Imaginary Locomotives

[PhilJ W]

15 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

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

 

14 hours 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.

Once dried out peat is quite light.

Edited November 19, 2022 by PhilJ W

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

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

Rigid eight wheeler? and how is it loaded with the roof still in situ?

Edited November 19, 2022 by PhilJ W

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Rigid eight wheeler?

 

Those are, in fact, bogies.

 

9 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

and how is it loaded with the roof still in situ?

 

Through the doors?

[Mike 84C]

There was a dramatic fuel shortage in Ireland during the 1940's. Those peat trains seem to have run mainly to Dublin and the peat was I believe for domestic consumption.

 The coal shortages post war caused CIE to try all sorts of fuel for locos including peat and oil firing. Timetables went out of the window with stops enroute for fire cleaning. An oil fired J15 0-6-0 looks very strange! as does a Maunsell mogul.

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Ryanair are working on that. 

Aren't  their passengers dense enough already?.....😃

[The Johnster]

No, just too poor to use a proper airline…

[john new]

4 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

There was a dramatic fuel shortage in Ireland during the 1940's. Those peat trains seem to have run mainly to Dublin and the peat was I believe for domestic consumption.

 The coal shortages post war caused CIE to try all sorts of fuel for locos including peat and oil firing. Timetables went out of the window with stops enroute for fire cleaning. An oil fired J15 0-6-0 looks very strange! as does a Maunsell mogul.

Hence the Turf burning steam loco they built. (See the Leader thread too).

[rockershovel]

13 hours ago, john new said:

Hence the Turf burning steam loco they built. (See the Leader thread too).

I was surprised to find that the Turf Burner, being mechanically similar in many ways to a Double Fairlie, should have revived the long-discarded concept of a single firebox feeding two boilers. 

 

I also wasn't aware that the Talyllyn Railways number 7 was based on a loco originally built for turf burning. Apparently there were three, ran reasonably well but saw little use and all survived into preservation 

[tythatguy1312]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

I was surprised to find that the Turf Burner, being mechanically similar in many ways to a Double Fairlie, should have revived the long-discarded concept of a single firebox feeding two boilers. 

 

I also wasn't aware that the Talyllyn Railways number 7 was based on a loco originally built for turf burning. Apparently there were three, ran reasonably well but saw little use and all survived into preservation 

I honestly suspect that a few of the concepts for No.7's rebuild could've appeared on this thread as high power industrial designs. One which stuck out to me was an 0-4-4-0t design

[Flying Pig]

11 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I honestly suspect that a few of the concepts for No.7's rebuild could've appeared on this thread as high power industrial designs. One which stuck out to me was an 0-4-4-0t design

 

There seem to have been plenty of 0-4-4-0t Mallets of various gauges in That Abroad, so a British one to that or some other articulation scheme would have been fun.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I honestly suspect that a few of the concepts for No.7's rebuild could've appeared on this thread as high power industrial designs. One which stuck out to me was an 0-4-4-0t design

 

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

There seem to have been plenty of 0-4-4-0t Mallets of various gauges in That Abroad, so a British one to that or some other articulation scheme would have been fun.

There was a narrow gauge one now preserved on the Welshpool NG railway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_(locomotive)#:~:text=Monarch is a narrow gauge,a modified Meyer articulated design.

[sir douglas]

ive been wondering about a lost opportunity with rack & pinion in the UK, which was only used in small amounts such as Middleton colliery, Snowdon mountain or in drift mines, while there were many places around the world such as Chile, Bolivia, New Zealand, Japan or Switzerland that used it on mainlines over particularly steep sections. not having to be restricted by adhesion could have opened up more places the railways could have gone or exisitng lines for better economy

 

for example take the Midland 7f and replace the 2nd wheelset for a rack, powered by inside cylinder/(s) to work on the Lickey, i think it would be more useful than the Bertha while most of it being parts compatible with a standard 7f.

 

some inspiration

 

Beyer Peacock 5175 Usui Pass, Japan Governemnt rlys

 

borsig 6063 Transandine, chile

[tythatguy1312]

24 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

ive been wondering about a lost opportunity with rack & pinion in the UK, which was only used in small amounts such as Middleton colliery, Snowdon mountain or in drift mines, while there were many places around the world such as Chile, Bolivia, New Zealand, Japan or Switzerland that used it on mainlines over particularly steep sections. not having to be restricted by adhesion could have opened up more places the railways could have gone or exisitng lines for better economy

 

for example take the Midland 7f and replace the 2nd wheelset for a rack, powered by inside cylinder/(s) to work on the Lickey, i think it would be more useful than the Bertha while most of it being parts compatible with a standard 7f.

