Imaginary Locomotives

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't think so. Safer working conditions was very much a union campaign, and one that had gained considerable public and press support; they had representatives on the Royal Commission. 

It might have required rather fewer people to be employed as shunters, which the Unions would NOT have agreed with.  But the investment would have to be recouped somehow, and workforce savings are the obvious way of doing that.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

It might have required rather fewer people to be employed as shunters, which the Unions would NOT have agreed with.  But the investment would have to be recouped somehow, and workforce savings are the obvious way of doing that.

 

My impression is that that is a far too modern way of looking at the question. 

[rodent279]

20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

With something like 30 years for compliance. The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, gave the Board of Trade the power to make statutory rules enforcing safer working practices. The BoT exercised these powers twice, with rules prohibiting dangerous methods of shunting and mandating adequate lighting of yards used at night, etc., in 1902, and then, after a lengthy period of consultation and experimentation by the railways themselves through the RCH, with rules requiring both-side brakes on goods wagons, in 1911 - with up to 20 years for compliance, which in was in due course extended up to 1939.

 

Whether the BoT's powers under that act would have extended to auto-couplers is an interesting question, as is how an extended transition period for goods wagons would be managed. I believe auto-couplers were discussed by the Royal Commission on Accidents to Railway Servants that sat in 1899-1900 (leading to the 1900 legislation). It would have looked like a very attractive safety measure, avoiding the need for shunters to pass between wagons.

 

See, for example, this, among other entries in Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1909-09-22/debates/66f53c79-cfe7-4066-9ecf-60db4a92014d/AutomaticCouplings

 

Reading further, I find that an Automatic Couplings Bill was proposed in March 1899 but not proceeded with because the outcome of the Royal Commission was awaited:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1899/mar/28/automatic-couplings

 

And here's Mr Churchill prevaricating away again:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1908-07-27/debates/129eb45f-37b4-4b22-a3a7-9aa00aae6a23/AutomaticCouplings

I was going to suggest that auto couplers and continous brakes on all freight stock might make large, fast freight locos like the GWR 47xx & LNER P1 & P2 more viable, and we may have seen more of them put to use. However, I guess that autocouplers & continous brakes alone do not solve the bugbear of British railway freight operations- the short wheelbase, 4-w open or covered wagon.

[tythatguy1312]

Alright so this idea just kinda hit me. What if more railways adopted the Midland/Southern practice of smaller, more frequent passenger trains? It seems reasonable to me that the absolute peak of steam locomotive size in the UK could've reasonably been hit with 4-6-0's & 4-4-2's, optimised for more frequent and regular timetabled services.

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Alright so this idea just kinda hit me. What if more railways adopted the Midland/Southern practice of smaller, more frequent passenger trains? It seems reasonable to me that the absolute peak of steam locomotive size in the UK could've reasonably been hit with 4-6-0's & 4-4-2's, optimised for more frequent and regular timetabled services.

The GER achieved that with relatively small 0-6-0T's (J69's). They were very successful as well even pulling loaded trains up Bethnal Green bank from a standing start

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

What if more railways adopted the Midland/Southern practice of smaller, more frequent passenger trains? It seems reasonable to me that the absolute peak of steam locomotive size in the UK could've reasonably been hit with 4-6-0's & 4-4-2's,

But the marketing position of LNER (previously as GNR/NER/NBR) was no-one gets to Aberdeen faster than us. Back in the day, you wanted to get from the Home Counties to London KX without a London overnight in time for the fast 11 am(ish)  Scotland service, ending up as far north of the border as you wanted to in one day of travel. More frequent services outside the window where this was possible wouldn't have helped. So big, heavy trains/locomotives inside the window. LNWR/LMS on the WCML similar, over a tougher route for gradients. MR/LMS via Leeds & Settle-Carlisle even more severe gradients.

 

Hence also most of the Pacifics being quite small classes. This is not the general niche.

[sncf231e]

When I bought this model, with Deutsche Reichsbahn 14 451 on the cabside, I assumed it was a model of a German locomotive. Well it proves to be a model of an imaginary locomotive even while it looks a bit Bavarian. The model was made some 50 years ago by the small craftsman Hanns Heinen Modellbau using Fleischmann parts. For that time it was a very nice model with even sprung buffers.

 

Regards

Fred

Edited November 13, 2022 by sncf231e

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, sncf231e said:

even while it looks a bit Bavarian

Yes, that attempt at streamlining is quite S2/5-like, and it was in class 14.1, but I agree there wasn't a 14.4.

