Imaginary Locomotives

[Satan's Goldfish]

The double chimney probably lessens the exhaust pressure, so you need smoke deflectors as well.

I do like a good smoke deflector...

[Gilwell Park]

Hi. As the two four coupled units are so close together it should be possible to couple them together  make it a 2-8-4?  Roger.

[AlfaZagato]

Speaking of too many wheels, how does a Texas-type GWR tank sound?  2-10-4 evolution of the big tanks, with several tons of coal behind the cab - for balance, you know.

[brack]

"rear cylinders reversed like that were less successful than the other option"

 

Who'd have thought that putting the cylinders, valve gear and slidebars next to the ashpan might cause trouble...

[Niels]

Hi. As the two four coupled units are so close together it should be possible to couple them together  make it a 2-8-4?  Roger.

If You look up CSD 486.1 it is almost there:

adhesive mass,grate area and driver dia like a LNER A2

Edited November 2, 2018 by Niels

[Budgie]

Speaking of too many wheels, how does a Texas-type GWR tank sound?  2-10-4 evolution of the big tanks, with several tons of coal behind the cab - for balance, you know.

The coal doesn't provide continuous balance as it gets used up during the journey.

[Niels]

Speaking of too many wheels, how does a Texas-type GWR tank sound?  2-10-4 evolution of the big tanks, with several tons of coal behind the cab - for balance, you know.

A GWR look alike of this Bulgarian beast?

 

https://www.farrail.com/bilder/bulgarien/for-2017/20160543-BDZ-46.jpg

[The Johnster]

I do like a good smoke deflector...

 

So do I; preferably de Witte on a Gresley influenced design.

[AlfaZagato]

A GWR look alike of this Bulgarian beast?

 

https://www.farrail.com/bilder/bulgarien/for-2017/20160543-BDZ-46.jpg

 

Yeah, like that.  Maybe more bunker.   Man, if I could art...

[The Johnster]

Speaking of too many wheels, how does a Texas-type GWR tank sound?  2-10-4 evolution of the big tanks, with several tons of coal behind the cab - for balance, you know.

We have almost visited this here before with the 2-10-2T with a King boiler.  It would have sounded loud, the long valve travel of the Churchwardian concept with Stephenson valve gear giving a sharp bark of an exhaust, like a King on steroids.  As usual, I have to wonder what the GW would have done with such a beast, and we come straight up against the problem that scuppered the King boilered 2-10-2T; the only work on the entire railway that requires such a load to be hauled is the Western Valley iron ore traffic to Ebbw Vale steelworks, which could if sufficient power had ever been available have run to 60 wagon trains weighing around 2,000 tons not including the loco and van.  But the sharp curvature of this route precludes long coupled wheelbases, and the 8-coupled 42xx, 5205, and 72xx engines had problems with tank leakage due to straining from the frames as the loco attempted to flex it's way up the valley.  9Fs with flangeless centre drivers and plenty of side play wore their flanges quite badly on this work, and it punished the track as well.  

 

Incidentally there is no real need for an extended bunker on a GW loco of this sort for Ebbw Vale work.  She would almost certainly have been oil fired or at least mechanically stoked to avoid double manning the firing turns, but the distance is short, only some 16 miles, and the return work with the empties can be done on very light steam using very little fuel or water. 

 

My personal opinion is that an 'ultimate' Ebbw Vale iron ore train loco would have been articulated, with the ability of a Beyer Garratt to incorporate a boiler of such diameter as could maximise the ability of the loading gauge being the way I imagine it would have gone.  We require brute power here, and the minimum of unkindness to the track; the big NSW Garratts show something like the loco in my imagination.  The requirement is to be able to haul a 2;000 ton load up the ruling gradient at 25mph without requiring a banker at Aberbeeg, which can then be dispensed with to save the money to pay for the locos...

 

This reminds one that it's not always just a matter of putting a bigger boiler and more cylinders on a loco

Edited November 2, 2018 by The Johnster

[Northmoor]

Based on your description of the requirement, Johnster, I think the solution was electrification.