 

some inspiration

 

Beyer Peacock 5175 Usui Pass, Japan Governemnt rlys

 

borsig 6063 Transandine, chile

I get the concept but the 7fs were already hardly light, meaning the pressure on the Rack would've been rather high and the load on the rest of the axles increased. Plus I hardly wish to see what would occur if a tender scoop hit a rack section

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, sir douglas said:

rack & pinion in the UK

The problem with rack railways is that the permanent way needs to be completely rebuilt because the forces applied to the rails are no longer 98%+ vertical for a 1-in-50-and under, but can be (for a 1-in-3) as much as 33% horizontal. So the whole lot needs a re-think and a re-build. A lot closer to Brunel's baulk track** than classic rails+sleepers results. So if you took a 7F with its 1150 hp at 25 mph (see the last page on the Midland Railway thread for the background to this assertion*), then the rack needs to transmit that horizontal power to the ground without failing. As a result rack railways are VERY slow compared to adhesion railways - to bring the horsepower down. I can't cite the reference, but I read an 1890s(ish) report that said that early Japanese rack railways were also highly skilled to drive because the driver needed to put as much power as was possible without slipping on the adhesion system, and make up the rest with the rack.

 

Finally, there wasn't a consensus on the 'right' rack system, adding to the designers risk.

 

* I've interpolated at 90 hp/classification to get from 6F to 7F

 

** Ironically the Lickey was initially laid with baulk track.

Edited November 20, 2022 by DenysW
Add footnote about Lickey with baulk track.

[AlfaZagato]

Since Ireland was mentioned, what might have been the next step from the GSR 800 class?  The few 800s were already built to the max width of the Irish broad gauge.   Understandably, there wasn't much demand for the 800s when they outshopped.   Still, could an Irish 'Pacific' been the next move?

[tythatguy1312]

 

7 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Since Ireland was mentioned, what might have been the next step from the GSR 800 class?  The few 800s were already built to the max width of the Irish broad gauge.   Understandably, there wasn't much demand for the 800s when they outshopped.   Still, could an Irish 'Pacific' been the next move?

If I'm being technical, an Irish Pacific did exist!


However I have significant doubts as to whether a "proper" 4-6-2 would've worked on Irish rails, especially following the devastating blow to Irish passenger rail known as the United States Limits on Immigration. The fact that the 800 class existed at all is a beautiful miracle to me.

[tythatguy1312]

Something which I admittedly find rather perplexing is the fact that 3ft gauge never took off in the UK, at least compared to 2ft or even 2ft 3in gauge. I think it was only used on about 3 passenger railways and a couple tramways & industrial lines. I'm certainly questioning what locomotives would've been built had 3ft gauge seen more widespread use, especially considering its prevalence in Ireland and the US.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Something which I admittedly find rather perplexing is the fact that 3ft gauge never took off in the UK, at least compared to 2ft or even 2ft 3in gauge. I think it was only used on about 3 passenger railways and a couple tramways & industrial lines. I'm certainly questioning what locomotives would've been built had 3ft gauge seen more widespread use, especially considering its prevalence in Ireland and the US.

 

A very considerable mileage of 3 ft gauge railways was built in the United Kingdom, much of it with government support or subsidy. Not so much of that mileage was in Great Britain, but a considerable amount of it passed to the LMS through the Midland's acquisition of the Belfast & Northern Counties Railway in 1903 and joint ownership with the Great Northern of the County Donegal Railway. 

 

If 3 ft gauge had been taken up much in Great Britain, I would imagine it would have been for much the same reason as in Ireland: to open up remote and deprived areas, where a standard gauge line would be even more of a financial burden on the taxpayer than would a narrow gauge line - the north-west Highlands of Scotland, chiefly. Given the similarity of the terrain, I would imagine that the locomotives would have been very similar to those on similar lines in Ireland: the Naysmith, Wilson & Co. 4-6-4T and 2-6-4T designs being perhaps the beau idéal.

 

But, even more than in Ireland, I suspect the change of gauge would have been a major factor mitigating against operational success. 

[AlfaZagato]

Experience has also shown that, where narrow gauge was built in Great Britain, gauging around 2 feet was entirely suitable for the traffic encountered.

 

As a note, though, my understanding for the loading gauge on the Lynton & Barnstable was based on the contractors using a 3-foot gauge for the work train.   I pose that could have resulted in, at least, the Manning-Wardle locos being 3ft gauge outside frame.

