Imaginary Locomotives

[Flying Pig]

On 21/01/2023 at 09:05, Michael Edge said:

It’s a shame that the only two main line Garrett types to run in Britain were two of the worst anywhere in the world, if Beyer Peacock had been left to design them the results might have been very different. Look at how effective properly designed Garratts are now on the Welsh Highland.

 

Yeah but, I still contend (as I do about four times a year) that what the LMS needed was a properly engineered 0-8-0 for the Midland line coal job.  The 7F wasn't far off, just needed better frames and bearings and a cylindrical smokebox would have improved long term performance.

 

A Garratt was later proposed, I believe for the WCML north of Preston.  But if we go back earlier, the first main line Garratts were built about the time of the Highland Railway's River Class debacle.  So how about a Garratt for the Highland to pull those Glorious Twelfth caravans, perhaps using boilers and cabs recovered from the Rivers themselves for local colour.  If Beyer Peacock got a wiggle on they might even arrive before WW1 put an end to that sort of thing.  They'd look good on the Jellico specials though.

 

 

On 21/01/2023 at 08:48, rockershovel said:

I think we're coming back round to the central limitation of a thread of this sort. Steam traction ruled the rails for well over a century and during that time, pretty much anything that was feasible was tried, or at least examined. 

 

The West Indies...aren't...very good...at cricket.  You and your Snide University ways.  Or wherever you went.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

There were over 1,800 Mk 2 carriages built by I haven't bothered to work out how many of those had the wrap-around doors.

IIRC wrap-round doors were introduced on the Mk2B, which was also when middle doors were abolished (except on brake vehicles).

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

Early Ffestiniog Railway carriages (the four-wheelers and the first two bogie coaches (15 and 16 of 1872) all had door hinges on the right. The 1876 carriages, 17 and 18 had hinges on the left. There seems no particular advantage on the Ffestiniog Railway of having doors hinged on the left, so I wonder if this reflects a general change that took place at the time. All four bogie carriages were built by Brown Marshall (as were many - but not all - of the four -wheelers), so it isn''t down to different manufacturers following different practices. Later carriages, built by Gloucester in 1879 and Ashbury (1890s) all had hinges on the left.

 

I'll stick my neck out neck out and make another sweeping generalisation:

 

Whenever a sweeping generalisation is made, the exceptions will be pointed out!

 

I'm minded to make a list of all the carriage types that have run in the British Isles that have had doors hinged on the left, but I fear I'd overload RMWeb's servers.

 

I certainly don't think there was any general sea-change between 1872 and 1876 that would motivate the change on the Ffestiniog; those early Ffestiniog carriages were anomalous when built. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

4 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

Yeah but, I still contend (as I do about four times a year) that what the LMS needed was a properly engineered 0-8-0 for the Midland line coal job

Just about - although I started more out hostile until I crunched the numbers. To get the train to start needs 45,600 lbf (as the Garratts, and also two 4Fs). To fit that into the Midland/UK loading gauge needs 4 times 18.5" cylinders as the Garratts (or 3 times 21.4" cylinders), and I believe that would required careful engineering fit into an 0-8-0, even at the Garratts' 21 tons/axle. 45,600 starting tractive effort at an adhesion factor of 4  requires a locomotive with (at least)  81.4 tons on the driving axles, getting you back to 21 tons/axle for an 0-8-0.

 

Then to get the train to trundle-along at 13 mph (Toton-London, ignoring stops) only required a moderate boiler, as supplied.

 

Now I'm not saying that LMS Garratts designed as 2-8-0+0-8-2 to reduce the axle loading wouldn't have been better, but they failed politics - the sales-pitch within Derby of them being compatible with many existing Derby designs, and the Government funding requiring them to be out-sourced. The Garratts more easily met/overcame whatever (probably ill-defined, although I expect to be corrected on this) criterion for the total tons/ft criterion the CCE had in his back pocket.

 

So possibly yes to a well-designed, free from preconceptions, 0-8-0, but probably in the 'too hard' basket.

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Just about - although I started more out hostile until I crunched the numbers. To get the train to start needs 45,600 lbf (as the Garratts, and also two 4Fs). To fit that into the Midland/UK loading gauge needs 4 times 18.5" cylinders as the Garratts (or 3 times 21.4" cylinders), and I believe that would required careful engineering fit into an 0-8-0, even at the Garratts' 21 tons/axle. 45,600 starting tractive effort at an adhesion factor of 4  requires a locomotive with (at least)  81.4 tons on the driving axles, getting you back to 21 tons/axle for an 0-8-0.