[sncf231e]

It indeed has some resemblance with the S2/5 (14.1) but is a bit more streamlined like e.g. the cab and has a wider (S3/6) fire box (picture of a Bavarian version, I do not have a 14.1 livery version).

 

So it is not just the number which is imaginary.

 

Regards

Fred

Edited November 13, 2022 by sncf231e

[tythatguy1312]

I may have found a potential solution to the issues caused by the severely outdated nature of British rolling stock, although the photo is from Ireland

Edited November 19, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I may have found a potential solution to the issues caused by the severely outdated nature of British rolling stock, although the photo is from Ireland

 

You should ask Hattons if they are planning loads for their 6-wheelers!

[rodent279]

I presume that is turf, or peat? I'm surprised that the carriage sides were strong enough to take the side load from the turf.

[tythatguy1312]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

I presume that is turf, or peat? I'm surprised that the carriage sides were strong enough to take the side load from the turf.

It's peat, and I suspect the carriages were reinforced internally to handle it.

[6990WitherslackHall]

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

You should ask Hattons if they are planning loads for their 6-wheelers!

Or you could modify an old Hornby 4-wheeler, put it in a BR departmental livery and, with a bit of modeller's license, put it in a specially arranged train and say it's a less known BR experiment if you take it to a show.

Edited November 19, 2022 by 6990WitherslackHall

[Compound2632]

50 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

It's peat, and I suspect the carriages were reinforced internally to handle it.

 

On close inspection one can see that the carriages have been extensively rebuilt to provide three sets of double doors per side.

[6990WitherslackHall]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I may have found a potential solution to the issues caused by the severely outdated nature of British rolling stock, although the photo is from Ireland

Are there any more photos of these?

[rodent279]

26 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

On close inspection one can see that the carriages have been extensively rebuilt to provide three sets of double doors per side.

I'd imagine peat, being full of water, would be quite dense & heavy. There's probably 10 tons or more in each.

[tythatguy1312]

17 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Are there any more photos of these?

so far I've found another image showing one, as well as a conversion in the same style for the same work done on the County Donegal Railway

[Northmoor]

33 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'd imagine peat, being full of water, would be quite dense & heavy. There's probably 10 tons or more in each.

It would be if they didn't dry it out first.  Since it's used as a fuel that is quite important.

 

In a (vaguely) related issue, I read this week that Ireland is the least wooded country in Europe.  Considering how green the country famously is, this was news to me.

[Compound2632]

47 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I'd imagine peat, being full of water, would be quite dense & heavy. There's probably 10 tons or more in each.

 

That would be well over the carrying capacity of the carriages a carriages; either the springs and journals were strengthened, or the vehicles were worked until the running gear failed, of your estimate of the load is out. Forgive me for saying that I suspect the latter and that what is being transported is dried peat/turf, which I think would be rather less dense. Edit: as @Northmoor says.

 

The internal volume of the carriage is about 29' 6" x 7' 6" x 6' = 1327 cu ft = 13.6 m3. I've not found a figure for the density of dried peat turfs but that volume of water has a mass of 13.6 tonnes.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Compound2632

[JimC]

Well, passengers are roughly as dense as water and have a very low packing rate. The extensive internal planking must surely weigh at least as much as the seating, so I should have thought the springs at least must be upgraded. Even if the turf has been dried, rain is not an unknown phenomenum in that part of the world... 

Edited November 19, 2022 by JimC

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I'd imagine peat, being full of water, would be quite dense & heavy.

From the Internet:

 

"What is the bulk density of peat?

0.05 to 0.2 g cm-3

Peat bulk density is variable, but typically 0.05 to 0.2 g cm-3 in high-latitude regions (Figure 2) and, it seems, of similar range in tropical peats"

 

So 5-20% of water density, depending on the degree of drying. Still a lot more than passengers, and I wouldn't want to trust the honesty of traders claiming they'd dried the peat to be ready to use as a fuel.

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, DenysW said:

So 5-20% of water density, depending on the degree of drying. Still a lot more than passengers, and I wouldn't want to trust the honesty of traders claiming they'd dried the peat to be ready to use as a fuel.

 

So 20% of 13.6 tonnes (or tons - near enough for our purposes) is a bit under 3 tons, so not a problem. Isn't this bulk movement for power station use? 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

Well, passengers are roughly as dense as water and have a very low packing rate. 

 

Ryanair are working on that. 

[Ramblin Rich]

4 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

 

That's only 3rd class peat though... 🤪