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

3 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

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?

Good point, this might be where an up uprated Brush type 2 might have slotted in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.  I generally agree with your list, but not completely.  You have not mentioned the hydraulics, because of course they were always going to be a dead end and not worth mentioning.  There is only need for one  Type 2, and having had experience of the BR Sulzers I would prefer the BRCW type, and the BRCW type 3 was a pocket rocket, but in the event the firm was in too much trouble to have supplied them in the numbers needed.  Deltics are a non-starter as a standard loco; nobody wanted a prima donna and BR refused to buy them from EE, entering into a hire agreement that would have been uneconomic for general use across the WR and LMR. 

 

The 1955 plan was hobbled by inaccurate data from the Rugby Testing Centre, which underrated the power outputs of steam locos and led to underpowered diesels being ordered. 

 

Here's my suggestion;

Shunting, class 14 based 500hpj diesel electric centre cab capable of road switcher work up to 45mph.

Type 1, class 20 as built with periscope lookout for front view when used singly nose end first.

Type 2. not really needed beyond a limited number of 31s for ecs work at London termini and the remaining hauled commuter trains out of KX.

Type 3, class 37 with restyled cabs at ends of loco, class 50 style.

Type 4, class 47 based with engine derated to 2,500hp.

 

Type 5, not available in economically viable and reliable form until 1970, to be capable of 125 mph in passenger mode.  Type 3 and 4 locos to be given upgraded bogies to allow 125mph running for passenger working.  No locomotive to weigh more than 115tons in working order

 

All locomotives including electric, and all multiple units, to have a standard cab control console and be capable of working in multiple with each other.  Timings/loads beyond the capacity of single locomotive to be dealt with by double heading with a combination of Type 2, 3, and 4 locos, all to be capable of 100mph running.  Possible need for electro-diesels on Southern 3rd rail network and LT, but must be compatible with standard control and multiple working.  All locos except shunting to be Co-Cos with bogies geared alternatively for passenger work at maximum 100, later 125mph, or freight at maximum 75, later 90mph.  Class 20 for 60mph only.

 

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

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. 

The Beeching Report was published on 27th March 1963, his second on 16th February 1965 and was back working at ICI by June that year.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Once DP2 had been tried & tested, would there have been any need for the Deltics?

 

It's an interesting thought that Deltics could have been just one of those small prototype classes that didn't last long. There was certainly a need for a 100mph loco, which if the Modernisation Plan had continued as originally planned would have worked beyond the wires as electrification progressed and on routes not scheduled for electrification. I can easily see the class 50 doing the same job beyond the wires on the ECML as they did on the WCML. On other routes this would have eliminated the need for the 47/4 beyond the initial 20, which could have had their boilers and ETH removed after 1967. So imagine a fleet of ~200 class 50s working in all regions instead of 47/4s (meaning there wouldn't have been a 47/4 under TOPS).

 

Go back to first principles of the 1955 plan. Diesels were only to be a stopgap for widespread electrification. There should have been no need for a 125 mph diesel after 1970 as the wires were supposed to have reached Glasgow and Edinburgh by then. By that time Europe was already building 200 km/h AC electrics.

 

I know this is an "imaginary locomotives" thread but in the context of the modernisation plan I think there is too much focus on locomotives. Had electrification proceeded as planned, it may not have been necessary for as much to be loco-hauled. Something like the class 309 in 8/10/12 coach formations could have handled many of the fast and semi-fast services prior to 125mph running. Noting they did eventually do this work between Manchester and Birmingham (and occasionally to Euston) in the late 1990s this shows what they could have done 30 years earlier.

 

Also remember that 7,000 steam locos were intended to still be in service in 1970 and the Standards were intended to have a working life of 25 years, meaning Evening Star was intended to be retired in 1985. Bulleid pacifics were intended to remain in service until slidey rail reached Exeter around 1980.


