Imaginary Locomotives

[Flying Pig]

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?

 

The Great Central sketch looks very much like the Flamme 2-10-0 which has popped up on this thread several times as the inspiration for a proposal on the Lancashire and Yorkshire.  

[john new]

On 17/09/2023 at 23:49, billbedford said:

 

The three southern railways also delivered coal, but no one would call them coal railways. 

 

The GER had slightly less than 3000 coal wagons, of which 901 were 20 T steel loco coal wagons. The number of open goods wagons appears to be in the order of 20,000. This seems to be remarkably few of the requisite wagons for a coal railway. 

Perhaps because as a destination line the coal came to them in colliery owned wagons.

[Murican]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

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? 

 

Maybe the locomotives could have a flangeless center well and shorter flanges on a few of the other wheels? That's what BR did with the real-life 9F, after all. As for the apparent GCR design, I could see it as being something the railway uses if the Baldwin 2-10-2s are successful and if the L&YR 2-10-0 inspires them enough.

 

What difference would it make if the Caledonian engine was built as a Mikado instead? I can see steam for the boiler being easier to maintain?

 

[The Johnster]

The problem with a lot of these big engine designs are that, while they give us a lot of 'what if?' neverwazza fun, they would have, if ever built in reality, have had no useful work to do.  In pre-grouping days (and for many years afterwards) heavy mineral trains, coal mostly, were very slow-running, average point-to-point speeds of less than 20mph being common.  They were unfitted and loose coupled, and the main challenge of running them was to start them from rest and then to use the momentum to keep the couplings tight up hill and down dale with the assistance of the guard in the van, without allowing the speed to rise too much.  Softly softly catchee monkey. 

 

The Caledonian had the task of moving 60-wagon coal trains of about 900tons trailing from the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire coalfields to Carlisle, over Beattock.  This is actually a fairly simple, if brutal, job, collar work with a banker up Beattock and brakes pinned down so that the engine is pulling gently down the other side, with a short rise off the Solway bridge into the reception at Kingmoor to finish off.  Braking needed to be kept an eye on, as it was almost certain that you would be put 'inside' at Quintinshill or even further out awaiting acceptance at a busy Kingmoor yard; the section between Gretna Jc and Kingmoor carried the GSW's coal traffic as well and was probably the busiest section of two-road main line in the country between midnight and about 8am as most of the output of the Ayrshire collieries was funnelled through it.  The Jumbos, which were virtually standard 0-6-0s of the day, were capable of managing it.

 

You wouldn't need an 8-coupled loco, never mind a 10-coupled, until the speed and capacity of the wagons increased, and now we come to the core problem of coal traffic in the UK, for much of the 20th century; the railways constantly attempting to introduce higher capacity faster vac-braked wagons and the collieries fighting them all the way, resulting in long stretches of trunk routes being infested with very slow traffic bucolically plodding about, of long trains that took geological time to clear sections or junctions at snail-racing speeds, that got in the way of everything else well into the 60s.

 

The GC beastie is slightly different, arguably equivalent to the 9Fs that eventually worked coal traiffic on the London Extension.  That railway already had one of the best 8-coupled mineral haulers in the country, the 04, I think the GC designation was K.  It was also not ever subject to frequent passenger, parcels, or express goods traffic on it's London extension, running through sparsely populated country south of Leicester, so the coal trains could be given their head.  It was laid out for high speed running, and clear roads could often be guaranteed for long distances for the coal trains, which is the situation that led to the evolution of the famous Annesely Runners and Woodford Halse Windcutters.  With plenty of room to bring the trains under control, the technique was to keep the couplings tight by constantly gently allowing speeds to rise, and they did, often to an extent that terrifies me!  In later years with shortened instanter couplings things were allowed to get even faster, and clearly well (I mean more than double, the fastest runs were probably not discussed publicly but one heard stories of timings that would not have disgraced passenger traffic) above the 25mph maximum normally allowed for unfitted loose coupled class J/class 9 trains, though whether any special instruction covering this was ever provided I do not know.  When you needed to stop, you shut off steam about 5 miles out and let the guard bring the speed down gently with the van brake until you were in full control of the train. 

