Imaginary Locomotives

[cctransuk]

8 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

now that I suspect that virtually every avenue of ideas which could reasonably lead to changes in British locomotives have been explored bar the completely nonsensical, I have 1 idea left. How come American style "simple mallets" didn't catch on in the UK? Ignoring small class sizes, they could've done extremely well on the harsh grades of either the LMS main line or Scottish highlands, particularly on heavy passenger work. Frankly it still scares me that Union Pacific's Challengers were mixed-traffic designs.

 

Because, in the vast majority of cases, non-articulated locos were perfectly capable of handing the loads coupled behind them. Why, then, would you develop more complex motive power?

 

Longer trains could not be accommodated within the railway infrastructure and signalling.

 

So - if it works, don't 'fix' it; simple is good.

 

CJI.

[tythatguy1312]

4 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Because, in the vast majority of cases, non-articulated locos were perfectly capable of handing the loads coupled behind them. Why, then, would you develop more complex motive power?

 

Longer trains could not be accommodated within the railway infrastructure and signalling.

 

So - if it works, don't 'fix' it; simple is good.

 

CJI.

OK Scratch that. Ignoring my many attempts to work out an articulated passenger locomotive which wasn't built by Southern Pacific, I feel an earlier GWR Electrification at least as far as London-Plymouth might've benefited them greatly, with increased speeds and better trains. Plus it would've potentially saved them money and boosted economies in the area, as power stations of the day would've probably been coal fired.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Longer trains could not be accommodated within the railway infrastructure and signalling.

True, with the caveat "at a price the Railway companies wanted to afford." Basically go-large would have meant two extra tracks on all of the bigger mainlines to allow fast passenger to overtake slow goods, plus railway yards about every 75-100 miles to top-up the big beasts and check them over. The LMS Garratts stopped twice between Toton and Brent (~130 miles) - probably driven by reliability concerns on busy routes as much as anything else.

 

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I feel an earlier GWR Electrification at least as far as London-Plymouth

They looked at it, not least because of the cost of getting Welsh coal into the English West Country. Failed on money, and failed because the conventional wisdom was to learn your trade on electrification with frequent suburban routes, then extend these outwards. The GWR lines into Wales are not electrified to this day.

[The Johnster]

They are, but only Severn Tunnel-Cardiff; the original scheme was to include Swansea.  Only the original Bristol road via Box and the South Wales Badminton cutoff from Royal Wootton Bassett via Stoke Gifford and Patchway are wired up, Filton Bank has been left out.  Utilisation of the scheme is only by the bi-mode electro-diesel 800/801 sets running on the wires to Bristol or Cardiff; all else is diesel, which seems a poor return for the investment in my view.  No money is available for the Valleys electrification despite bi-mode sets being in use here, or for bi-mode trains elsewhere.

 

Typical British bodge, Buffalo Bill Enterprises PLC, with money for the full original scheme cancelled after disastrous budget overruns.  Electric running through the Severn Tunnel, which would have been highly advantageous, has had to be abandoned despite the installation of Swiss overhead rail OLE because of degradation of the material by the acidic conditions down there (years of steam soot and diesel fumes and the wet conditions mean that the sulpuric acid is strong enough to make your hands sting; everything down there is coated in a black acidic slime).  There is a recently announced proposed Grand Central through service from Carmarthen to Paddington via Landore calling at Gowerton to miss Swansea HS; I am unclear as to what traction is proposed for this but if it is to use the OLE it will have to be bi-mode (no sh*t, Sherlock, stop mansplaining!).  I am only assuming 125mph running is being considered (it would help pathing between Westerleigh and Paddington), in which case only 800/801s or the antediluvian HST sets are suitable for Carmarthen through running.  I seriously doubt it will actually ever materialise; Carmarthen is served by through Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock trains.

 

The GW original scheme was to have been Taunton-Plymouth, logically enough to solve the problem of the South Devon banks.  I imagine that, if it had been instituted, the next stage would have been the West of England main line via Westbury, as there are significant gradients and heavy loads on this as well.  Reading-London would have presumably been incorporated in this, and it would not have been long before electrified suburban services were extended to Oxford, then Bristol and South Wales, leaving only the Bristol-Taunton section to fill in.  Interestingly, after the period of German expansionist foriegn policy that ended in 1945, the Next Big Idea was Gas Turbines, and these were trialled on the W of E to Plymouth but settled into service on the Bristol road via Box.  The Warships, when they arrived, were deployed on the Plymouth route firstly, in conjunction with D63xx or steam pilots west of NA.  The South Devon banks were a significant feature of GW and WR locomotive policy well into the 70s, and only really solved by HSTs.