Cheers

David

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Agree with the above, except my fast & semi-fast EMU would be based on the class 310 platform. Something like a pressure ventilated, or even air con, mk2 based EMU, with 100mph top speed, & without the multitude of doors, would have sufficed for Euston-Birmingham, & Birmingham-Liverpool/Manchester fast & semi-fasts, leaving loco hauled rakes for the longer distance work. As @The Johnster referred to above, if the EMUs, locos & hauled stock had compatible MU systems, then, with a few driving trailers, you'd have a very flexible fleet. I believe the DB had MU compatible DMUs, hauled stock & locos.

Maybe a less interesting, more monotone railway though, but I guess you can't have it all.

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Agree with the above, except my fast & semi-fast EMU would be based on the class 310 platform. Something like a pressure ventilated, or even air con, mk2 based EMU, with 100mph top speed, & without the multitude of doors, would have sufficed for Euston-Birmingham, & Birmingham-Liverpool/Manchester fast & semi-fasts, leaving loco hauled rakes for the longer distance work. As @The Johnster referred to above, if the EMU's, locos & hauled stock has compatible MU systems, then, with a few driving trailers, you'd have a very flexible fleet. I believe the DB had MU compatible DMU's, hauled stock & locos.

Maybe a less interesting, more monotone railway though, but I guess you can't have it all.

To be fair, having diesle locos that could be driven by EMUs and vice versa, would be extremely difficult and probably not worth the effort.  Even having completely standard cab layouts for locos, DMUs and EMUs is unlikely, but it should certainly be possible for all in each category to be standard.  There is a precedent: the first five classes of AC Electrics have a (virtually) standard cab interior and the Class 86 is very similar.

 

Interoperability is an overlooked function in train procurement; the inability of many 2nd Generation DMUs to operate or even couple with each other is a disgrace.  

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

  • RMweb Gold
2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

To be fair, having diesle locos that could be driven by EMUs and vice versa, would be extremely difficult and probably not worth the effort.  Even having completely standard cab layouts for locos, DMUs and EMUs is unlikely, but it should certainly be possible for all in each category to be standard.  There is a precedent: the first five classes of AC Electrics have a (virtually) standard cab interior and the Class 86 is very similar.

 

Interoperability is an overlooked function in train procurement; the inability of many 2nd Generation DMUs to operate or even couple with each other is a disgrace.  

True, fair point, but having hauled stock with driving trailers than can work in MU with diesel locos, electric locos & D/EMUs would be a bonus. I don't know what any drivers on here think, but I'd imagine standard cab layouts are probably less necessary than you might think. There might even be a case for them being deliberately laid out differently between diesel, electric & MU types (but not within), as it then makes the driver more conscious of what he/she is driving.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

seems relevant!

Some really interesting stuff here that puts a very different slant on this topic. It would be a really interesting thing to mock up the LNER passenger locos that were to be ordered from EE, I wonder if they would have used the 1Co-Co1 bogies that were already in the making for the SR diesels or if EE would have provided something similar to what they supplied to

Egypt? Perhaps if larger scale dieselisation was in hand by the time of nationalisation, we might have had the pilot scheme many years before and I think EE would have had a bigger advantage. 

 

The two main points I take from that discussion is that A) engines may have been swapped into different loco designs to get a ‘best case’ product similar to what might have happened with an EE engine in the class 47 and B) there may have been a further pilot in view of the fact that the one we had didn’t give us what we needed, as shown by the addition of the type 3 power range. 
 

With that in mind we might have seen more competition for the type 3 power range, both the EE type 3 and the Brush type 2 could have competed (just) for the type 4 power range but the brush machine would likely have been found to have engine problems by the time a further pilot wrapped up. 


Of course a lot of what transpired was hampered by choices in train heating and braking, it would be more interesting to consider that a further pilot scheme might have factored these in or that earlier dieselisation might have allowed these to happen earlier. 
 

I think it’s true to say we would have had a very different fleet of locomotives on BR had these things happened. 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Once DP2 had been tried & tested, would there have been any need for the Deltics?

