Imaginary Locomotives

[DenysW]

10 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I'd imagine HS2 requires fully separated grading, as well

But @Murican's point was to use it as dedicated freight, thus not actually faster than Edwardian-era express passenger, and thus not drastic upgrades. HS2 (as per its dedicated thread) is to relieve pressure on the WCML south of Rugby, part of which comes from freight, part from stopping passenger and semi-fast passenger services.

 

The GC/GW Joint section from Princes Risborough to Marylebone is still in use, so would probably need more passing loops if you make Rugby- Princes Risborough retained for freight-only and sent all the WCML London-bound freight down it.

[Flying Pig]

57 minutes ago, DenysW said:

But @Murican's point was to use it as dedicated freight, thus not actually faster than Edwardian-era express passenger, and thus not drastic upgrades. HS2 (as per its dedicated thread) is to relieve pressure on the WCML south of Rugby, part of which comes from freight, part from stopping passenger and semi-fast passenger services.

 

The GC/GW Joint section from Princes Risborough to Marylebone is still in use, so would probably need more passing loops if you make Rugby- Princes Risborough retained for freight-only and sent all the WCML London-bound freight down it.

 

It couldn't be dedicated to freight all the way as there are still passenger services south of Aylesbury and the route is shared with London Transport (as was) south of Amersham.  If either of the links with the GW and GC line is used, there's the same issue though that line is perhaps better suited to carrying more freight.  It's hard to see why using the GC south of Rugby is better than keeping traffic on the electrified WCML.

[The Johnster]

Pathing.  The WCML has 75mph and 90mph freight mixed in with 125mph passenger and stopping local passenger trains of similar speed to the freights.  So, paths must be cleared for the fast traffic amongst everything else and for the fast intermodal freights among the stopping passenger traffic on the slow lines.  The most efficient pathing is acheived when all the trains run at the same speed, impossible on a route that carries a variety of traffic. 

 

The advantage of HS2 is that the fast passenger traffic is removed from the equation and the conflict now becomes between the freight and the stopping passenger traffic, much easier to deal with on a line very close already to capacity.  In fact, removal of the fast passenger traffic to HS2 is a win-win, as not only the trains are taken off the WCML, releasing paths, but the paths released can be used more efficiently and cost-effectively.  Use of the GC south of Rugby for some of the freight, especially overnight, would further increase pathing opportunities on the WCML.

[rodent279]

22 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

The GC crossed the Midland at Loughborough, so you could have diverted the Midland freight traffic onto it there.

But it was a North-South connection from the GC to the Midland, so southbound traffic coming off the Midland onto the GC would need to reverse, or a North -South connection built from the Midland to the GC.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

But it was a North-South connection from the GC to the Midland, so southbound traffic coming off the Midland onto the GC would need to reverse, or a North -South connection built from the Midland to the GC.

Much better to have a flying connection off the GC onto the Leicester-Nuneaton line.  There's probably still space for it now.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Much better to have a flying connection off the GC onto the Leicester-Nuneaton line.  There's probably still space for it now.

As at Loughborough, there was a single chord, with traces of its (former) existence still visible on the OS maps onto the Leicester-Burton Midland line. Gut feel is that it wouldn't have a kind-to-steam slope as the GC crossed over the top of the Midland, so incompatible levels. You can see the GCR's viaduct in the photos @Compound2632 posted of the Midland's West Bridge BLT.

 

There's no connection obviously (previously) present at Whetstone sewage works, which is where the GCR crosses the LNWR's Leicester-Nuneaton line.

 

The Midland's Leicester-Rugby line crosses the GCR where its remains go under the M1 and the GCR goes over it.

Edited September 21, 2023 by DenysW
Add the Leicester-Rugby line comment

[Compound2632]

If you're looking for a good place for north-south interchange between the Midland and the Great Central, your best bet is Beighton Junction:

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

[AlfaZagato]

Coming back to Imaginary Locomotives, I just saw a pic of Lady from Thomas the Tank Engine for the first time in years.  I didn't realize how large the cylinders were, especially in relation to the boiler. 