[Ramblin Rich]

There's a thread on the GWR electrification plans here

 

[Flying Pig]

5 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

There's a thread on the GWR electrification plans here

 

 

 

Not to mention it's cropped up four or five times on this merry-go-round thread already.

[tythatguy1312]

well, given that I'm now out of ideas which don't involve track gauge, there is the unexplored avenue of Britain (for some unknown and unknowable reason which I won't even bother trying to justify) adopting cape gauge for its railways whilst retaining the same loading gauge. Given that Japan seems to have gotten a fair bit of mileage with locomotives of similar size to Britain on that gauge I imagine it could lead to interesting proposals, though I imagine the standard 0-6-0t shunter would rarely vary from an appearance close to the Isle Of Man Railway's Caledonia.

Alternatively, there is an idea I've come up with in the last 30 seconds of Britain adopting the monstrous loading gauge of the United States with precisely zero other changes in terms of train lengths or siding lengths. This is admittedly out of morbid curiosity when it comes to imagining a bi-level GWR Steam railmotor and out of the questionable belief that such a machine could be made to work.

Edited December 3, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

well, given that I'm now out of ideas which don't involve track gauge, there is the unexplored avenue of Britain (for some unknown and unknowable reason which I won't even bother trying to justify) adopting cape gauge for its railways whilst retaining the same loading gauge. Given that Japan seems to have gotten a fair bit of mileage with locomotives of similar size to Britain on that gauge I imagine it could lead to interesting proposals, though I imagine the standard 0-6-0t shunter would rarely vary from an appearance close to the Isle Of Man Railway's Caledonia.

Alternatively, there is an idea I've come up with in the last 30 seconds of Britain adopting the monstrous loading gauge of the United States with precisely zero other changes in terms of train lengths or siding lengths. This is admittedly out of morbid curiosity when it comes to imagining a bi-level GWR Steam railmotor and out of the questionable belief that such a machine could be made to work.

 

Are you sure that whatever mind-altering substance you imbibe is legal?

 

Surely the mental effort you have devoted to dreaming up increasingly wild scenarios could be better devoted to producing MODELS of slightly less fanciful forms of motive power?

 

I may be under a misapprehension, but I had been under the impression that this thread was intended to generate MODELS of plausible might-have-beens - not mental flights-of-fancy!

 

CJI.

[tythatguy1312]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Are you sure that whatever mind-altering substance you imbibe is legal?

constant dehydration, sleep deprivation and stress may be taking a bigger toll than I initially believed

[DenysW]

11 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

. This is admittedly out of morbid curiosity when it comes to imagining a bi-level GWR Steam railmotor and out of the questionable belief that such a machine could be made to work.

Yes you could probably fit US loading gauge onto Brunel-loading-gauge lines. Interoperability with Standard Gauge (often a legal requirement) would mean 4-rail dual gauge not 3-rail. But you still have a maximum before the 1920s of 18 tons/axle, and track curvature giving a maximum of 3 driving axles with big wheels or 4 axles with less big wheels. So you are still back to rebuilding every bridge and culvert stronger and relaying all the track heavier and straighter.

 

Conventional wisdom is that the technical failure of the railmotors was lack of power not passenger capacity. So a 4 cylinder 300 psi tiny system?

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Yes you could probably fit US loading gauge onto Brunel-loading-gauge lines. Interoperability with Standard Gauge (often a legal requirement) would mean 4-rail dual gauge not 3-rail.

 

I can't think of an instance of a broad gauge line being compelled by law to lay the third rail for standard gauge; in the cases I can think of it was voluntary, driven by commercial necessity. The Bristol & Exeter is a classic case, driven by competition from the Somerset & Dorset in the mid-1860s.

[Flying Pig]

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I may be under a misapprehension, but I had been under the impression that this thread was intended to generate MODELS of plausible might-have-beens - not mental flights-of-fancy!

 

CJI.

 

I think you are.  It was originally intended to generate the NUMBERS of plausible might-have-been members of existing classes.  I'd advise you to read the first post, but it's a bit of a walk from here.

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

I may be under a misapprehension, but I had been under the impression that this thread was intended to generate MODELS of plausible might-have-beens - not mental flights-of-fancy!

 

Intention and outcome are rarely the same!

 

[Yarravalleymodeller]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Intention and outcome are rarely the same!

 

2 domes?... one for each cylinder...😉😅

[tythatguy1312]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Intention and outcome are rarely the same!

 

I still don't get why the Midland never tried a light 4-6-0 based on the SDJR 7Fs, but their commitment to "small engine policy" seems to have exceeded common sense in a few areas. I guess the question isn't "why did they not build a 4-6-0" but "why did they build the Lickey banker".