 

It looks on the surface of it to be a flagrant breach of rules and good sense, but there were no accidents of which I am aware that resulted from it and the trains must have been awesome to watch, thundering through the night, sparks flying everywhere, wagons rocking about, guard firmly wedged in his seat, nerves of steel, hearts of stone, wills of iron, knobs of butter (for the sarnies).  The point-to-point booked running times apparently allowed for it.  The 04s managed this for many years, but 9Fs appeared late in the day and were capable of heavier loads and faster running; not convinced that that was altogether a good thing... 

 

My comments about track-spreading in yards were with the Beames 0-8-4 tanks in mind, where a combination of weight and long fixed wheelbases was detrimental to sidings and yards even on straight track.  A tank engine with a long fixed wheebase is liable to flex on tight curves under load and give trouble with leakage from the tanks as well, a problem found on the Western Valley iron ore and other traffic by GW 2-8-0 tanks, on a line with a pathological disregard for straight or even gently curved track.  The Clydach Gorge on the LNW between Abergavenny and Brynmawr offered similar opportunities to throw water away and have to stop everywhere to brim the tanks.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by The Johnster

[Murican]

I've decided to go ahead and make some changes to my ideas for bigger British steam. Being American, it's natural some US influence will show up in some places.

 

The first major change ("point of departure" for alternate history enthusiasts) is that bulk goods wagons do become larger in size for many of the bigger collieries during the 1900s. This in turn means a need for larger locomotives to handle these larger trucks which aren't fitted with continuous brakes yet. Further changes happen later on due to an alternate version of the Middle East's political situation leading to a 1953 oil crisis, which also forces BR to make better choices.

 

Pre-Grouping England and Wales

• The LNWR builds the proposed 899 class of 4-8-4Ts for use on shutning and short-distance trains. However, their coal capacity becomes a liability and so many (but not all) are converted into 4-8-0 tender engines. This in turn means the proposed Lemon 4-8-0s for the LMS are never drawn up,
• Hughes' 2-10-0 for the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway is a success. Hauling heavy freights over tough grades across the network. This sets the precedent for bigger locomotives in the years that follow on all of the UK's major railways.
• The Great Central Railway approves John G. Robinson's proposal for a Baldwin-built 2-10-2, with the difference being that the locomotive is a simple design as opposed to a compound, and uses Walscherts valve gear.
• The success of both these American engines and the Hughes 2-10-0 leads to the GCR commisionning another class of 2-10-2s from Beyer Peacock in Manchester: these being built with a similar boiler design to the L&YR engine.
• Hughes also builts a fleet of 2-6-0 and 4-8-0 locomotives for mixed-traffic work as WW1 winds down.

 

Pre-Grouping Scotland

• McIntosh's Atlantic types are both built for express services on the Caledonian from Carlisle to Glasgow, beginning service in 1904.
• As the WCML trains become heavier, McIntosh is given the greenlight to construct a Caledonian Pacific class, which relieves the burden of the heavy WCML expresses.
• Drummond's proposed 4-6-0 for the GSWR is built thanks to its strength and tractive effort.
• Another 4-6-0 that is built would be Reid's proposed NBR 4-6-0s, which were built thanks to the success of the Caldeonian 903 class, and an 0-8-0 class is also built for mineral traffic.
• Caledonian 400 Class Moguls are built or mixed-traffic work.

 

LMS

• The first major change is that Fowler is allowed to built his four-cylinder compound Pacific and Mikado classes for use on the WCML, with the Pacifics being named after Explorers. These locomotives are solid, but flawed performers until William Stanier converts them to simple machines, equips them with Belpaire-equipped boilers, and larger four-axle tenders. This dramatically improves the performance of both the Pacifics and Mikados.
• In spite of the LMS Explorers, the Royal Scot 4-6-0s are built regardless to serve shorter-distance trains on the Midland Main Line as well as the Settle - Carlisle route.
• Following the Princess Royals, Stanier decides that the Explorers mean there are plenty of Pacifics running across the LMS. As such, he designs his famous Coronation class as 4-6-4 Baltics which use the same tenders as his rebuilds of the Hughes engines.
• Stanier also chooses to go beast mode and introduces a class of 4-8-4s for use on long-distance freight over the WCML.
• The proposed 4-6-2+2-6-4 Garratt is built at Beyer Peacock, and mostly works on the Midland Main Line due to its lighter loading gauge. It's eventually preserved at the NRM and restored to operation.
• Stanier's Black Five and 8F locomotives end up serving as the main workhorses of the Midland Main Line. With the addition of Jubilee and Royal Scot 4-6-0s on passenger trains.

