Imaginary Locomotives

[LNWR18901910]

Something like this?

 

LNWR Mogul.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Wow! That looks very nice! A lot better than what I imagined...thanks! Now, how to model it in 00 scale?

[The Johnster]

Another silly idea, how to shorten a Grange.

 

Grange tank.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

Too heavy with a no 1 boiler; better as a 2-6-4T with a no 4 and extended rear bunker 72xx style. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Raven's pacific wasn't a bad loco, certainly worth keeping until it was worn out....

Never read up in detail on these animals, but I believe that would be pretty much what happened. The experiment of fitting a Doncaster boiler was made, to see whether a boiler renewal with the group standard item yielded enough improvement to make this a worthwhile prospect as the original boilers came to end of life. Clearly it didn't, and the scrap line beckoned.

[Zomboid]

Even then the Doncaster boiler didn't fit without modification, and so that would have left a class of about 6 still non-standard locos. The fact that they lasted so long as non-standard machines is a testament to them being good enough to be useful, if not the finest traction available.

[Compound2632]

Even then the Doncaster boiler didn't fit without modification, and so that would have left a class of about 6 still non-standard locos. The fact that they lasted so long as non-standard machines is a testament to them being good enough to be useful, if not the finest traction available.

 

It has to be remembered that the LNER was the least financially secure of the big four, having been saddled with the financial burden of the Great Central, so there simply wasn't the scope for the LMS policy of replacing non-Midland pre-grouping classes with Midland-derived and later, Stanier, standard classes - which is why so many GER, NER, NBR, GCR etc. engines survived into the 1950s. I believe this is also the chief reason the NER's main line electrification scheme was not proceeded with.

[The Johnster]

Quite.  The LMS and GWR both had major clearouts of such absorbed and constituent locos as they felt were not up to scratch, and embarked on programmes to replace them.  Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Midland's 4P, 2P, and 4F designs they were quick and easy to build, robust and easy to maintain and run (axleboxes possibly excepted, but they were adequate enough for smaller engines), and could be used to replace some of the older stuff fairly soon.  In the long term, and even to some extent the shorter one on the WCML, this inherited Midland 'small engine' policy was deeply flawed, but you can see the reasoning behind it from a 1923 perspective.

 

The GW had (of course) a different approach, and, after scrapping the worst of it's new aquisitions, set about the more complex task of fitting it's standard components to the less hopeless of them, resulting in some very successful locos such as the rebuilt TVR 'A' class.  This brought a new standard boiler, no.10, into the system, a shortened no.3 for TVR 04 and similar locos, which found it's way on to the 2251, 94xx, and 15xx. 

 

The Southern was well supplied with good modern mixed traffic locos from Urie and Maunsell, and continued under Maunsell in that vein, and was committed to extending the third rail electrification, a process that continued into the late 60s.

 

But the LNER, as has been pointed out, was financially hobbled, and had to make do with what it had until more of Gresley's big engines could be built.  It had been left with some very capable locos by the GC and NER, modern by 1923 standards, and some the NB's stuff wasn't half bad either, so was able to effectively use these as interim service providers, in some cases until the end of steam.  The GC's 04, and the NER's Q6 stand out for mention, and D11's and GER B12s were selected for further new construction to replace Scottish museum pieces, with notable success.  

 

It is against this background that the Raven pacifics should be measured, and it looks to me as if they weren't bad engines at all. They could pull the trains and keep time, and the railway was in no hurry to get rid of them until they had to be heavily overhauled, at which time it made sense to replace them with A3s.  This suggests that they were regarded as at least comparable to the original A1s.

Edited August 29, 2017 by The Johnster

[brack]

Most of what I'd read suggests the ravens A2 was similar to Gresley's A1 in ability, but as much of the front end was derived from the preceding Atlantic the A1 was much easier to develop into a more powerful loco (plus Gresley was the man in charge). One of the A2 boilers was installed as a stationary boiler at Darlington and only lasted a few years in that role, so must've been pretty far gone.

Whilst the NER locos might've been old but worsdell and raven's designs were generally very sound. They were reliable and rugged - the fact that nothing much could touch the J27 or Q6 on their home turf for 60 odd years is testament to that, especially with the CMEs for much of that time favouring rather different designs.

[Compound2632]

Well, I suppose it's also true that the LMS group included several smaller companies (in terms of number of locomotives) - the North Staffs, Furness, and Maryport & Carlisle in England and the GSWR and Highland in Scotland - whose non-standard fleets were inevitably ripe for withdrawal. The Great North of Scotland was the only comparably small company in the LNER group. To get back to the topic, one can imagine how the locomotive policy of these smaller companies might have developed were it not for the grouping...

 

The superheated, piston-valved standard 2Ps were warmly welcomed by the G&SWR enginemen, if D.L. Smith is to be trusted.

[brack]

how the GNoSR loco policy would've developed if grouping hadn't happened?

