Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

You might not, but I am about to!

The LNWR ceased building 0-6-0s about 1903/4, moving not to moguls but to 4-6-0s.

It is a shame that due to a number of their senior officers approaching retirement age, that the LNWR thinking did not have more influence on LMS thinking.

That said, the retention of inside cylinders showed that maybe they switched to ten wheelers slightly too soon?

More damning was the retrograde influence of Riddles on the BR standards. Yes, outside cylinders and motion and high foot plates were a significant step forward, but not compared to other parts of the world: the Britannia pacifics - much as I admire them - were little more in concept and overall design than a Pennsylvania Railroad K4s from 40 years before...

 

But anyone who has sat in on a board room meeting will be aware that sometimes the common sense approach is outweighed by personalities, and ultimately the key driver for decisions should be stakeholder value. Not just the share price, nor the return on capital, but also the long term value and cost.

 

We also should be careful of casting too much blame on engineers not being able to anticipate better understanding in the future when it comes to things like hammer-blow, bridge deflection, etc.

But it wasn’t just attitude.

 

The railways made a big capital investment in the late Victorian/Edwardian era, and even without the Great War would have been constrained from further expenditure until they had shown a reasonable return. Lots of branchlines had small turntables which could only just cope with a large 0-6-0, and an outside cylinder 0-6-0 will “box” a lot on the track: a leading truck or bogie is really a sine qua non for adding outside cylinders, and the turntables would then need to be enlarged, so more capital expenditure on lines which rarely broke even.

 

Add to this the fact that after about 1870, investing in most of the bigger railway companies offered a steady, safe, long term return on capital, so governing bodies had to be very careful with new projects.

 

By the way, the Black 5 with Stephenson’s motion was highly regarded by those who drove it, with many feeling it was perfectly capable of class 6 duties.

What a lovely, refreshing attitude!

 

One abbreviation (it’s not an acronym unless it is pronounceable and regularly said as such) which annoys me is “IMHO”. IMO is fine, but I always think, “If your opinion was truly humble, it wouldn’t be expressed”!

 

Let’s hear it for people being proud of their opinions, no matter how senseless they may be.

 

Thank you Reg. for the positivity of this response.  I have to agree with your point about capital expenditure (to cope with increased traffic levels, improve pathing, and contend with increased axle loads.  A similar period of investment took place after the grouping; quadruplings, flyovers, avoiding lines and so on, and this was followed almost immediately by a very damaging general strike followed before full recovery by a world wide economic depression.  The GW must have thought it was xmas in 1923 when it was handed the extremely profitable South Wales coal trade on a plate complete with ports thrown in gratis; they may have lost some of their enthusiasm a decade later!

 

This hobbled development on Britain's railways for many years.  Your criticism of Riddles is justified, but one has to qualify it by asking who else was available at the time; we needed a Chapelon or Porta, and the alternatives were pretty lacklustre except for Bullied, who would have been disastrously innovative!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I have often wondered what the tractive effort of a black 5 type loco would be like with 1 or 2 extra driving wheel sets making them either a 4-8-0 or 4-10-0...

I think such a loco would be a good mixed traffic loco with 2 or 4 extra driving wheels as it could probably haul maybe 5 or 10 coaches or up to 20 or 25 wagons more than a 4-6-0.

In very simplistic terms isn't an 8f basically a black 5 on a 2-8-0 chassis? Bigger hauling capacity but lower speed...

 

Good example, the 5MT and 8F in general terms have a similar output steam generator (grate area and boiler)  and the same engines (cylinders and valves) to supply power to the wheels. The wheel diameter determines the gearing, number of wheels the available adhesion at any given axle load.

 

UK railway steam designers typically aimed to have a factor of adhesion of 4x the tractive effort estimate on fast locos, progressing to 5x for freight. The factors of adhesion are 5MT = 4.7, 8F = 5, the freight design having the better factor of adhesion available for its higher tractive effort, making it more reliable in starting heavy loads. Expectation would be that the 8F would start about 40% greater train weight than a 5MT, when both were operating at the limit of adhesion.