 

An eight-coupled 4-cylinder engine needs to be a 2-8-0 to distribute the weight of the cylinder block, as Whale realised when he put bigger boilers on Webb's B Class compounds. A 3-cylinder engine is touch-and-go; Raven got away with it.

[6990WitherslackHall]

On 22/01/2023 at 15:37, Compound2632 said:

Raven got away with it.

Ah yes. The NER T2 and T3 aka the LNER Q6 and Q7. Powerful locomotives. One of each class was preserved. 

 

 

Q6 63395 is owned by the North Eastern Locomotives Preservation Group (NELPG) and is currently based on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway (NYMR). (Photo is my own)

 

 

 

Q7 901 (BR 63460) is on static display at Darlington Railway Center and Museum in County Durham. 

Edited January 23, 2023 by 6990WitherslackHall

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Just about - although I started more out hostile until I crunched the numbers. To get the train to start needs 45,600 lbf (as the Garratts, and also two 4Fs). To fit that into the Midland/UK loading gauge needs 4 times 18.5" cylinders as the Garratts (or 3 times 21.4" cylinders), and I believe that would required careful engineering fit into an 0-8-0, even at the Garratts' 21 tons/axle. 45,600 starting tractive effort at an adhesion factor of 4  requires a locomotive with (at least)  81.4 tons on the driving axles, getting you back to 21 tons/axle for an 0-8-0.

 

But didn't 2-cylinder 2-8-0s manage much of the traffic from the mid 1930s onwards until the 9Fs came along?  The 8F had about 32,400lbf of TE and the 9F about 39,700lbf, so perhaps the Garratts were over-specified, at least for most of the work?  I'm think of the Midland's dedicated coal conveyer, which is what the Garratts were built for.  No real need to speed up the traffic perhaps?

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

But didn't 2-cylinder 2-8-0s manage much of the traffic from the mid 1930s onwards until the 9Fs came along?

The Garratts were in continuous service from introduction in 1927 to retirement in the mid-1950s, operating about 200 weekdays/year, with a southbound journey taking a working day.  This means there were enough of them for 8 London-bound trips/day (24 of them) , leaving, nominally 11 at a loose end. I think it's this last point that explains the photos and accounts of them at Birmingham, Gloucester, York, Peterborough and Rugby, although the last two could be on diversionary routes to London. If you've got slow but powerful locomotives with a poor route availability (that 21 tons/axle again), then there will be a push to use them on traffic other than their best-fit duty.

 

The 9Fs, as weaker engines designed for higher speeds, took over the duty of the Garratts - but with fewer wagons. So not the like-for-like that is usually implied.

[John Besley]

On 21/01/2023 at 10:36, Flying Pig said:

 

Was the compartment empty and what did Miss Marple make of it?

Devoid of any sign of life...

[Budgie]

On 21/01/2023 at 08:48, rockershovel said:

I think we're coming back round to the central limitation of a thread of this sort. Steam traction ruled the rails for well over a century and during that time, pretty much anything that was feasible was tried, or at least examined. 

 

The 4-6-2, with varying numbers of cylinders became established as the paramount "fast passenger" type, with the 4-6-0 holding its own under specialised conditions.

 

The 0-8-0 became established as the generic "heavy freight" type, developing into the 2-8-0 and subsequently developing into the 2-10-0 during the last flourishing of steam. 

 

The 4-6-0 became the common "mid range" type for most duties over a long period of time.

 

The 0-6-0 flourished for a long time before being displaced by the 2-8-0 on main line freight and the 2-6-0 or light 4-6-0 for minor lines

 

The 2-6-2T and 2-6-4T established their utility for heavy suburban or branch line traffic, which didn't require and couldn't accommodate articulated types such as the du Bousquet 

 

The 2-8-2 was fully explored (by LNER) and shown to be capable of anything the 2-10-0 or 4-6-2 could do, and more besides but the network simply didn't require, or couldn't cope with locomotives of that size - so the 2-8-4, 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 behemoths of last-generation US steam (or French steam, to a lesser extent) weren't required. 

 

The 0-8-0T became the ultimate heavy shunter, with 0-8-4 and 4-8-0 variants in small numbers leading long careers.

