Jump to content
We are aware of the intermittent site speed issues at the moment. Please be patient and don't repeatedly click things as that compounds the issue.

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

 I believe that after an imaginary Locomotive exchange with K. Bay.Sts.B. in 1911, GWR would have gone with the Krauss design (b elow, image is a Fleischmann model, desperately in need of Swindonisation) which has a stabilising axle at the front. 13 tons/axle, 12,600 lb starting tractive effort. Looks like a nice branchline 1P. The stubby 0-4-0 get sent to the docks as a shunter.

image.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I must say, of all the designs in this thread, this certainly looks the most realistic. Wouldn't be surprised if a similar locomotive actually worked at an industrial location

I think on a real one the crew’s legs would get rather burnt from heat given off by the fire box/backhead  but agree it does look nice.  Open backed cab perhaps for heat dissipation.

 

Edited by john new
Typo (back not blackhead!)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sudden enlightenment... I have in the past vaguely wondered why many of the micro locomotives used for rail motors at the turn of the century used outside Walschaerts valve gear, but those creations have given me a clue - how much their ash pans must be reduced in size to allow for the eccentrics between the frames and the difficulties that must be experienced keeping the abrasive ash from where it will do great harm. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect these bantam creations would have had marine fireboxes if they didn’t have outside valve gear. 

 

The really implausible ‘trainset’ models have inside cylinders too. Inside cylinder and valve gear 0-4-0Ts with conventional boilers are pretty rare. 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was struck a while back by these odd looking 19thC GWR rebuilds which started life as 0-4-2T. They had a lot of weight on the rear drivers, enough in fact to reduce their route availability. But now I consider the valve gear/ashpan clearance then the configuration starts to make sense. 

 

040-92-Wolvrebuild-v21.jpg.1f228be45376ec776355030130d82af7.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

I suspect these bantam creations would have had marine fireboxes if they didn’t have outside valve gear. 

 

The really implausible ‘trainset’ models have inside cylinders too. Inside cylinder and valve gear 0-4-0Ts with conventional boilers are pretty rare. 

 

There was one with a marine boiler (IIRC Highland railway). But it spent more time in the workshops than it did in service and after a few short years the locomotive portion was scrapped and the passenger portion converted to a conventional carriage. 

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

2 hours ago, JimC said:

They had a lot of weight on the rear drivers, enough in fact to reduce their route availability.

 

That sent me looking up the weight diagrams for the rather similar Johnson 0-4-0STs [R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 3 (Wild Swan, 1988)]. The earlier, smaller, 1322 Class carried 8 t 9 c on the front axle and 14 t 14 c on the rear axle; the later, larger, 1116A Class were 13 t 19 c 1 q on the front and 18 t 3 c 3 q on the rear. For comparison, the first series of Johnson singles were 18 t 10 c on the driving axle. But these engines didn't work on lightly-laid branches but on the solidly-built dockside lines at Gloucester and Bristol, or the back streets of Burton.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JimC said:

But now I consider the valve gear/ashpan clearance then the configuration starts to make sense. 

 

It makes sense as an 0-4-2T which would have been quite conventional for the time.  Presumably there was a need to get it round tight curves, but a Bissell truck would have been a better idea (see the LNWR box tanks and sundry narrow gauge 0-4-2Ts).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 10:01, Flying Pig said:

 

It makes sense as an 0-4-2T which would have been quite conventional for the time.  Presumably there was a need to get it round tight curves, but a Bissell truck would have been a better idea (see the LNWR box tanks and sundry narrow gauge 0-4-2Ts).

Weren't there a small class of 0-4-2T built for Aberdeen docks? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/10/2021 at 09:21, DenysW said:

 I believe that after an imaginary Locomotive exchange with K. Bay.Sts.B. in 1911, GWR would have gone with the Krauss design (b elow, image is a Fleischmann model, desperately in need of Swindonisation) which has a stabilising axle at the front. 13 tons/axle, 12,600 lb starting tractive effort. Looks like a nice branchline 1P. The stubby 0-4-0 get sent to the docks as a shunter.

image.png

It's certainly in need of something, although I was thinking of a gas axe? 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2021 at 19:39, ScottishRailFanatic said:

In response to notes on my dual-cab 08, here’s a new bogie version. Along with that, here’s an Avonside-Peckett crossover 0-6-0ST.

E9B91FA7-2580-4E94-908C-4DBC03981092.png

 

The only issue being that the radiator has been covered over so there would need to be additional radiator space added, which, would increase the length. 

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

I’ve been trying to figure out what would have happened if the pilot scheme wasn’t abandoned, which, locomotives would have survived and which wouldn’t. 
 

This is as far as I’ve got:

 

Selected for further production - EE type 1* (class 20), brush type 2 (class 30/31)**, BRCW type 2 (class 26), BR derby type 2 (class 24) ***. 

 

*possibly in more conversational package such as that used by the baby deltic. 
**possible use for new type 4 requirement with alternative power unit. 

***refined design like class 25/3 to keep BR workshops in work.
 

Not continued/replaced by new design:

EE type 4 (class 40), BR derby type 4 (class 44). 

 

Both to be replaced by new design for type 4 production. 

 

Not selected for further development:

BTH type 1 (class 15), BTH type 1 (class 16), North British type 1 (class 21), EE type 2 (class 23), metro-vick type 2 (class 28). 

 

Other locomotives:

BRCW type 3 (class 33) - developed for SR and perpetuated across BR as a whole. 

 

EE type 3 (class 37) - produced as a replacement for EE type 4. 

 

EE Deltic - perpetuated across both ER and WR until WCML electrification completed. 