 

LNER

• The LNER pressures Gresley to develop a Standardization program which he appoints Edward Thompson on. It's through this program that locomotives like the Thompson B1, Thompson O1, Thompson K1, and Thompson L1 still come about.
• Gresley builds his P3 tank for freight traffic and shunting on various branch lines in the north of England and in Scotland. As well as for service on various secondary routes.
• Gresley builds six of his I1 Class 4-8-2s for expresses on the WCML. These locomotives prove to be major successes thanks to the lessons learned from the P2 Mikados.
• Thompson's plans to rebuild the P2 Mikadoes is nixed when Gresley is replaced by Peppercorn in 1939, shortly after the I1's completion. However, their use is ultimately proven to be rare.
• In addition to the Peppercorn A2 Pacifics, we also see some semi-streamlined Peppercorn I1 Mountains for use on the ECML.

 

Southern

• For much of the 1920s, the only change from real-life is that Richard Maunsell is allowed to build his proposed S16 4-8-0 for use on heavy freight traffic. Maunsell also gets to build his 2-8-0T for shunting duties.
• Years later, Bulleid takes his original draft for the Q1 Pacific. He turns it into a 4-8-0, equips it with Walscherts valve gear, and puts it to work as a freight locomotive to supplement the Maunsell S16.
• Bulleid is allowed to build his proposed "Battleship" class of Mikadoes for use on mixed-traffic services. They become especially popular for the Pines Express thanks to being able to handle the S&DJR grades without help (most of the time, anyway).
• The Merchant Navy class is built as the originally proposed Mountains based off the success of the LNER Mountains.
• Bulleid builds a 4-6-4T for use on shorter-distance services. Particularly suburban services on non-electrified lines.

GWR

• At first, the only major change is the inclusion of Collet's proposed 2-10-2 tank, which are yet another locomotive used on the South Wales coal network.
• Collett proposes a Mikado class locomotive to augment the Night Owls on heavy goods traffic. However, this is ultimately not followed up on. See the WD/USATC section below to learn more.
• Hawksworth's tenure as CME is where the majority of changes take place. The first one is construction of a 88XX 4-4-0 used to replace many of the oldest locomotives like the Dukedogs.
• The Cathedral class of Pacifics are built in 1947. They are successful on the express passenger trains, but not neccessarily every GWR enthusiast's cup of tea. With some seeing them, for better or for worse, as Swindonized Princess Royals.

 

War Department/USATC

• WD 2-8-0s become fairly common for freight traffic on the LNER and GWR, the latter due to their largely antiquated heavy freight fleet becoming a liability and the crews being used to 2-8-0s. The 2-10-0 variants are common on the Scottish Region like they were in real life.
• A third USATC locomotive is built to serve alongside the S160 Consolidation and S200 Mikado. This locomotive is the S240 class of 2-10-2 locomotives, based on this art. Some locomotives of all three classes are kept by BR and numbered in the 90XXX series alongside WD locomotives. The majority of these locomotives end up being S160s allocated to the Western Region, a handful S200s being sent to the NE region for heavy coal trains, and all of the S240 locomotives being sent overseas to Continental Europe.

 