 

The 5MT's gearing with taller wheels means that it can run faster than the 8F, although here the differential will be smaller than might be expected as the limitation by maximum power output 'bites' significantly as speed increases.

Edited December 19, 2017 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[Regularity]

The GW must have thought it was xmas in 1923 when it was handed the extremely profitable South Wales coal trade on a plate complete with ports thrown in gratis; they may have lost some of their enthusiasm a decade later!

 

Similarly, the NER was so profitable it installed OLE between Newport and Shildon (I think) to shift coal traffic, and planned to electrify the mainline between York and Newcastle: although the latter was cancelled, the nascent LNER must have been relieved to have it as part of their core, along with the GNR and NBR, as a counterbalance to the GCR (good industrial base, but the London extension was a financial white-elephant), the GER (the famous “agricultural millstone”) and the GNoSR (serving a sparse area with low traffic potential). And then the 30s came along...

This hobbled development on Britain's railways for many years.  Your criticism of Riddles is justified, but one has to qualify it by asking who else was available at the time; we needed a Chapelon or Porta, and the alternatives were pretty lacklustre except for Bullied, who would have been disastrously innovative!

Well, the LMS senior management had a fairly clear idea that Riddles was a steam man, pending full-scale electrification, and kicked him upstairs to the position of Vice President, opening the way for Ivatt and his plans for testing diesel-electrics. It would have been more sensible to allow further construction of a limited number of grouping designs: this happened until the Standards came on stream anyway. The last Castle was built in 1951. It would have then been possible to spend some more time and money developing the LMS twins, options for DMUs, etc.

 

Undoubtedly the biggest loss was the death in a WW2 bombing raid on London of Josiah Stamp, whose business acumen and organisational genius would have made for a superb head of British Railways - assuming he could have been tempted, of course.

[FPH 603]

What about a CPH then?  There have been H0 models of them in the past, although I'm not sure if they're still available.

 

In case anyone is wondering what a CPH (a.k.a. "Tin Hare") is, here's a photo I took of one in the early 1970s (when it was still in revenue earning service) crossing at Riverstone with an ARHS tour headed by 1904 and 1919.  I can't remember the date, but it was probably 1973 or 74.

 

Pity... Why didn't I think of that? I might change the bodysides to make them look more like the CPH, except it will be steel panelled.

[sir douglas]

a standard gauge Armstrong Whitworth of 1924 for Buenos aires, the drawing is from the Engineer

 

i have butchered it up to fit british loading gauge as much as i can with 13 ft max height, buffers, footplate and running plate made higher, boiler and cab lowered, the tender body changed to more anglicised appearence and larger capacity. i rubbed out all the measurements and arrow lines that have been changed, the over all length hasnt changed apart from removing the cow catcher

[FPH 603]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've made a digital diagram of the tram as finalised.

I also have a coloured version.

[DavidB-AU]

I've come up with a proposal for the trams. I've made a rough sketch of what it may look like, which I've darkened for clarity. I've still got to make proper diagrams though. The stupidly drawn circle thing in the middle of it is supposed to be the Late BR Crest.

It could still be electric and operate much like an American "interurban". In which case it would probably have a trolley pole instead of a pantograph. Melbourne was still building trams with trolley poles up to 1985, and around 1984/85 experimented with dual height steps for ground or platform level loading.

 

Something like this might have saved the Camden line.

 

If it's run like an interurban it could haul the odd main line goods vehicle. You could even consider a combine or what the Americans would call a freight motor version, which would probably look something like a Bradfield parcels van.

 

Cheers

David

Edited December 20, 2017 by DavidB-AU

[Regularity]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've made a digital diagram of the tram as finalised.

 

I don’t think the passenger doors would be recessed: they would be flush. Also think a trolley pole is perfectly likely, with electric power.

Could not see non-British prime movers fitted at that point in time, either.

 

If it was to be able to haul something off the national network, you will need screw couplings, buffers and a vacuum brake pipe.

[DavidB-AU]

Could not see non-British prime movers fitted at that point in time, either.

A pair of contemporary (or even pre-war) AEC engines would give 210-260hp depending on the type.