 

I'd put money on more Victorian inside cylinder 440s being built into the 1950s.

[PhilJ W]

The GER had plenty of good locomotives, the N7, J15, J20 and B12, the N7 in particular. Gresley knew a good locomotive when he saw one that is why he continued building N7's and B12's.

[Zomboid]

how the GNoSR loco policy would've developed if grouping hadn't happened?

 

I'd put money on more Victorian inside cylinder 440s being built into the 1950s.

If grouping hadn't happened is a great scenario.

I think there would have been some more organic grouping, with takeovers and mergers, possibly ending with a fair amount of the same stuff that actually happened, just later than 1923. I imagine the GNR and NER would have ended up together for one thing.

[LNWR18901910]

And speaking of stretched locomotives, here's something silly I did ages ago. I have no idea what traffic would demand a design like this.

 

GWR light goods.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Good concept, that. Good luck attempting this in 00 Scale.

[brack]

Or what would've happened if there'd been a full nationalisation after WW1, with Eric geddes (an extremely able administrator in NER and wartime service) in charge, perhaps with Raven alongside (given their relationship at the north eastern and geddes possibly recommending raven for Woolwich arsenal in the war) electrifying mainlines in the 20s.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On the 'imaginary locomotive' front, the LNER without Gresley's designs is potentially as much a mess as the LMS' first nine years, especially where heavy express traction is concerned. (The LNER was singularly fortunate that in freight and mixed traffic power it had inherited a competent fleet of locos from the five larger constituents: it was never going to be able to  afford to replace these designs, and even BR generally left well alone, so they uniformly slogged on to the end of steam in their various areas.)

 

But as the grouping occurred there were just two heavy express loco class acts in the UK. The well proven GWR Star, and the new GNR A1 pacific. So subtract Gresley and the GNR pacific and let the imagining begin! If Robinson had taken the post, he would probably have built another four or five classes of very elegant looking 4-6-0s by 1930 to add to his 8 previous failures (either his board was incompetent or he was deeply charming / had the inside track on all their misdeeds!) none capable of making much power but burning lots and lots of coal. But they surely would have looked beautiful...

[Compound2632]

If grouping hadn't happened is a great scenario.

I think there would have been some more organic grouping, with takeovers and mergers, possibly ending with a fair amount of the same stuff that actually happened, just later than 1923. I imagine the GNR and NER would have ended up together for one thing.

 

Indeed. The LNWR/LYR/MR working arrangements from 1908 onwards, culminating in the LNWR/LYR merger, shows that in England at least, the LMS was a done deal. The LMS lost the M&SWJR to the GWR at grouping, when it had previously been a Midland protégé giving access to Southampton - a more easterly version of the S&DJR.

 

There were several attempts at a merger between the Midland and G&SWR in the 1880s and 90s which fell through partly due to the lack of physical connection at Carlisle. At around the same time, the G&SWR (and hence almost certainly the Midland in the background) was sponsoring a proposed G&NWR to Inverness - a precursor of the West Highland - what would the resulting railway, with a nearly 600-mile main line, have been called? London, Midland and Scottish?

 

The interior decoration of the final Midland & South Western Joint Stock dining carriages of 1920 featured a roundel motif uniting the rose and thistle - clearly a forerunner of the LMS badge.

 

Sorry, getting off imaginary locos. So let's imagine a Smith-Johnson (not a Deeley) three-cylinder compound atlantic drawing into Inverness Midland at around 8am one morning in 1903 with the overnight Scotch express from St Pancras - the West and East Coast committees are weeping in despair at the decline in their Anglo-Scottish traffic...

[runs as required]

On the 'imaginary locomotive' front, the LNER without Gresley's designs is potentially as much a mess as the LMS' first nine years, especially where heavy express traction is concerned.  ..

But down to York (or Shaftholme Junction) the ECML might have been electrified a la Merz and Raven

Edited August 29, 2017 by runs as required

[Flying Pig]

If Robinson had taken the post, he would probably have built another four or five classes of very elegant looking 4-6-0s by 1930 to add to his 8 previous failures (either his board was incompetent or he was deeply charming / had the inside track on all their misdeeds!) none capable of making much power but burning lots and lots of coal. But they surely would have looked beautiful...

LNER.info lists nine classes of Robinson 4-6-0. Which are you counting as a success?

 

I agree that the early classes were superlatively pretty, but the later ones showed an elephantine tendency, so who knows what the 1920s would have brought.

[The Johnster]

how the GNoSR loco policy would've developed if grouping hadn't happened?

 

I'd put money on more Victorian inside cylinder 440s being built into the 1950s.

 

And the same would have happened on the Cambrian and Furness.

[The Johnster]

Indeed. The LNWR/LYR/MR working arrangements from 1908 onwards, culminating in the LNWR/LYR merger, shows that in England at least, the LMS was a done deal. The LMS lost the M&SWJR to the GWR at grouping, when it had previously been a Midland protégé giving access to Southampton - a more easterly version of the S&DJR.