 

I'd wager she'd only run for 30 minutes before needing to rest.

[Flying Pig]

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

If you're looking for a good place for north-south interchange between the Midland and the Great Central, your best bet is Beighton Junction:

 

 

[Embedded link to Wikimedia Commons.]

 

As I said above - joining the Midland's Rotherham to Chesterfield line via Barrow Hill.  

[Northmoor]

22 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

As I said above - joining the Midland's Rotherham to Chesterfield line via Barrow Hill.  

If you're wanting to do away with duplicate routes, you'd make the connection much further South, which is why I suggested South of Leicester.

[Flying Pig]

29 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

If you're wanting to do away with duplicate routes, you'd make the connection much further South, which is why I suggested South of Leicester.

 

No you divert MS&L goods traffic onto the Midland at Beighton and then you can close the entire London Extension and run traffic to London along the Midland.  Keeping the GC open as a freight only route to London doesn't really make sense.

 

It might however be useful to retain the section between Leicester and Banbury as part of a North-South link to Southampton, though I'm not sure whether this would have been important enough to be considered when the closure of the GC was being planned.  That would avoid sending traffic via Derby, Burton and Birmingham on busy double track routes.

 

To do that properly you'd need a flying junction from the goods lines over the fast lines at Wigston and something like the work that has been done recently at Reading to connect to the Berks and Hants (or retain the DN&S somehow). And electrify the lot as far as Toton at least.  With some nice beefy locos - something like an anglicised Re 6/6 for my preference, with AL1-5 styling.

[rodent279]

If a connection to the WCML at Rugby had been easier, then retention south to at least Banbury might have been useful, maybe even single track with passing loops.

But was there ever enough traffic to justify it?

[rodent279]

If we want Imaginary Locomotives for it, I'd have 3KV DC electrification with some Italian E428, E646 etc electric locos. Easy to make them dual voltage for compatibility with the MSW electrification. Imagine some of these thumping along on a freightliner,  or on a Newcastle- Poole!

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by rodent279

[DenysW]

29 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

But was there ever enough traffic to justify it?

Probably not then, at all. Probably not now from the Midland*.  But probably yes, now, to de-bottleneck the WCML from Rugby south. Provided you can square the circle of the slow passenger traffic on the surviving GCR/GWR Joint and GCR/Metropolitan Joint approaches into London.

 

* I've travelled during the day several times recently Luton or Harlington to West Hampstead Thameslink. The East Midland Trains services roaring through without stopping are all 5 cars only. Double the passenger capacity north of Corby (the northern extent of Thameslink) looks like it only requires double the train length.

 

10 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Coming back to Imaginary Locomotives, I just saw a pic of Lady from Thomas the Tank Engine for the first time in years.  I didn't realize how large the cylinders were, especially in relation to the boiler. 

 

From the Internet: "Lady is a small, Victorian-styled tank engine who serves as the guardian of The Magic Railroad, using her magic to keep the worlds of Shining Time and Sodor alive. She is owned and protected by Burnett Stone, her driver." I don't think physical reality arguments hold steam in this case. The cylinders also appear to be square cross-section.

[AlfaZagato]

Fair play.  Could be excessive steam chests, too.

[Flying Pig]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

If we want Imaginary Locomotives for it, I'd have 3KV DC electrification

 

Well if you're going to add gratuitous electrification schemes, we'll keep 1500 V DC for the Woodhead, electrify the Midland at 6.6 kV 25 Hz, use your 3 kV DC from Wigston to Banbury and 15kV AC at 16.7 Hz from there to Reading, with of course 750 V DC third rail thenceforth to the South Coast.

 

I feel I should remind you that 3 kV is also used in Belgium so you may not get the loco styling you want.