 

Australia used a lot of GM 71 series engines in diesel railcars (conversions of petrol railcars and new builds) because they were cheap and plentiful after WW2, spares were easy to obtain (you can still buy new parts today) and there was no shortage of people with experience maintaining them. Using the 110 series too was a logical extension of the experience.

 

Cheers

David

[BernardTPM]

I suspect the exhausts would need rerouting: roofs are curved to fit bridges and tunnels and the guards at each end are likely to foul platform edges too.

The LMS articulated unit used pairs of 125hp Leyland engines per coach, so 750hp for 73 tons.

Edited December 20, 2017 by BernardTPM

[FPH 603]

Glad to see everyone's interested and is happy to give their advice. I will further improve this design, and eventually build it. I agree with all the points made, and all will be somehow intergrated into the design. I'm also going to make a second design, an older one. This will be further based on the Bradfield suburban cars (from reverting to one of my original ideas, backed with DavidB-AU's suggestion!). Here's a semi brief description:

 

The C Class tram (built 1920) was originally steam powered, but in the late 1930's these were converted to electric power after the electrification of the tramway at the time. Like their predecessors these were wooden bodied, and were the last before new steel panelled stock were introduced a decade after. Twenty were built, and five were converted to diesel power for departmental duties very shortly after electrification of the fleet. They survived all the way to the end of the tramway's regular use in 1984.

[Corbs]

Do you think the design would work with mini ploughs (like those fitted to Class 26/25/33 locos and the like)?

 

It may well anglicise it a bit more as cow catchers didn't catch on (ho ho ho) here.

[Wolseley]

Australia used a lot of GM 71 series engines in diesel railcars (conversions of petrol railcars and new builds) because they were cheap and plentiful after WW2, spares were easy to obtain (you can still buy new parts today) and there was no shortage of people with experience maintaining them. Using the 110 series too was a logical extension of the experience.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Post WWII just about all of them were GM powered.  The pre WWII railcars however used quite a variety of engines.  Railmotor number 1 (converted in 1919 from a 5 ton Moreland truck) originally had a Waukesha engine which was subsequently replaced by a Thorneycroft, while Railmotor number 2 had an engine designed and built in Eveleigh workshops.  CPHs had Leyland, Thorneycroft and Winton engines, with a Leyland diesel being used in one railcar in 1939 (prior to this, petrol engines had been used).  Just to be different, the Silver City Comet initially used Harland and Wolff "Harlandic" diesel engines.  A very mixed bag, surely leading to inefficiencies in maintenance.  Most, if not all, of the fleet were converted to GM power after WWII and GM became the favoured power unit for new construction.

[Mark Saunders]

Imaginary locomotives:-

 

Class 37 with quiet traction motor blowers

 

Class 47 with a proper low water detector rather than pressure dependant

 

Class 66 with comfortable cab

 

Class 56 with legroom

 

All imaginary!

[Wolseley]

And, speaking of the Silver City Comet, maybe that would be a better choice than the 600/660, 620 or 900 Class railcars, as it looks rather more tram-like:

 

[Wolseley]

Imaginary locomotives:-

 

Class 37 with quiet traction motor blowers

 

Class 47 with a proper low water detector rather than pressure dependant

 

Class 66 with comfortable cab

 

Class 56 with legroom

 

All imaginary!

 

And a reliable Class 17?

[Coryton]

And a reliable Class 17?

 

Now you're just being ridiculous!

[Bloodnok]

 

And a reliable Class 17?

Now you're just being ridiculous!

 

Just how far out of gauge is this thing:

 

 

I wonder what would it look like with the corners rounded off to fit within UK loading gauge. Looks like most of the issue areas aren't structural or mechanical, although space in the cab would be severely limited afterwards...

 

Other starting points are available:

[The Johnster]

Imaginary; ok, how about a Class 14 with brakes that could stop a train.

 

Or a Deltic with silencers.

 

Or a good riding 08.

[Coryton]

Or a Deltic with silencers.

 

I think quite a few people round here wouldn't see that as a good thing.