British Railways

• Inspired by the 8F and GWR freight engines, a Standard 8 Consolidation sees construction with numbers in the 91XXX range. However, only 116 are built in order to make way for the 9F Decapod on heavy freight work. Despite their comparatively low numbers, the Standard 8 Consolidations successfully see service on the Western, Eastern, and Southern Regions due to their lighter weight and shorter wheelbase making them preferable to the 9Fs.
• Riddles decides to replace the large fleet of GWR Coal Tanks on The Western Region with a class of Standard 8 Tanks, 2-8-4Ts which use elements of the Standard 8 2-8-0 and the Standard 4 Tanks. Standard 8 Tanks prove to be successful on the Western Region, and several more are allocated to the Southern Region and secondary/branch lines across various other regions.
• Among the new Standard range steam engines is the construction of several additional Standard 8 Pacifics. These locomotives are called the "Super Brittanias" and fitted with Bulleid-Firth drive wheels. Famously though, these locomotives would end up becoming painted different liveries based on which region they were allocated to: MR Crimson Red for The Midland Region, LBSC Stroudley Yellow for the Southern Region, GWR Brunswick Green for the Western Region, GER Ultramarine for the Eastern Region, LNER Apple Green for the North Eastern Region, and NBR Bronze Green for the Scottish Region.
• The Middle Eastern oil crisis of this realty gives Riddles a chance to create two final classes of BR Standards. These two are the Standard 9 Mountain, meant for express passenger and freight, and the 10F 2-10-2 for heavy freight. Both locomotives have Caprotti valve gear, Bulleid-Firth drivers, are three-cylinder designs, and use the four-axle BR4 tenders. This especially becomes valuable as BR begins to retool its non-mineral freight traffic.
  • The Standard 9 Mountains are numbered in the 74XXX range, and have the underpinings of the Standard 8 Pacifics with elements of the LNER and Southern Mountain types. Known as "Ultra Britannias", these locomotives are also commonly used on the WCML, ECML, and Southern main lines for their express passenger and express freight trains. Unfortunately, their length and size does restrict their use on the Western and Scottish Regions.
  • The 10Fs are based on the 9Fs, with elements of the planned Mikado. These locomotives prove to be new staples of heavy freight on the Midland, North Eastern, Scottish, and Eastern regions. Much like with the Standard 9 Mountains however, these locomotives prove less well suited to the Western Region and Southern Region.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Murican

[Compound2632]

On 24/09/2023 at 03:06, The Johnster said:

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. 

 

But was there any significant mineral flow over the Caledonian main line to Carlisle? I would presume that most mineral traffic was confined to Ayrshire and the central lowland belt, through to Fife, these being the coal-mining and coal-consuming districts - and hence short haul. (Short-haul doesn't rule out big engines, of course.) My impression is that export of Scottish coal to England or vice-versa was not an economic proposition, given the local supplies. 

[DenysW]

7 hours ago, Murican said:

The first major change ("point of departure" for alternate history enthusiasts) is that bulk goods wagons do become larger in size for many of the bigger collieries during the 1900s.

A the risk of holding a good man back, I suggest you read up in the cripplingly small UK loading gauge, and the weakness of the UK underbridges. There's also the minimum radius on (much of) the existing track that mean long rigid wheelbase locomotives fail. It's the points and the shunting areas, not just the main bits between stations, as was pointed out to me when I got too optimistic.

 

It's also worth skim-reading Peter S. Bardell's 1988 Ph.D. thesis on balancing steam locomotives, especially the chapter on the 1927 Bridge Stress report. Unless correctly balanced these 5-coupled locomotive would have annihilated the track. 'Locomotive K' (which set new records for the capacity to damage bridge operated at speed) was an L&Y 0-8-0 design. I really fear for the effect of the 2-10-0s etc.

 

According to E.G. Barnes, to save money the Midland rails were only at 100 lb/yd (50 kg/m), so be careful about suggesting big stuff on their bit of the LMS.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, DenysW said:

A the risk of holding a good man back,

 

Let him imagine a United Kingdom with thousands of miles of wide open prairie, great mountain ranges to be slogged through, and in much of which the vested interests of the inhabitants can be ruthlessly thrust aside.

[DenysW]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

in much of which the vested interests of the inhabitants can be ruthlessly thrust aside.

Are you trying the summarise the Midland's final approaches into St. Pancras through Agar Town and Somers Town, or the Great Northern's Derbyshire Extension, or both?

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

Are you trying the summarise the Midland's final approaches into St. Pancras through Agar Town and Somers Town, or the Great Northern's Derbyshire Extension, or both?

 

Neither could be considered tantamount to genocide, though there is no doubt that each was in its way deeply traumatic, in the one case for the unfortunate slum dwellers, in the other for the Directors of the Midland Railway. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Compound2632

[billbedford]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

My impression is that export of Scottish coal to England or vice-versa was not an economic proposition, given the local supplies. 

 

And that Scottish-mined coal had a lower calorific value than that from south of the border. There may even be some northbound coal traffic. It has been noted that anthracite from S Wale was sent to Northumberland. 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

in the other for the Directors of the Midland Railway. 

And the slum-dwellers in Derby.

[ian@stenochs]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But was there any significant mineral flow over the Caledonian main line to Carlisle? I would presume that most mineral traffic was confined to Ayrshire and the central lowland belt, through to Fife, these being the coal-mining and coal-consuming districts - and hence short haul. (Short-haul doesn't rule out big engines, of course.) My impression is that export of Scottish coal to England or vice-versa was not an economic proposition, given the local supplies. 