 

My thinking is that the chosen designs would be produced in larger numbers, the type 4 replacement process would probably follow a similar process to what actually happened in that the class 47 and class 50 could have appeared anyway. 
 

I am fascinated with the idea that the brush type 2 was uprated and can imagine if the pilot scheme wasn’t abandoned, the remedial work to make the Mirrless power plants suitable for uprating may have been achievable without leaving BR power hungry. 


It’s interesting to ponder that BR might have seen the positive power/weight ratio of  high speed diesels, coupled with stressed steel construction as a way to achieve type 4 or even type 5 power ratings. This could have resulted in lower axle loadings therefore ridding BR of the cumbersome (albeit handsome) 1Co-Co1’s. It would also not present the disadvantages of diesel hydraulics not having sufficient weight to brake unfitted trains as the diesel electric transmission is still heavier than the diesel hydraulics.  The downside to this train of thought is that Brush used two engines to obtain 2800hp out of Falcon so the benefits of using this system were somewhat negated and as proven by the development of the class 47. That said, if BR had not abandoned the pilot scheme, there would have been time for both EE and Sulzer to develop higher horsepower medium speed diesels for rail traction, as eventually happened with the class 47 and class 50. 
 

What would have been interesting is whether or not BR could have learned from the experience of SNCF when maintaining the Sulzer LVA, resulting in the use of that engine instead of the LDA. I think the LVA was slightly lighter so would have further helped with axle loads, perhaps this could have been used in it’s 8 cylinder Vee format to re-power the Brush type 2 as a type 3 rated at 1750hp or 12 cylinder Vee format for a type 4. 
 

Either way, if it was as simple as I’ve tried to make it we would see the following on BR at the time of steam disappearing (which probably happens later) on top of the pilot scheme orders:

 

EE Type 2 (class 21?) Uprated class 20 in a baby deltic body

BR derby type 2 (class 25/3)

BRCW type 2 (class 27)

BRCW type 3 (class 33)

EE type 3 (class 37)

Brush/BR derby type 3(class 39?) type 2 uprated to type 3/4 using workshop space vacated by type 4 production 

Brush type 4 (class 47)

Brush type 4 (Class 48)

EE type 4 (class 50)

EE type 5 Deltic (class 55)

 

Obviously I have not touched on the complicated subject of the diesel hydraulics, I’ll leave that for another day. 

 

Edited by Traintresta
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really interesting ideas there @Traintresta.  It doesn't though, address the point raised by others that BR ended up with far too many Type 2s for the type of traffic remaining by the 1970s.

 

I do like the idea of the uprated Class 31 - why did the 2000hp Mirrlees engine not suffer the same problems as the lower powered standard version? - but the EE type 4 has similar potential.  It may be overweight so have a poor power/weight ratio (although the axle loading wasn't excessive), but when you consider that the engine was eventually developed to put out 3250hp in the Class 56 less than 20 years later, what was to stop a 2500hp version being installed in the same locomotive?  Would there be space for a 25% increase in radiator area?

 

In a similar vein, I would have loved to have seen a series build of the LMS twins; the 1600hp engine was quickly uprated to 2000hp in 10203.  A 2250hp 10003-10250 could have done most of the work of the Peaks.

 

One other thing, whatever happened to the experimental uprating of 37292 to 2000hp in the mid-80s?  Other than seeing photos of the loco in works for modification, I've never read anything of the conclusions of the trial.

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

An interesting line of thought.

I suspect that by the time the pilot scheme locos had been properly evaluated, it would have become clear that the need for single-cab type 1s was reducing. So I agree that the production '20s' might have been twin-cab but I suspect they would also have had an uprated engine and slotted into the type 2 power range.

Whether the future excess of type 2s would have been foreseen at that time is less clear.

 

As Northmoor says, there would have been scope for uprating the larger EE types too.

I'm not sure the Deltics would have survived the selection process in that case.

 

The TOPS class designations came rather later of course, so all the class numbers of those that survived that long would probably have been different.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d forgotten about 37292, I have a reference to it in the book Class 37’s at work, but my dad has it at present. 
 

very true that there were way too many type 2’s. However, we could still have been looking at orders for type 2’s in the mid60’s as the Beeching report didn’t arrive til 66’, so this situation might have persisted. 
 

Perhaps with the type 4 story and the collapse of BRCW at the time of the order for the class 47’s, and the time that would have elapsed with the pilot scheme running, more BRCW type 2’s and 3’s may not have been possible so we could have been looking at BR derby products and uprated Brush type 2’s. 
 

The Mirrless engine of the Brush type 2  sufferers from stress in all of the uprated versions and had to go back to the manufacturer for strengthening. They were later sold on for use in trawlers once removed from BR use. 

 

I got the impression that it’s the weight and bogie issues of the EE type 4 and BR/Sulzer type 4’s that were their main drawbacks. You could supply more power to the EE package but if the pilot scheme ran its course, the class 47 would have been on the board before more orders were made, meaning that lighter weight and higher power were already in the works so why persist with the original type 4 designs.  

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

Thinking about the 33, it was ideal for the Southern but wouldn't have been so much use elsewhere in the early 1960s. Why? Because it didn't have steam heating for passenger work, and didn't have enough weight to reliably stop the length of unfitted freight that its power allowed it to haul. The Southern went to electric heating and fully-fitted freights earlier than the other regions. 

But then, perhaps if BR hadn't wasted so much money on replicating rubbish diesel designs because the pilot scheme was abandoned, they would have had more money to spend on upgrading freight train brakes and carriage heating?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 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...