[FPH 603]

Do you think the design would work with mini ploughs (like those fitted to Class 26/25/33 locos and the like)?

 

It may well anglicise it a bit more as cow catchers didn't catch on (ho ho ho) here.

I've had thoughts similar to that before, but for more of a Diesel Railcar sort of thing. There was this image I used as my laptop lock screen, and when it was blurred up, this Regional Railways coach looked like it had a snowplough. It was actually a maintenance worker standing in just the right position. I think that might work, I've also thought of using class 150 style snowploughs too.

 

Post WWII just about all of them were GM powered.  The pre WWII railcars however used quite a variety of engines.  Railmotor number 1 (converted in 1919 from a 5 ton Moreland truck) originally had a Waukesha engine which was subsequently replaced by a Thorneycroft, while Railmotor number 2 had an engine designed and built in Eveleigh workshops.  CPHs had Leyland, Thorneycroft and Winton engines, with a Leyland diesel being used in one railcar in 1939 (prior to this, petrol engines had been used).  Just to be different, the Silver City Comet initially used Harland and Wolff "Harlandic" diesel engines.  A very mixed bag, surely leading to inefficiencies in maintenance.  Most, if not all, of the fleet were converted to GM power after WWII and GM became the favoured power unit for new construction.

 

 

Ah yes, petrol and diesel's history on the Railmotors in NSW... I originally chose the GM 6/71 because I like the sound. I have a DVD on the Richmond Line which covered it from the steam hauled passenger trains, to the frieght trains from the 1950's. It also featured the 600 class (and later the 660 class too) running trains from the 1970's all the way up til 1991, when the line's electrification was completed.

 

And, speaking of the Silver City Comet, maybe that would be a better choice than the 600/660, 620 or 900 Class railcars, as it looks rather more tram-like:

 

I agree with that now that you mentioned it. I like the idea, but I'll with the 400 class. I think this one will be suitable, and there's a lot of photos of HPC 402 out there as well. I actually saw it pass Seven Hills earlier this year. Now when I think about it, I still like the idea of using a 600/620/660/900 styled thing, but yes, there are more suitable prototypes out there. I think I might make it more like the 'as built' rather than the later configurations.

 

Looking at all of this, what's it going to be?

 

COMPLETE REDESIGN IT IS! (For that 'F Class', the C Class may as well remain the same for now).

[Corbs]

Well, on the plus side we get to see more of your excellent designs

[FPH 603]

Well, on the plus side we get to see more of your excellent designs

Thanks!

 

I'm happy that you like seeing the designs I make. My revised design will be pretty close to the original specification, except the interior will be rearranged, which will increase the seating capacity. The design will use the same Leyland Petrol E47/1 (150 hp) at this current stage, but this will likely change in the process of it evolving into the final model.

 

[Regularity]

You have shades over the windows, by the look of it. Not impossible, but unlikely.

 

If you don’t mind the observation, your designs don’t look very British: Australian railways have often struck me as looking like what happens when you combine British and American designs, which I suppose is essentially true, and they end up looking American to British eyes, and British to American eyes.

 

Probably worth looking at at British and Irish early DMUs, particularly on the GNRI and County Donegal, etc, to get a better feel for the styling of what might have transpired over here. Google is your friend here.

[cctransuk]

You have shades over the windows, by the look of it. Not impossible, but unlikely.

 

If you don’t mind the observation, your designs don’t look very British: Australian railways have often struck me as looking like what happens when you combine British and American designs, which I suppose is essentially true, and they end up looking American to British eyes, and British to American eyes.

 

Probably worth looking at at British and Irish early DMUs, particularly on the GNRI and County Donegal, etc, to get a better feel for the styling of what might have transpired over here. Google is your friend here.

 

I have to say that I agree - I don't think that overseas styling can ever be translated for the home market.

 

For a start, the Stephenson loading-gauge imposes a very distinct 'narrow' impression - look at the end profiles of British and Australian stock.

 

Australian stock is also adapted for an entirely different climate - better ventilation and the provision of shade.

 

What you are doing is very interesting - but it still shouts 'colonial' at me; (and I don't mean that in a condescending manner).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.