IMHO there was never any need for Deltics in the first place, though they were a more realistic assessment of how to equate diesel traction to 8P steam haulage than a class 40.  Ivatt seems to have got it right with the twins, and Type 3s of this general sort running singly or in pairs could have easily replaced steam by about 1965.  The 50s would not have been needed either (they were ordered as stopgaps after a postponement of the Weaver Jc-Motherwall electrification, an improved timetable having already been promised) had the 47s been capable of working in multiple.  Even then, it might have been possible to convert 47s to multiple working rather than order 51 DP2 clones to run double headed.  Their longevity was mostly down to their being conveniently available following the eventual installation of the wire on the WCML and the advent of the 87 to replace the Westerns on the WR.

 

My inner enthusiast loves the variety of first and second generation diesels, but my inner sensible railway economist sees the benefits of monotony.  A standard cab would eliminate the need for class specific traction knowledge, creating a more flexible driver pool comparable to steam days.

 

It is easy to criticise the 1955 plan for it's failed locomotive policy, but there were successes. It led to the adoption of air brakes, 60mph+ freight trains, 100mph and+ electrically heated and airconditioned passenger stock.  Speed is not just a matter of power and gearing, it is dependent on bogie design and ride as well, and it is my contention that a 6-wheel bogie is desirable for this and for traction at the rail head; carrying wheels are dead weight.  The best bogie design around in those days was probably the EE 6-wheeler from the Deltic, which was used succesfully on the 105mph 37 and the 110mph 50, and would have been acceptable as a standard.  It's ride was firm but steady, and IMHO it would have cured the riding issues of the 25kv AC electrics.  The commonwealth of the 47 gave a better than Pullman ride fresh from works, but after a bit of mileage gave a ride comparable to a paddle steamer in a gale, wallowing all over the place, and bottoming out the springs.

 

Another 1955 mistake (which should be considered with an awareness of the effect of 20/20 hindsight; it probably made sense at the time) was the inclusion of gangways for multiple working, which led to too many locos with noses and poor forward visibility.  We might have had a standard cab profile earlier, something like a 47, or 86, and it was IMHO regrettable that we were still building locos with noses up to the mid 60s in the case of the 37s.

 

There was, I think, some mileage to be had out of standardised engines, same overall design and parts with different numbers of cylinders from one manufacturer, and standardised generators and other equipment, along with large opening roof panels so that engines and equipment, and perhaps bogies and 'plug in' cabs could be swapped out to keep locomotives in service.  A standard monocoque locomotive body could have accommodated different sized engins or even replace them with 25kv or 750v third rail equipment dropped in by overhead gantries in the maintenance depots, so the same body could be a Type 2, then a 25kv electric, then a Type 4, then an electrodiesel and so on with the conversions taking less than a day out of traffic.  This might not have been practicable in 1955, but it would have been in the early 60s.

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

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Another 1955 mistake (which should be considered with an awareness of the effect of 20/20 hindsight; it probably made sense at the time) was the inclusion of gangways for multiple working, which led to too many locos with noses and poor forward visibility.  We might have had a standard cab profile earlier, something like a 47, or 86, and it was IMHO regrettable that we were still building locos with noses up to the mid 60s in the case of the 37s.

 

It was regarded as necessary for the secondman to be able to attend the heating boiler in the rear loco. The retention of steam heating was at best a necessary evil and at worst a bad mistake as heating boilers were a major souce of failure on diesel locos.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK wasn't the only country implementing gangways on diesels.    Pretty much every cab unit in the US carried a gangway, at least at the rear of the body.   I believe some cab units, and later cowl & hood-types had nose gangways, as well. 

