Imaginary Locomotives

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Back to imaginary locomotives.   An idea I know we've covered before, with no point other than it sounded neat.

 

A King-class Mountain tank.  Call it the Queen class.   Maybe for heavy London expresses?

... but it is known that not less than three axles are required to carry the fuel and water required for a sufficient working range. 4-6-4T were tried by other lines, and abandoned. 

[Captain_Mumbles]

Currently collecting parts to make a Hornby remix. A non streamlined Gresley P2.

[DenysW]

6 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

A King-class Mountain tank. 

If I've got my jargon right, this is a 4-8-2T, as introduced on the Natal railways in 1888. The bogie at the back can be used to allow a wide grate if desired, or not.

 

I think that, for the GWR, this has the same problem that faced Gresley on the Aberdeen route. The wheelbase gets too long for UK bendy track, and you compromise down to a 2-8-2. GWR's cut-off for Route Availability was only 17 tons/axle, so a Mountain King Tank would be Red availability, the same as Kings. 

 

Now if there was a desperate need for a commuter service that ran fast Paddington-Slough-Reading and back, then possibly?

[tythatguy1312]

I'm really failing to see why Articulated types failed to catch on for issues specific to the Aberdeen route and... basically wherever Kings, Night Owls and the Bear were banned. The LMS saw success with the Garratt on heavy trains, and a mallet (perhaps a 4-4-4-2) might've proven an excellent heavy mixed traffic type for services such as the Aberdeen route. Yes Mallets were generally seen as slow, but Union Pacific regularly used them for fast goods and passenger traffic.

[rockershovel]

I suspect because Garratts are much longer than conventional locomotives, resulting in problems in working them within the available loops and run-arounds.

 

They did well in Southern Africa, where space was almost unlimited, but not generally elsewhere. 

 

Plus, of course the cost. 

[AlfaZagato]

Two other problems with Garratts in the UK were interference from the companies ordering them.  

 

LNER's U1 had six cylinders at Gresley's insistence.    Compounded, too.  Offhand, I'm not aware of any locomotive that was able to reliably feed six cylinders to any great effect, the U1 included.   Basically restricted to banking, as it was built for.

 

The LMS Garratts were infamously fitted with then-standard LMS axleboxes, with woefully insufficient bearing surfaces.   Worse, this was never corrected, even when the issue was identified.   Trains being tendered to the Garratts were also normally unfitted, leading to issues with controlling trains of such length on some of the hills on the LMS mainlines.

[DenysW]

43 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

LNER's U1 had six cylinders at Gresley's insistence.

I believe that this is simply Gresley looking at two 37,000 lbf Tractive effort engines (associated with the one boiler) and saying that he couldn't fit this into the UK loading gauge with 2 x 2 cylinders, he'd have to go to 2 x 3 cylinders. The same logic as the 3-cylinder Pacifics, in fact. And he can't have liked 2 x 4 cylinders (i.e. 2 x the GWR choice) to try it, for whatever reason.

[DenysW]

5 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I'm really failing to see why Articulated types failed to catch on

I'm thinking it was emotional rather than rational. Articulateds were mostly buy-in technology, and the pre-Grouping and post-Grouping companies felt that Real Men* designed their own locomotives, and sometimes contracted out construction when their workshops were too busy. There was also a group-think that small classes were a Bad Thing, and it's far harder to pretend you haven't ignored this when your locomotives bend in the middle.

 

* Real Women not an option in those chauvinistic, patriarchal times

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I suspect because Garratts are much longer than conventional locomotives, resulting in problems in working them within the available loops and run-arounds.

 

To say nothing of sheds. The LMS Garratts were a problem at ex-Midland sheds, most of which were designed on the roundhouse principle (though square in plan). The solution was to knock a couple of holes in the walls and run a "Garratt" line along one wall, resulting in a lot of too-short bays off the turntable. So one Garratt ended up consuming much more shed space that the two 0-6-0s it was meant to replace.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Compounded, too. 

Not sure this is correct about U1. Only the first one or two Garratts were compounds, and Beyer Peacock seem not to have liked the whole extra complexity. Although this didn't stop a patent for a Garratt-Mallet theat they probably never intended to build.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

The LMS Garratts were infamously fitted with then-standard LMS axleboxes, with woefully insufficient bearing surfaces.   Worse, this was never corrected, even when the issue was identified.   Trains being tendered to the Garratts were also normally unfitted, leading to issues with controlling trains of such length on some of the hills on the LMS mainlines.