[Northmoor]

Change of subject; here's a "genuine" imaginary locomotive.  I rather like it when people do this (I'm keeping my Duke as 71000 though).

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204266985763?hash=item2f8f42d923:g:78sAAOSw22JkB2Rd  

 

[Ramblin Rich]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Change of subject; here's a "genuine" imaginary locomotive.  I rather like it when people do this (I'm keeping my Duke as 71000 though).

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204266985763?hash=item2f8f42d923:g:78sAAOSw22JkB2Rd  

 

I know the Cartazzi truck wheels are flangeless, but describing it as a 4-6-0 is stretching it a bit!

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Well if you're going to add gratuitous electrification schemes, we'll keep 1500 V DC for the Woodhead, electrify the Midland at 6.6 kV 25 Hz, use your 3 kV DC from Wigston to Banbury and 15kV AC at 16.7 Hz from there to Reading, with of course 750 V DC third rail thenceforth to the South Coast.

 

I feel I should remind you that 3 kV is also used in Belgium so you may not get the loco styling you want.

I'm OK with Belgian styling.

 

Polish 3KV styling is ok as well.

 

(Would be rather interesting seeing one of these exchange traffic with a WCML electric, at a multi- voltage Rugby, along the lines of Venlo.)

 

 

[Ramblin Rich]

37 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

....

Polish 3KV styling is ok as well.

 

 

 

 

Well obviously it's OK, that's an English Electric design 😁

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKP_class_EU06

Edited September 22, 2023 by Ramblin Rich
add link

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Well obviously it's OK, that's an English Electric design 😁

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKP_class_EU06

 

EE locos got to some far flung places.

 

Bulawayo shed Rhodesia c1979.

 

Pic: C.J.Hobson.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by MrWolf

[Murican]

Also returning to fictional steam engine types:

 

I saw pictures for proposed Caledonian and Great Central 2-10-2s. The GCR ones were a different design from the proposed Baldwin locomotive. But does anyone know if either 2-10-2 were real proposals?

[Murican]

On 21/09/2023 at 04:59, Flying Pig said:

It couldn't be dedicated to freight all the way as there are still passenger services south of Aylesbury and the route is shared with London Transport (as was) south of Amersham.  If either of the links with the GW and GC line is used, there's the same issue though that line is perhaps better suited to carrying more freight.  It's hard to see why using the GC south of Rugby is better than keeping traffic on the electrified WCML.

I mean, I did figure that there would likely be some passenger service reintroduced later on, but most of the traffic would still be freight.

[The Johnster]

On 23/09/2023 at 02:15, Murican said:

Also returning to fictional steam engine types:

 

I saw pictures for proposed Caledonian and Great Central 2-10-2s. The GCR ones were a different design from the proposed Baldwin locomotive. But does anyone know if either 2-10-2 were real proposals?

 

No idea, but it is significant that both railways had very heavy coal trains to haul over long distances, and Beattock in the case of the Caledonian.  These have the look of heavy mineral engines in spades!  Both have room for a 4-wheeled trailing bogie, making them 2-10-4s, which might have helped with axle-loading.  The Caley loco looks to have a very large wide boiler for a relatively short firebox, a lot of heating surface to provide a fire for, and might have been a poor steamer or heavy work for the fireman, but of course he gets to have a rest once you're over Beattock.  The very stubby chimney might have needed some sort of smoke-lifiting.  I'd be concerned about the long fixed wheelbase and track-spreading in yards as well.  Are they both perhaps actually too big and powerful for the loads? 

 

The Caley loco might have been better as a 2-10-0 based off Cardean, but with outside cylinders.  I think the GC was already there with the 04.

[rodent279]

On 23/09/2023 at 01:12, MrWolf said:

 

EE locos got to some far flung places.

 

Bulawayo shed Rhodesia c1979.

 

Pic: C.J.Hobson.

 

 

 

Effectively a class 40, but a lot more modern looking, especially in the bogie area.