 

Specialist banking locomotives appeared in very small numbers (and personally I'd feel that a tender version of the SR Z class, possibly with a semi-articulated Engerth type tender, would have been the ultimate all-purpose banking loco - anyone care to photoshop THAT?). 

 

Articulated types never really rang any useful bells. The Mallet didn't fit the loading gauge, particularly the compound types. The Garratt had a niche success with LMS but didn't justify itself at LNER. The Kitson, or Kitson-Meyer MIGHT have been the ultimate "Valleys heavy ore train" loco but never got the chance, and I suspect that getting a Kitson type layout into the loading gauge might have been a considerable challenge. 

 

Has anybody thought about putting a rack between the rails and a pinion on the locomotive for the steepest section? Or could they have used a stationary engine with cable haulage as on the Pwllyrhebog incline?

 

[PhilJ W]

I'll leave this here without comment.

 

[tythatguy1312]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I'll leave this here without comment.

 

I do believe that Sigi Strasser's design for a golf cart stretches this thread to its limits. Next thing you know someone'll suggest a shortened Brighton E2 with prominent sandboxes and the rear running plate dip removed.

[AlfaZagato]

I had two thoughts recently.

 

Would the high-pressure boiler from Fury have done well feeding a turbine?

 

Would a Ljungström-style turbine locomotive (like Turbomotive) been a good fit for the Toton run?

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Would the high-pressure boiler from Fury have done well feeding a turbine?

Possibly. I don't think high pressure boilers, or water tube boilers for that matter, were explored fully, at least not here in the UK, where if we can muddle through with what we've got, that's what we do. Fury didn't do much more than a few test runs in original form, and it makes me wonder whether there was really the will to make it work.

 

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Would a Ljungström-style turbine locomotive (like Turbomotive) been a good fit for the Toton run?

I think this has been explored before on here. I think you run up against the issue with most turbines applied to railway work-that they are not good at part load. If the Toton-Brent run had been one demanding continuous sustained high power, with a clear run most of the way, then you might be on to something. They weren't, the schedule was something like 8 hours for what? about 140 miles. Lots of standing around in loops & refuge sidings, lots of toddling along at 25mph at best, not ideal for turbines.

An 8F reworked as a Ljungstrom turbine is an interesting what-if though, and has been done on here.

Edited January 23, 2023 by rodent279

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

Next thing you know someone'll suggest a shortened Brighton E2 with prominent sandboxes and the rear running plate dip removed.

 

Interesting idea - here's an artist's impression:

 

 

[Embedded link to Pinterest.]

[DenysW]

 

3 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Would a Ljungström-style turbine locomotive (like Turbomotive) been a good fit for the Toton run?

In parallel to @rodent279's comments, the benefits of turbines are mostly relevant to tasks that push the envelope for high speed or high-power. They:

 

-   Eliminate the reciprocating masses except the connecting rods (relevant if you want a heavier loco than your CCE will let you have)

-   Eliminate having to use steam valves that actuate several times a second and need to function without significant leakage for scores of millions of actuations (faster than Mallard, or that poppet valves allow, anyone?)

-   Fit better into the UK loading gauge (Maximum 21.5" for outside cylinders, according to Churchward)

-   Perform best at constant duty. No shunting!

-   Based on Turbomotive, only add a small amount of weight, don't save a large amount of fuel.

 

So if your turbine was designed as two 4Fs (2 times 850 hp at 25 mph) and fitted to a 1700 hp boiler it could do the Toton- run in place of a Garratt as part of an 0-8-0 or 2-8-0; the run was probably steady enough for it, although divided up in several sections.

 

I have often wondered what would have happened if Stanier had proposed Turbo-Black 5s in place of the last batch of 4Fs. Would he have been allowed to use them on the routes that were restricted to the 18 tons/axle of the 4Fs? Would the smaller trains have been compatible-enough with constant loads? Unlikely on branch-lines, I suspect.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I have often wondered what would have happened if Stanier had proposed Turbo-Black 5s in place of the last batch of 4Fs. 

 

I expect he would have been asked about first cost and running cost, maintenance, etc.

[tythatguy1312]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting idea - here's an artist's impression:

 

 

[Embedded link to Pinterest.]

if I'm being fair a light branch 0-6-0, even one vaguely based on one of Brighton's less impressive designs, is still more useful than a golf cart. That being said the NWR's mainline motive power has been discussed... but what of their branch line power? Ignoring him for now, something of note is the implication that Vertical Boiler locomotives were capable of working the line, revealing that it had honestly too little traffic to justify even something the size of Thomas. Any idea on what would've replaced them outside of the constraints of a story designed to entertain children?

