, a distance of 159 miles (255 km). The first turbine locomotive proved to be more efficient than its conventional sisters; it could pull 1830 tons up a 1 in 100 gradient, and was reckoned to save 10% on fuel. All the engines were non-condensing, with a forward-mounted turbine and jackshaft drive". 

 

159 miles with that kind of load, possibly non-stop, is likely to have the turbine working in its optimum efficiency range for much longer than could be achieved in the UK.  Also, there was probably very little else on the line to overtake or be refuged from.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 4F attracts adverse comment not so much because of it's 'antiquated' design as the weaknesses of some aspects of Midland practice, notably the axle boxes.  After all, the other companies all brought out equally 'antiquated' brand new designs of 0-6-0 tender locos in the 20s and 30s, without them being though of as oldfashioned, and the type was continued into the 40s with the Bullied Q1, not everyone's cup of tea in terms of appearance but a very powerful and effective locomotive.

 

All of these 'modern' 0-6-0s conformed in many ways to the layout of the Victorian 6-coupled 'goods' engine, actually in practice capable of doing secondary or excursion passenger work and really the equivalent of the mixed traffic designs of the 20s and 30s.  Clearly there was a percieved demand for more 0-6-0s, at least until the end of WW2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I'd give some help to everyone trying to imagine what my BR Standards look like. Since I didn't have the technology or patience to crate CADs myself, I decided to link images that inspired my ideas.

 

The 3F 0-6-0T is basically the big-tanked version of this design shown here intially created by @Corbs.

 

The Standard 6 4-6-0s are basically just the Standard 5 frame that's been modified to accomodate a boiler based on those of the Jubilee 4-6-0s. However, the smoke deflectiors are based on those worn by the Britannias.

 

The 9P 4-6-4s modifies the boilers of the @Corbs take on the proposed Stanier 4-6-4 (see here for that and the Stanier 4-8-4). Then, it places said boiler on top of a modified Britannia frame and couples it up to my BR4 tender. The end result is fairly close to a 4-6-4 version of this locomotive.

 

The Standard 8 Pacifics are rather obviously just the Duke of Gloucester.

 

The 8MT 2-8-4 tanks are based on this idea from @Corbs.

 

The Standard 10 4-8-4s resemble this 4-8-4 mock-up created by @Satan's Goldfish, but with the boiler of @Corbs take on the Stanier 4-8-4 and two other key differences. The tender is the eight-wheel BR4 Tender I made up. Whereas the drive wheels of my Standard 10s use the Bulleid Firth Brown design.

 

P.S. Obviously, my take on the Stanier 4-8-4 would use the same eight-wheel tender as the one @Corbs 4-6-4.

Edited by Murican
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Murican said:

The Standard 10 4-8-4s resemble this 4-8-4 mock-up created by @Satan's Goldfish, but with the boiler of @Corbs take on the Stanier 4-8-4 and two other key differences. The tender is the eight-wheel BR4 Tender I made up. Whereas the drive wheels of my Standard 10s use the Bulleid Firth Brown design.

 

Actually come to think of it, the wheels on my 4-8-4 are a bit larger than in the picture shown. Specifically, they use 5ft 8in diameter drivers akin to those on the Standard 4 4-6-0 and 2-6-4T.

Edited by Murican
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing.

 

I was thinking in the world where my BR Standards exist, most if not all of these planned further examples exist: 

 

Of course I doubt there'd be as many Standard 5s as 111. However, I can definitely see said Standard 5s getting Caprotti Valve Gear.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Northmoor said:

To quote http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swedturb/swedturb.htm:

 

"The main purpose of the TGOJ was the transportation of iron ore from mines around and at Grangesberg to the Baltic port of Oxelosund, a distance of 159 miles (255 km). The first turbine locomotive proved to be more efficient than its conventional sisters; it could pull 1830 tons up a 1 in 100 gradient, and was reckoned to save 10% on fuel. All the engines were non-condensing, with a forward-mounted turbine and jackshaft drive". 

 

159 miles with that kind of load, possibly non-stop, is likely to have the turbine working in its optimum efficiency range for much longer than could be achieved in the UK.  Also, there was probably very little else on the line to overtake or be refuged from.

Fair point, I hadn't realised that was the sort of distance the Swedish 2-8-0's worked over. I wonder what sort of UK traffic flow would lend itself to turbine operation? Fish traffic? Mails? The GC windcutters? Maybe non-stop fitted freights over the S&C?

The Swedish 2-8-0's are fascinating to watch, there is some video on YouTube. Quieter than a diesel.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

I'd think MGR might suit a well-geared turbine.   

Maybe, but still nowhere near as efficient as a diesel.  The specific fuel consumption (SFC) of a diesel engine is pretty consistent through the speed range; it has to run barely above idle to move a 1000t MGR train at 0.5mph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Lickey Bank, I'd have like to have seen whether the Maffei 0-8-8-0 Tanks coped with the duty. There are some signs of them having been a vanity project (as: my Bavarian tank engine is more powerful than your Prussian tank engine), but 25 were built and mostly survived through WW2, pretty much in banking duty. There are HO models, so no need for kit-bashing unfortunately.

 

I also note that the Maglev connecting Birmingham International station to Birmingham Airport has been rebuilt rope-hauled.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...