 

The first point is somewhat debatable, containing, as it does, both a grain of truth and a mass of myth and folklore.

 

"LMS mainlines" - the Garratts were chiefly used on the Toton - Brent mineral trains over the ex-Midland main line, with a ruling gradient of 1:200. The trains they were working were, as far as I'm aware, identical to those being worked by pairs of 0-6-0s, so that while controlling a loose-coupled train of such length did require skilled enginemanship - and skilled guardmanship too - it wasn't an issue specific to the Garrats.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Compound2632

[The Johnster]

As has been said before, there was really no need for engines as powerful as Garratts in the general UK context, and where they were employed they were one-trick ponies for specific tasks.  The industrials were needed where severe inclines were involved, and the two main line examples were a class for 100-wagon loose-coupled mineral haulage of London domestic coal on the MML and a heavy banker.  The LMS Garratts were an extension of the Midand's loco policy (much on the LMS was in those days) to replace double-headed 3F 0-6-0s, while the other railways had all developed 8-coupled types for their equivalent of this job, which proved handy for general heavy goods work as well.  Even had the LMS sorted it's Garratts' axlebox issue, it is extremely doubtful that any more would have been ordered; they had enough for the work.

 

On most British main lines, the length of trains is governed by the length of layby sidings and loops, and signalling section overlaps, to 60 standard length 9 o 10foot wheelbase wagons, with an allowance for the brake van and an assisting locomotive.  The length of trains was expressed in BWU, Basic Wagon Unit, equivalent; '38 on, driver, equal to 53 for length' because some are Tube, Bogie Bolster, Lowmac, or other longer vehicles.  The term was changed to SLU, Standard Length Units, in the 60s but meant the same thing.  So the London coal runs, to Acton, Willesden, Neasden, Brent, or Ferme Park, were from specific yards where the trains were assembled to 90 or 100 wagons, and needed specific signalling instructions in order to have guaranteed clear roads through sections and stations where the length of the train exceeded the normal safety overlaps, and had to be pathed to allow for loops or refuge sidings not long enough to accommodate them, all this being authorised by instructions in the relevant Sectional Appendix (working instructions appendix to the Rules & Regs for specific sections of line).  They were, in short, a bit of a nuiscance, only made worth the bother by the demands of the traffic.  And, except for the Midland main line, they were hauled by 28xx, G2s, 04s, and Gresley 01s, capable of working the trains up to their running speeds of 25mph and keeping them there where pairs of Midland 0-6-0s struggled at bit, so much so that relief lines and a new tunnel had to be built at Sharnbrook to ease the gradients for them.

 

Understandably, there is a desire to see British equivalents of the 'Highball' fast freight big engines common in the States, the Berkshires and big wheeled Mallets, and we see 8- or 10-coupled versions based on P2s, Coronations, Kings and so on, or Mallets with lengthened boilers based on largely the same usual suspects.  US railroads, especially in the mountains, have to cope with long single track sections with difficult gradients, and dealt with them by building monstrous engines that could haul huge trains at a decent speed because bogie air-braked wagons were standard over there, and long passing loops to path them.  But in the UK there was much less need for this sort of thing in steam days, mineral traffic was slow and only needed enough power to keep it trundling along at about 20mph, and most general goods traffic was only partly composed of vacuum-fitted stock and did not run particularly fast.  There were fast goods, fully fitted 'express goods', perishables, and fish trains, that ran to tighter timings and higher speeds, but locos built specifically to haul them were rare.  The GW's 47xx 'Night Owls' and the GC's 'Fish Engine' 4-6-0s would count, I suppose, but these express goods trains were hauled mostly by more general purpose mixed traffic locos, Halls, Black 5s, B1s, V2s, S15s, and the like, or passenger engines.  These could manage the trains well enough, and by the time that more fully fitted block trains were appearing we had a design that was perfect for them, the 9F.