[brack]

Something like the nitrate railways garratt looks more like the slogger needed to me, the AD60 is a more elegant design but perhaps more suited to higher speeds or mixed traffic use.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by brack

[Satan's Goldfish]

Link 404 not found

[The Johnster]

Electrification, Kiruna/Narvik or American Great Northern style, yes.  Given the GW's modernisation leanings, gas turbines might have been more likely, and they'd have made a hell of a racket in that narrow valley!!!

 

Or it you really want to do some imagineering, Brown Boveri's input to their GW turbine leads to triple section articulated crocodiles...

[Satan's Goldfish]

http://www.beyergarrattlocos.co.uk/bgpix/Nitrate.jpg

 

 

Not bad, those wheels like tiny!

 

 

Electrification, Kiruna/Narvik or American Great Northern style, yes.  Given the GW's modernisation leanings, gas turbines might have been more likely, and they'd have made a hell of a racket in that narrow valley!!!

 

Or it you really want to do some imagineering, Brown Boveri's input to their GW turbine leads to triple section articulated crocodiles...

A little Joe in GWR could look good: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Joe_(electric_locomotive)

[brack]

3'6" wheels, 7'3" diameter boiler with an extremely large firebox. I think they were the most powerful locos in the southern hemisphere in 1926 when built (until the SAR GL class were produced in 1929). Tractive effort is about 80,000lbs, so it would've been a bit of an improvement on a 42xx.

 

The NSWGR AD60 is a handsome, more modern loco pretty representative of late built postwar garratts, but it was designed for branch line work with a 16 ton axle load (in BR terms thats RA3!) As they arrived a lot of the lightly laid branches were running out of traffic so a lot of them were ballasted up to give an 18 ton axle load for mainline work (eg. coal round fassifern). In garratt terms the AD60 is quite a lightweight design, tractive effort only being 60-64000lbs. Had NSWGR or anyone else ordered a mainline coal hauling garratt in the 50s I suspect something more akin to a standard gauged EAR class 59 would have been produced with 80-90000lb tractive effort.

Edited November 2, 2018 by brack

[melmerby]

"rear cylinders reversed like that were less successful than the other option"

 

Who'd have thought that putting the cylinders, valve gear and slidebars next to the ashpan might cause trouble...

It did.

Apart from limiting cylinder size the pistons/cylinders/valves etc. wore more thatn normal because of the extra heat.

 

Keith

[melmerby]

A GWR look alike of this Bulgarian beast?

 

https://www.farrail.com/bilder/bulgarien/for-2017/20160543-BDZ-46.jpg

I'll take twelve and raise you to 14:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Andreev.jpg/300px-Andreev.jpg

 

And the model:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/do2bKfEaYb4/maxresdefault.jpg

 

Keith

 

Edit

If you want silly: (a 2-4-6-8-10-0)

http://sbiii.com/bwrkapix/prmltplx.jpg

 

(Somebody else is in fantasy land)

Edited November 2, 2018 by melmerby

[Ramblin Rich]

My personal opinion is that an 'ultimate' Ebbw Vale iron ore train loco would have been articulated, with the ability of a Beyer Garratt to incorporate a boiler of such diameter as could maximise the ability of the loading gauge being the way I imagine it would have gone. We require brute power here, and the minimum of unkindness to the track; the big NSW Garratts show something like the loco in my imagination. The requirement is to be able to haul a 2;000 ton load up the ruling gradient at 25mph without requiring a banker at Aberbeeg, which can then be dispensed with to save the money to pay for the locos...