 

There were several attempts at a merger between the Midland and G&SWR in the 1880s and 90s which fell through partly due to the lack of physical connection at Carlisle. At around the same time, the G&SWR (and hence almost certainly the Midland in the background) was sponsoring a proposed G&NWR to Inverness - a precursor of the West Highland - what would the resulting railway, with a nearly 600-mile main line, have been called? London, Midland and Scottish?

 

The interior decoration of the final Midland & South Western Joint Stock dining carriages of 1920 featured a roundel motif uniting the rose and thistle - clearly a forerunner of the LMS badge.

 

Sorry, getting off imaginary locos. So let's imagine a Smith-Johnson (not a Deeley) three-cylinder compound atlantic drawing into Inverness Midland at around 8am one morning in 1903 with the overnight Scotch express from St Pancras - the West and East Coast committees are weeping in despair at the decline in their Anglo-Scottish traffic...

The larger South Wales 'independent' railways were all aligned to the big companies, with the exception of the Cardiff which was going nowhere and arguably the Taff Vale.  The Barry and Rhondda & Swansea Bay were so intertwined with the GW that GW locos were working on them, in the case of the R & SB in that companies livery and carrying it's numbers, the Rhymney had been owned by the LNWR since being bought out of bankruptcy after building Caerphilly Tunnel, and the Neath and Brecon was a pawn of the Midland.   The Brecon and Merthyr was very closely aligned to the Cambrian.  

 

No doubt similar situations existed elsewhere and some sort of grouping was inevitable as the post WW1 economic situation favoured mergers, combines, and takeovers in order to provide large enough concerns to raise capital for new projects; this was true over all British industry and not just railways.

[844fan]

Now I must put my ten pence (Ten Cents is a bit much seeing thats a whole Tugboat ) for me modeling is going to be fictitious on the fact that no mater how hard I would try I can't make a exact replica of a real railway. One thing all model lines have unless you have the room for something like the RG&ER 15 in line your are stuck with either a loop or a dogbone. 

 

Also to me the point of a railway is to make it your own sure base it off real practices like if you make a Quarry make it look functional and have the towers, hoppers and whatever else was needed but don't limit yourself just by real locomotive count. I'm a writer and I have to say I am also young of heart so my railways will always have certain impossibility to them (For example my planned CVR line has three American locomotives at the start of it's life. All are 19th century prototypes built before 1900 and all have been rebuilt heavily to a Doncaster style with running boards and such. I also plan to have the rebuilt 0-8-0 form of the Decapod Tank on my line.) but from all I know these things were not impossible but Improbable or Unlikely to have ever happened but these small breaks add to charm. Heck I dabble in Freelance design but not for anything beyond a Industrial.

 

My honest humble opinion is the same as a man I respect deeply who had a fine set of models. Even finer bridges for them to run on. Just read my signature you'll know what I'm talking about.

[DavidB-AU]

More silliness, a class 8MT.

 

 

Cheers

David

[844fan]

More silliness, a class 8MT.

 

8MT.png

 

Cheers

David

Bit much tha' init'? was 8MT even a real classification for any standard designs or for that matter nonstandard.

[sir douglas]

More silliness, a class 8MT.

 

8MT.png

 

Cheers

David

 

i already did that a few years ago post 459 page 19 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14790-imaginary-locomotives/?p=1827579

 

 

but since then ive realised that it i dont think it actually gives any benefits from an 8f you only save a few feet in length, it has less coal and water capacity compared to the tender and by making it a tank it also has a higher ton per axle which would probably restrict it from the branch lines ive envisaged it for. 

[ColinK]

Looks good though. Would make a nice model.

[The Johnster]

I think we are looking at the ultimate main line banker here, for Lickey, Shap, or Beattock, maybe the Devon banks and Folkestone Harbour as well.  Plenty of grunt, just fast enough, and a 4-axle leading truck for fast bunker first running back down the bank for the next duty.  A potentially very useful engine in it's specialist way, but I suspect that lack of play in the rear 2 driving axles due to the proximity of the firebox might have restricted it's route availability as well as axle loadings.  The range would not have been great, a lot less than a 4MT tank with larger driving wheels, so it needs to be fairly close to a shed all the time.

 

8MT, no. 9F perhaps; the axle loading would have made for a greater tractive effort than the 2-10-0s.  For banking work, where trains have to be buffered up to in rear, I think a sloping tank top would be necessary for the driver's sight lines over the last few feet, which would cut further into the water capacity, but the basic concept is sound.  Another possible field of work for them might have been Ebbw Valley iron ore trains in South Wales, where it might have suffered with tank leakage due to frame flexing on the sharp curvature, as did the 42xx/5205/72xx actually used.  This would have freed up 2-10-0s for main line work.