Most of the Ayrshire coal was moved by the G&SWR, the Caley tried to move in but only succeeded around Muirkirk.  There was a considerable coal export trade through the ports of Ayr, Troon and Irvine which resulted in all the G&SWR mineral wagons having doors at both ends to cut out the need for turning wagons prior to tipping into ships.

[Murican]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Let him imagine a United Kingdom with thousands of miles of wide open prairie, great mountain ranges to be slogged through, and in much of which the vested interests of the inhabitants can be ruthlessly thrust aside.

It's just imaginary JFC. I don't see the point in resorting to that kind of commentary.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Murican

[Murican]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But was there any significant mineral flow over the Caledonian main line to Carlisle? I would presume that most mineral traffic was confined to Ayrshire and the central lowland belt, through to Fife, these being the coal-mining and coal-consuming districts - and hence short haul. (Short-haul doesn't rule out big engines, of course.) My impression is that export of Scottish coal to England or vice-versa was not an economic proposition, given the local supplies. 

As is, I thought of removing the Caledonian 2-10-2 from my list. Perhaps just replacing it with a 2-8-0 if anything.

[Murican]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

According to E.G. Barnes, to save money the Midland rails were only at 100 lb/yd (50 kg/m), so be careful about suggesting big stuff on their bit of the LMS.

That's one reason I thought of having the Royal Scots be built anyway. Not to mention the proposed LMS Garratt.

 

And in all fairness, I did mostly try and limit myself to designs that were actually proposed in real life aside from a few exceptions.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Murican

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

According to E.G. Barnes, to save money the Midland rails were only at 100 lb/yd (50 kg/m), so be careful about suggesting big stuff on their bit of the LMS.

 

I thought bullhead rail at 100 lb/yd was fairly generally standard for main line from the 20th century? Nothing much heavier.

[Murican]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

A the risk of holding a good man back, I suggest you read up in the cripplingly small UK loading gauge, and the weakness of the UK underbridges. There's also the minimum radius on (much of) the existing track that mean long rigid wheelbase locomotives fail. It's the points and the shunting areas, not just the main bits between stations, as was pointed out to me when I got too optimistic.

 

That is true... Again though, I did try and work around this by mainly restricting myself to locomotives that were actually proposed (at least in pre-grouping era stuff).

[MrWolf]

59 minutes ago, Murican said:

It's just imaginary JFC. I don't see the point in resorting to that kind of commentary.

 

Theoretically, if you can keep the axle loading down and stay within the loading gauge you can imagine any locomotive you want. How about a 4-6-6-4 for the Barry Railway coal trains? 😄

[Murican]

13 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Theoretically, if you can keep the axle loading down and stay within the loading gauge you can imagine any locomotive you want. How about a 4-6-6-4 for the Barry Railway coal trains? 😄

I know I said this before but to be fair I did stick with locomotives that were actually proposed for a reason.

[DenysW]

14 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Theoretically, if you can keep the axle loading down and stay within the loading gauge

Theory may not apply to the Midland - it really didn't like more than 2.7 tons/ft, and this thinking appears to have drifted on into the Midland metal within the LMS. No-one wanted to be the person that said 80 years of civil engineering advice was wrong?

[The Johnster]

Murican’s vision of pacifics on the WCML a decade before they really appeared, Coronation Hudsons, and Mountains is, I respectfully suggest, formed in unawareness of the tacit agreement in pre-grouping days of accepted timings on the competing WCML and ECML routes. This was a consequence of the famous ‘Race to the North’ between the two routes in 1888, which was enormous fun for everyone involved but (in the days before continuous brakes were a legal requirement) becoming risky and on any case not viable in profit terms.  

 

In the late 1890s, heavier bogie stock and a general increase in passenger demand as working-class disposable income made a belated and subdued impact, and the introduction of gangwayed stock including restaurant cars, increased loads and led to the use of 6-coupled locomotives on the WCML and atlantics on the ECML, but the cosy 1888 ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ running timings were not reduced (journey times were because restaurant cars and toilets on gangwayed stock eliminated the need for refreshment/comfort stops).  Joint carriage stock companies were formed for each route for the through services. 
 