[Compound2632]

32 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Experience has also shown that, where narrow gauge was built in Great Britain, gauging around 2 feet was entirely suitable for the traffic encountered.

 

As a note, though, my understanding for the loading gauge on the Lynton & Barnstable was based on the contractors using a 3-foot gauge for the work train.   I pose that could have resulted in, at least, the Manning-Wardle locos being 3ft gauge outside frame.

 

The L&B Manning Wardles were 6' 6" or thereabouts over the outside cylinders; a 3 ft gauge equivalent would have to be 7' 6" wide. How wide over cylinders were the County Donegal Naysmith Wilsons? (Which were also outside-framed and outside-cylindered.) 

[AlfaZagato]

Honestly, I was meaning to type inside-framed.  In contrast to actuality, which saw them outside-framed.

[Northmoor]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

A very considerable mileage of 3 ft gauge railways was built in the United Kingdom, much of it with government support or subsidy. Not so much of that mileage was in Great Britain, but a considerable amount of it passed to the LMS through the Midland's acquisition of the Belfast & Northern Counties Railway in 1903 and joint ownership with the Great Northern of the County Donegal Railway. 

 

If 3 ft gauge had been taken up much in Great Britain, I would imagine it would have been for much the same reason as in Ireland: to open up remote and deprived areas, where a standard gauge line would be even more of a financial burden on the taxpayer than would a narrow gauge line - the north-west Highlands of Scotland, chiefly. Given the similarity of the terrain, I would imagine that the locomotives would have been very similar to those on similar lines in Ireland: the Naysmith, Wilson & Co. 4-6-4T and 2-6-4T designs being perhaps the beau idéal.

 

But, even more than in Ireland, I suspect the change of gauge would have been a major factor mitigating against operational success. 

Now here's a serious What If....?

 

George Stephenson had settled on 3ft gauge as adequate for the traffic around the Durham coalfield and it had evolved to become Standard Gauge.  Would the rest of the Western World have followed or gone larger and would that have been something other than 4'8.5"?

 

A National network of 3ft gauge wouldn't have necessarily counted against heavy loads (look at South Africa with Cape gauge) but what is the highest speed on a similar gauge elsewhere in the world?  I can't think of any high speed metre gauge networks.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I can't think of any high speed metre gauge networks.

 

Because metre gauge lines, like narrow gauge lines generally, were built to serve places standard gauge (or whatever the local main-line gauge was) could not economically reach; high speed lines have by their nature always been built to provide links between places that would provide a good return - starting with Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and London. 

 

A narrower Stephenson gauge would have stifled the early development of high-speed rail, given the early predilection for low centre of gravity, limiting boiler size to what would fit between the wheels. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Compound2632

[john new]

29 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Now here's a serious What If....?

 

George Stephenson had settled on 3ft gauge as adequate for the traffic around the Durham coalfield and it had evolved to become Standard Gauge.  Would the rest of the Western World have followed or gone larger and would that have been something other than 4'8.5"?

 

A National network of 3ft gauge wouldn't have necessarily counted against heavy loads (look at South Africa with Cape gauge) but what is the highest speed on a similar gauge elsewhere in the world?  I can't think of any high speed metre gauge networks.

But why would he, on a Brunelian style whim, have changed the already well established gauge of circa 4ft 6in to 5ft? That had evolved from antiquity due to the width of the horses/camels/bullocks etc., required to pull the vehicles. The gauge on the existing large network of waggonways was wide enough for a horse to move between the rails with tack attachments suited to the width across their backsides!

 

Narrow gauge in that era where the route was too narrow or unsuitable for use of carts or waggons was a packhorse/string of pack horses (or mules, camels etc., ) walking on a road.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by john new
Added the extra point re pack horses

[DenysW]

34 minutes ago, john new said:

But why would he, on a Brunelian style whim, have changed the already well established gauge of circa 4ft 6in to 5ft?

Well we know he wouldn't because he didn't.

 

My feeling is that this was still firmly in the days of empirical rules-of-thumb, and you made no changes without either a really good economic reason or a hefty dose of arrogance (Brunel). Stephenson's first locomotive was tested on a tramway (his employer) at the tramway's gauge. It worked, so no change for his next (Stockton & Darlington) that was to be dual worked with horse-driven for passengers, and steam-driven for coal. Still more reason not to change. Similarly with a speculative railway enterprise's choice of engineer. Pick one with a proven track record - Stephenson and his trainees.