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know.  Steam heating had to be retained until steam locomotives were no longer used on passenger work at night or during the steam heating season, but there was really no need despite the commonly held view.  The Southern was already well along the path of eth for loco hauled trains and there is no reason that the 1955 plan diesels could not have provided electric heating to dual heated stock retrofitted with eth.  Steam heating was a bad decision, and the elephant in the room here is ASLEF, who resisted electric heating on diesels in the interests of providing a neccessity for 2 men on a locomotive.  Even after the 1969 single manning agreement, steam heated workings still needed secondmen to look after the boilers.

 

Interestingly, some of the LMR's early class 40s were fitted with scoops to replenish the steam heating boiler water tanks from troughs. 

 

4 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

The UK wasn't the only country implementing gangways on diesels.    Pretty much every cab unit in the US carried a gangway, at least at the rear of the body.   I believe some cab units, and later cowl & hood-types had nose gangways, as well. 

 

US diesel practice was a major influence on ours, and proved highly unsuitable for British operating conditions.  Stateside, the game was long heavy trains that were capable of maximising pathage on their long single line sections, and they had developed multiple unit locomotives of single ended cab and cabless style, gangway connected and relatively low powered; you simply hooked up as many as you needed to pull the train.  Here, where train lengths were limited, generally to 60 wagons or 20 coaches, by the size of loops and sidings and signalling clearance overlaps, it was better to use higher powered single unit locomotives that saved on length. 

 

The Ivatt twins and gangwayed locos that were used after them in multiple did very little work overall on passenger trains with the steam heating in use, and the gangways were dispensed with in the early 60s in favour of centrally mounted headcode panels.  Steam heating could be provided to the train from the boiler on the leading locomotive and piped through the trailing one; there was never any need for the gangways, which caused draughts, and whose doors were probably never opened on the majority of those locos that carried them.

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

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Steam heating was a bad decision, and the elephant in the room here is ASLEF, who resisted electric heating on diesels in the interests of providing a neccessity for 2 men on a locomotive.  Even after the 1969 single manning agreement, steam heated workings still needed secondmen to look after the boilers.

I've often thought that while their reps clearly did very valuable service for members on an individual level, the rail unions' national policies did inestimable damage to the railways in Britain.  This applies particularly during the period when Beeching is blamed for everything.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I clearly remember the ASLEF general secretary of the day, Ray Buckton, a man who could give any mule a run for it’s money in terms of stubbornness, and apparently unable to communicate in the English language; he used a sort of committeespeak which referred a lot to mandates and committee procedure.  He must have been incredibly difficult and frustrating to negotiate with (which may not have always resulted in the best outcome for his members, and certainly hinders progress for both sides), and I’m sure he had equally obstinate and pig headed counterparts on the management side. 


He was by nature resistant to change at a time when change was inevitable, and must be understood in the post-Beeching context of his seeing his role as stemming as best he could the haemorrhaging of jobs, many of them his members’.  Morale was low, men who had devoted lives to the industry were being thrown thanklessly on the scrap heap, and a good deal of anger and resentment was understandably common and endemic. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2021 at 17:13, Traintresta said:

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. 

 

*EDIT* 

 

I also have my own interpretation but I thought that would be best to repost over to here instead (Page 14): 

 

Edited by R. Knowles
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, R. Knowles said:

For a good while I've been working on my own pet project in relation to this particular topic. 

...

Anyhow, its all meant to be an interpretation!

tl;dr

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 20:42, ScottishRailFanatic said:

How’s this for an improved privately-built Bantam Bristolian?

B9038373-12FE-4563-BE63-D0C72953E97E.png

Hi all,

These engines are not a million miles away from the 0-4-0 I built earlier this year.

DSC_1056.JPG

DSC_1057.JPG

DSC_1058.JPG

DSC_1059.JPG

  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if this was covered earlier in this thread, but how feasible is a 2-cylinder Pacific within the British losing gauge?

 

just looking at Thompson’s original pacific design (conversion) that didn’t make it off the drawing board and his conversion of the V2’s. There was a comparison to the 2-cylinder mixed traffic locos that did similar work that got me wondering if you could get enough power for a pacific from two cylinders. 

  • 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...