 

So, while designing imaginary fast freight heavy haulers for UK use is good fun and very much the sort of thing this thread is about, most of the suggested designs would have been far too powerful and fast for the huge majority of steam-age freight work and it is difficult to find traffic that exploits their capabilites while keeping the bean counters happy.

Edited November 4, 2022 by The Johnster

[Flying Pig]

2 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

So, while designing imaginary fast freight heavy haulers for UK use is good fun and very much the sort of thing this thread is about, most of the suggested designs would have been far too powerful and fast for the huge majority of steam-age freight work and it is difficult to find traffic that exploits their capabilites while keeping the bean counters happy.

 

Or at least, without changing the freight work. 

 

Lets say the coal industry modernised early, starting in the first decade of the 20th century.  Then, after WW1, the government played fair and reviewed common carrier and regulation of carriage rates, instead of just inflicting thousands of war-surplus lorries on railways working under the same restrictions.

 

We thus see faster freight trains and concentration of depots beginning decades before it did in reality.  Is that enough to see some big types built through the 1920s before the Depression hit?  More power is needed for faster trains of braked wagons, even if they aren't any longer than before.

[Compound2632]

20 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

pairs of Midland 0-6-0s struggled at bit, so much so that relief lines and a new tunnel had to be built at Sharnbrook to ease the gradients for them.

 

The goods lines at Sharnbrook were indeed given easier gradients - the original line had been built at a time when money was tight. But the 1880 quadrupling was driven by the need for increased line capacity, not to mollycoddle the engines. 

[The Johnster]

45 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Or at least, without changing the freight work. 

 

Lets say the coal industry modernised early, starting in the first decade of the 20th century.  Then, after WW1, the government played fair and reviewed common carrier and regulation of carriage rates, instead of just inflicting thousands of war-surplus lorries on railways working under the same restrictions.

 

We thus see faster freight trains and concentration of depots beginning decades before it did in reality.  Is that enough to see some big types built through the 1920s before the Depression hit?  More power is needed for faster trains of braked wagons, even if they aren't any longer than before.

It would have made a difference, but not a huge one I suspect.  2-8-0s with larger driving wheels, say about 5’3”, and no more 0-8-0s; don’t think many would have missed the Austin 7s!

[Northmoor]

42 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Or at least, without changing the freight work. 

 

Lets say the coal industry modernised early, starting in the first decade of the 20th century.  Then, after WW1, the government played fair and reviewed common carrier and regulation of carriage rates, instead of just inflicting thousands of war-surplus lorries on railways working under the same restrictions.

 

We thus see faster freight trains and concentration of depots beginning decades before it did in reality.  Is that enough to see some big types built through the 1920s before the Depression hit?  More power is needed for faster trains of braked wagons, even if they aren't any longer than before.

This why I prefer the (mostly dormant) "Imaginary Railways" thread to this one.  Our railways, 99% of the time, built what they needed.  If it wasn't built it was because they didn't need it.

 

If you imagine the railways themselves to be different, then the locos and rolling stock are more likely to have also been different, as might operating practices, signalling, loading gauge.....

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Garratts in the general UK context, and where they were employed they were one-trick ponies for specific tasks

I suppose, in their own ways, the LMS & LNER Garretts were the Deltics of their day-tools designed for a specific purpose, which purpose they fulfilled well enough.

 

On the subject of engines for fast, heavy freight- had the freightliner concept taken off 30 years earlier, maybe the P2's would have been the ideal engines for them?

[The Johnster]

40 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I suppose, in their own ways, the LMS & LNER Garretts were the Deltics of their day-tools designed for a specific purpose, which purpose they fulfilled well enough.

 

On the subject of engines for fast, heavy freight- had the freightliner concept taken off 30 years earlier, maybe the P2's would have been the ideal engines for them?

The freightliner concept, in the form of containers on conflats in 60mph fully fitted consists, dates back a bit more than 30 years before the days of ISO containers, and P2s would have been ideal for them (better than Metrovicks on the Condor, for sure),but were reserved for passenger work.  Pacifics and V2s were used effectively on such traffic, often at some fairly scary speeds (guards used to marshall the two bans behind the brake on fully fitted trains to steady up the ride, there are tales of express passenger timings being equalled with 600+ton trains).  The 9Fs were perfect for this work, with the added benefit of being able to handle slower, heavier, freight as well, not to mention express passenger jobs if needed, and regularly in summer on the S&DJ. 
 