[62613]

46 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

"why did they build the Lickey banker".

With a tender, which was a dead load. I could also imagine that if it had been a tank engine, the onboard coal and water would have helped with the adhesive weight

[DenysW]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I can't think of an instance of a broad gauge line being compelled by law to lay the third rail for standard gauge;

As often I may have been confused. I thought that several post-gauge-wars Brunel-gauge lines had Standard Gauge running rights for other companies imposed on them during the Parliamentary process, sometimes with reciprocal rights on a Standard Gauge route of equivalent length imposed on the objecting company. I didn't take it through to the detail of how those running rights would be implemented, just assumed that both of the blighters would have to lay mixed gauge.

[DenysW]

13 minutes ago, 62613 said:

The Lickey Banker ... With a tender, which was a dead load.

Asserted to be to get a duty's worth of coal and water onto the banker without exceeding axle loadings.

 

At the other end of the country, the Highland railway ran tender engines on the Fortrose branchline - presumably to refuel the engine once a week for its duty of a few miles 3 times a day.

Edited December 4, 2022 by DenysW

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

based on the SDJR 7Fs,

Designed for a switchback route, and they didn't do well once trialed elsewhere. Proving again that it's really risky to try and reduce locomotive specifications to a limited classification like "7F".

[Gareth 73]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

With a tender, which was a dead load. I could also imagine that if it had been a tank engine, the onboard coal and water would have helped with the adhesive weight

Sort of my reasoning behind this loco. An austerity tank loco. They were used in Germany and Poland after the war hence the smoke deflectors but were repatriated in the early 50s where BR used them for various work.

Here we see the fireman on 90998 taking it easy while waiting the road. At the time the loco was shedded at shrewsbury and was known by the unofficial name The Wrekin Giant. For some reason that is lost in the mists of time it was banned south of crewe.

 

 

Thanks to Steve at railtec for the custom numbers top service as ever.

[cctransuk]

5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I think you are.  It was originally intended to generate the NUMBERS of plausible might-have-been members of existing classes.  I'd advise you to read the first post, but it's a bit of a walk from here.

 

Ah - mea culpa.

 

CJI.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I still don't get why the Midland never tried a light 4-6-0 based on the SDJR 7Fs, but their commitment to "small engine policy" seems to have exceeded common sense in a few areas. I guess the question isn't "why did they not build a 4-6-0" but "why did they build the Lickey banker".

 

Don't get me started! Suffice it to say that the Midland locomotive policy was dictated by the company's operating requirements, together with some limitations imposed by its infrastructure, and not by some sort of locomotive superintendent ego-trip. 

[john new]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

As often I may have been confused. I thought that several post-gauge-wars Brunel-gauge lines had Standard Gauge running rights for other companies imposed on them during the Parliamentary process, sometimes with reciprocal rights on a Standard Gauge route of equivalent length imposed on the objecting company. I didn't take it through to the detail of how those running rights would be implemented, just assumed that both of the blighters would have to lay mixed gauge.

They did, example the LSWR having to lay mixed, but as I understand it never used, BG trackage east of Dorchester out onto Winfrith Heath just past Moreton. Without looking it up I can't recall why, as in which line the LSWR got standard gauge over in exchange, but memory says the LSWR got the better deal.

[john new]

3 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I still don't get why the Midland never tried a light 4-6-0 based on the SDJR 7Fs, but their commitment to "small engine policy" seems to have exceeded common sense in a few areas. I guess the question isn't "why did they not build a 4-6-0" but "why did they build the Lickey banker".

For a specific need over a relatively short distance. If loco design A could take the train from Bristol to Birmingham unassisted other than the shortish bit up the Lickey you have basically two options (a) run the rest of the route with an engine oversize for the job and (b) status quo plus a banking option up the hill. Same equation still applies today, albeit less often, hence the occasional use of a Class 66 banker out of Bromsgrove on the heaviest of northbound freight. When Big Bertha left three 0-6-0 tank engines to do the same job was six crew from two hence the trial of the 9F as replacement.

 

Many criticise the Midland's policy of smallish engines, on short trains with a high-frequency service pattern; however, it it is what X Country do now so not that daft an idea as it seems. In the 1920s it worked, then began to fail, but reintroduced in modern times (1990s?) with the introduction of the Voyagers on XC.

 

As this is the imaginary locos thread there is I guess an option (c) something like the Leader (i.e a cab forward loco) as sighting for coupling was always the issue with a long boilered steam engine which the high footplate on the 9Fs would exacerbate.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by john new
Added an extra point (c).

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Ah - mea culpa.

 

CJI.

 

To be fair, it's an unusual starting position for a thread and we haven't exactly stuck to it.