 

This reminds one that it's not always just a matter of putting a bigger boiler and more cylinders on a loco

This is an interesting idea, which then raises the question of whether the wagon stock would be suitable for such loads up that kind of gradient. If we're improving the motive power, would the wagons be modernised too? I'd hate to think what would happen if a 2000 ton train broke it's coupling due to using 3 link chains and no continuous brake. Edited November 2, 2018 by Ramblin Rich

[Budgie]

This is an interesting idea, which then raises the question of whether the wagon stock would be suitable for such loads up that kind of gradient. If we're improving the motive power, would the wagons be modernised too? I'd hate to think what would happen if a 2000 ton train broke it's coupling due to using 3 link chains and no continuous brake.

Wouldn't they have used something like the LNER's Tyne Dock to Consett iron ore wagons?

[The Johnster]

Possibly, if Richard, Thomas, and Baldwin could have been persuaded to install the unloading facility.  But by the 50s, which is when I am imagining my Garratts being introduced (Tyne Dock-Consett would have been another stamping ground for them), the unfitted 4-wheel iron ore hoppers had instanter couplings, and I reckon these would've been up to the job, as would the drawhooks.  They presented no issues on the double headed class 37 Waterston-Albion oil traffic in the 70s, 1.600 tons trailing load, and some of the Newport Docks-Llanwern trains that use these hoppers with double headed 25s were pretty heavy as well!  

 

The slightly later 2,800 ton Port Talbot-Llanwern triple headed 37 iron ore trains used 100 ton tipplers with specially strengthened screw couplings on the ends of the rakes; between vehicles they had buckeyes that could be twisted through 180 degrees in the tipplers at Llanwern without being uncoupled; these trains were even heavier later and were at one time hauled by double headed 56s.  The wagons are still in service in Mauretania.

 

I believe the Consett hoppers were equipped with screw couplings.

[melmerby]

IMHO buckeyes would have been the way to go, bringing the UK wagon fleet up to the standard that North America had adopted some decades previously.

They are definitely strong as loads several times the UK maximum being normal,over the pond.

 

Keith

[The Johnster]

Buckeyes, or Janneys as the Merkans call them, are the logical answer and double as buffing gear as well.  They are automatic at least in the sense that nobody needs to go between vehicles to use them for coupling or uncoupling, and offer better impact resistance, this being the reason that the LNER and Southern had adopted them for express passenger work, followed by BR.  But they are not suitable for non-bogie stock, not being flexible enough, and BR in the 50s and 60s, and later for that matter, was committed to UIC standardisation; this meant buffers and screw couplings at a standard height.  

 

Enlarging the hoppers to bogie size would have required the co-operation of RTB to ensure that the unloading facility at Ebbw Vale Steelworks could handle the wagons.  I do not know enough about this equipment to make a comment beyond that!  Early BR was pretty much wedded (by economic necessity) to 'traditional' type wagons and regarded vacuum brakes as modern; 1955 was the first serious commitment to air brakes and longer underframes, and higher speeds, and even the there was no real commitment to bogies or 75mph running.  Who could possibly need a freight train to run that fast, most passenger services were only just scraping it!

 

It should be noted that the Merkans, showing very sensible long term thinking, made the investment in bogie vehicles with air brakes and Janney couplers at a time when their railways were awash with capital, something that has not been the case in the UK since before George Hudson's day.

Edited November 3, 2018 by The Johnster

[Northmoor]

IMHO buckeyes would have been the way to go, bringing the UK wagon fleet up to the standard that North America had adopted some decades previously.

They are definitely strong as loads several times the UK maximum being normal,over the pond.

I was at Port Talbot steelworks with my Dad one day in the late eighties, shortly after one of the iron ore trains derailed on the approach to the main line.  The front tipplers had folded up sideways but some of the buckeyes were bent through perhaps 60 degrees without actually breaking.

[brack]

The NER built a batch of 50 bogie 40t hoppers, all steel with Westinghouse brakes and cloud knuckle couplings. In 1902.

 

The 'future' was available somewhat earlier than the 60s/70s, but as with many of the NER modernisations, finances meant it was cheaper to abandon them and go back to 4 wheel unfitted and loose coupled wooden wagons and they were disposed of during LNER days.