British railway economics seems to have been based on the smallest engine that would do the work using the least fuel on 90lb/ft rail, anathema to Americans…

Edited November 4, 2022 by The Johnster

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

the Garratts were chiefly used on the Toton - Brent mineral trains over the ex-Midland main

@Compound2632 is correct. However, it should be noted that the LMS Garratts were partly funded by the Government, and this seems to have ended-up with more than were needed just to do Toton-Brent. That was 8/day in each direction plus, say, 6-8 more to cover down-time, failures, maintenance, etc.. But the Gorvernment/LMS had purchased 33, not the minimalist 22-24. Hence the use on other freight to York, Gloucester, Birmingham, and the (failed) attempt in passenger service. If you've got a one-trick pony, you have to try to use a surplus on other tricks, even if they're not the best fit.

[tythatguy1312]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

@Compound2632 is correct. However, it should be noted that the LMS Garratts were partly funded by the Government, and this seems to have ended-up with more than were needed just to do Toton-Brent. That was 8/day in each direction plus, say, 6-8 more to cover down-time, failures, maintenance, etc.. But the Gorvernment/LMS had purchased 33, not the minimalist 22-24. Hence the use on other freight to York, Gloucester, Birmingham, and the (failed) attempt in passenger service. If you've got a one-trick pony, you have to try to use a surplus on other tricks, even if they're not the best fit.

It's generally a shame that the Garratts proved so... underwhelming because they had the makings of an incredible machine. A rebuild along the lines of the Royal Scot rebuilds would've done them wonders.

[cctransuk]

17 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

It's generally a shame that the Garratts proved so... underwhelming because they had the makings of an incredible machine. A rebuild along the lines of the Royal Scot rebuilds would've done them wonders.

 

How different things might have been had the builders had a free hand in design!

 

Beyer-Garratts proved their worth virtually everywhere they went - apart from their home country!

 

Having spent a day on the footplate of a WHR B-G, I can vouch for their competence, stability and free-running.

 

CJI.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I suppose, in their own ways, the LMS & LNER Garretts were the Deltics of their day-tools designed for a specific purpose, which purpose they fulfilled well enough.

 

On the subject of engines for fast, heavy freight- had the freightliner concept taken off 30 years earlier, maybe the P2's would have been the ideal engines for them?

The freightliner concept, in the form of containers on conflats in 60mph, dates a bit more than 30 years before the days of ISO containers, and P2s would have been ideal for them but were reserved for passenger work.  Pacifics and V2s were used on such traffic, often at some fairly scary speeds (guards used to marshall the two bans behind the brake on fully fitted trains to steady up the ride, there are tales of express passenger timings being equalled with 600+

ton train

[The Johnster]

The industrial Garratts proved effective; I vaguely remember the East Moors Steelworks engine, ordered for a particular task that had defeated 16” and later 18” Hunslets; transfer of loaded internal user hoppers and tipplers carrying iron ore offloaded from bulk carriers on the steelworks wharf of Cardiff’s Roath Dock.  The line from the wharf went beneath the GWR’s dock branch line between Stonefield Jc and East Dock and the loaded iron ore trains had to pull up at a stop board on the steelworks side of the climb out from the flyunder; stopping them with half the train still on the downward slope wasn’t always easy, and restarting them & dragging them over the top could be troublesome, but the Garratt laughed at the job.  
 

Everybody I’ve ever spoken to who has ridden on them comments on their excellent ride quality, but it’s the same old thing; what British train needed a Garrett rebuilt Royal Scot, and you’d need special roads to stable them on sheds and triangles if you wanted to turn them.  It looks to me as if the LMS engines would probably not have been considered if Derby had built a 2-8-0; oh, wait a minute…

Edited November 4, 2022 by The Johnster

[Corbs]

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It would have made a difference, but not a huge one I suspect.  2-8-0s with larger driving wheels, say about 5’3”, and no more 0-8-0s; don’t think many would have missed the Austin 7s!

But we would have missed the Austin 7 converted with a Ljungström turbine!

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Corbs said:

But we would have missed the Austin 7 converted with a Ljungström turbine!

 

That's so convincing I had to go and check!