[john new]

My memory of water tube boilers in general, and that high pressure one fitted to Fury specifically, is that the vibrations and stresses placed on them in the railway locomotive environment proved them unsuitable and dangerous. They are ok in a marine environment where stresses imposed (if any) don’t render them a problem but the technology was not transferable to rail. 

 

It wasn’t a case of inadequate trials, but one of enough trials being done to prove them a dead end; sadly with a literal meaning in the case of one of Fury’s trials.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by john new
Rewritten for clarity.

[AlfaZagato]

I'm curious how much of those stresses are via the work of reciprocating pistons.   The concept of hammer-blow proves there is a lot of mass being thrown around.   A turbine locomotive eliminates much of that reciprocating mass.    I'm not aware of a real-life attempt to combine the two technologies, either.   At least, on railways.   Very common on ships before Diesel and nuclear.

 

Also, given comments earlier on this thread, I had thought the Toton run was a straight-through.   One hundred car trains outsizing loops necessitating clear routings.

[DenysW]

4 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Also, given comments earlier on this thread, I had thought the Toton run was a straight-through.   One hundred car trains outsizing loops necessitating clear routings.

From the 'Book of the LMS Garratts' (Ian Sixsmith, Irwell Press, 2007), quoting the report on the trial of the first three Garratts:

 

"... 80 to 90 loaded wagons representing a total weight of some 1500 tons ... " "On the down journey stops for water and engine purposes are made at Bedford, 45 miles from Cricklewood, and at Melton Mowbray, 100 miles from the start. On the up journey, the trip on which the 1,500 ton load operates, stops are made at Brentingly and Luton for water, while at Wellingborough an allowance of 25 min. is given for general engine requirements."

 

So, at least while they were on trial, they ran on the less direct (less busy?) mainline via Nottingham and Melton rather than Leicester. I have failed to find a Brentingly, but there is a Brentingby just outside Melton Mowbray. Wellingborough, Toton & Cricklewood were the major MPDs for Garratts, so Wellingborough - where the Leicester & Nottingham Mainlines re-joined- was a good place to replace engines with issues.

 

As they were like-for-like replacing double headed 4Fs (or 3F + 4F), the permissive block working had already been sorted-out, at least on the 4-track south of Wellingborough.

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I have failed to find a Brentingly, but there is a Brentingby just outside Melton Mowbray.

 

Referring to the Distance Diagrams, Sheet 28, Brentingby Junction SB, 1 m 18 c east Melton Station SB, was at the end of running loops between the two boxes, and also Melton water troughs, so that seems a good place for a long mineral train to lay over for water. It was 104 m 0 c from St Pancras by the shortest route.

 

 

[Brentingby Junction - view from the signalbox looking toward Melton Mowbray. Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of Midland Railway Study Centre Item 90003.] 

 

 

[Brentingby Junction - view of the signal box looking toward Melton Mowbray. Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of Midland Railway Study Centre Item 90004.] 

 

I think one can make out a water column just in rear of the up main signals, which are off - was the photographer waiting to get a shot of a Jubilee on an up express, coming off the troughs? That photo isn't in the MRSC collection!

Edited January 23, 2023 by Compound2632

[DenysW]

32 minutes ago, DenysW said:

I have failed to find a Brentingly, but there is a Brentingby 

Just a mea culpa. I should have been clearer that Sixsmith spells Brentingly that way twice in rapid succession in his book. Brentingby, as documented above by @Compound2632 identifies it as a slip-of-the-mind typo by him. There are photos of the Garratts attempting to use the Melton water troughs, but Sixsmith's view was that the manual effort required to lower the scoops, and the low speed of the trains will not have made this the routine way of Garratts picking up water.

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, DenysW said:

There are photos of the Garratts attempting to use the Melton water troughs, but Sixsmith's view was that the manual effort required to lower the scoops, and the low speed of the trains will not have made this the routine way of Garratts picking up water.

 

On the other hand, given the effort required to stop and re-start a 1,000 ton+ loose coupled mineral train, there must have been some incentive to just keep going! 

[DenysW]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

On the other hand, given the effort required to stop and re-start a 1,000 ton+ loose coupled mineral train, there must have been some incentive to just keep going!

Agreed, but with a bit of bias towards "It depends if you are late or early compared to the trains in front/behind."