This situation survived the grouping, albeit with insufficiently powerful engines on the WCML until their first pacifics, the Princess Royals, appeared in 1932.  These enabled non-stop running between Euston and Glasgow, and the LNER responded with a non-stop KX-Edinburgh ‘Flying Scotsman’ service.  The gloves were off and the timings fell, streamlined engines appeared on both sides with coaches to match, record holding passed back and forth, culminating in ‘Mallard’s’  ultimate record on ‘brake trials’.  

 

It is possible that both sides would have introduced bigger, faster, more powerful engines; certainly Gresley was moving in that direction, but a period of German expansive foreign policy intervened in 1939.  The A4s and Coronations were adequate for the fastest trains until replaced by diesels late 50s.   
 

Bigger engines would have almost certainly had to have been mechanically stoked; the top jobs were becoming close to the limit of what could reasonably be demanded of human firemen as it was!  Mechanical stoking is less efficient than manual, which would have pushed the development of even bigger engines to compensate if further increases in speed and load were demanded by Traffic.  This becomes a self-defeating process within the British loading gauge, as you run into the difficulty of devising a firebox high and wide enough to keep the boiler producing steam at a sufficient rate to make the reduced timings with the increased loads.  
 

Even in America, where the loading gauge is much more sensible, and where what I consider the ultimate steam express passenger performance was achieved, the ‘thousand tons at 100mph’ in daily service of the NYC’s ‘20th Century Limited’ with the Niagaras, a magnificent achievement, this seems to have been the upper limit of what could be achieved with steam.  There are limits to what can be done on ‘conventional’ railways before you have to build dedicated high-speed lines anyway, something never tried with steam or diesel traction!

 

 

 

[Murican]

12 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Bigger engines would have almost certainly had to have been mechanically stoked; the top jobs were becoming close to the limit of what could reasonably be demanded of human firemen as it was!  Mechanical stoking is less efficient than manual, which would have pushed the development of even bigger engines to compensate if further increases in speed and load were demanded by Traffic.  This becomes a self-defeating process within the British loading gauge, as you run into the difficulty of devising a firebox high and wide enough to keep the boiler producing steam at a sufficient rate to make the reduced timings with the increased loads.  

The point about the whole Race To The North is valid. Though to be fair I had imagined mechanical stoking would show up on these larger engines, even though I am aware hand-firing was more common in real life.

 

In terms of giving my alternate timeline more plausibility, would it be possible to have some degree of loading gauge or track weight increases in certain parts of the UK rail network? Perhaps after WWI and into the 1920s?

14 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

It is possible that both sides would have introduced bigger, faster, more powerful engines; certainly Gresley was moving in that direction, but a period of German expansive foreign policy intervened in 1939.  The A4s and Coronations were adequate for the fastest trains until replaced by diesels late 50s.   

FWIW, the point of my idea for an earlier precedent for larger locomotives was formed on the idea of several large engines that were proposed indeed being built.

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Even in America, where the loading gauge is much more sensible, and where what I consider the ultimate steam express passenger performance was achieved, the ‘thousand tons at 100mph’ in daily service of the NYC’s ‘20th Century Limited’ with the Niagaras, a magnificent achievement, this seems to have been the upper limit of what could be achieved with steam.  There are limits to what can be done on ‘conventional’ railways before you have to build dedicated high-speed lines anyway, something never tried with steam or diesel traction!

 

On that note, the alternatehistory stuff I created my British steam ideas for does also involve American rail tech as well.

 

Regardless, I do appreciate how you were more civil in your critiques. .

[Murican]

22 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

This situation survived the grouping, albeit with insufficiently powerful engines on the WCML until their first pacifics, the Princess Royals, appeared in 1932.  These enabled non-stop running between Euston and Glasgow, and the LNER responded with a non-stop KX-Edinburgh ‘Flying Scotsman’ service.  The gloves were off and the timings fell, streamlined engines appeared on both sides with coaches to match, record holding passed back and forth, culminating in ‘Mallard’s’  ultimate record on ‘brake trials’.  

 

This is probably the crux of my idea: what precedent would have been set if the Hughes 2-10-0 and GCR Baldwin 2-10-2, then later Fowler's Pacific and Mikado cousins were indeed built.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Murican

[The Johnster]

56 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

Theoretically, if you can keep the axle loading down and stay within the loading gauge you can imagine any locomotive you want. How about a 4-6-6-4 for the Barry Railway coal trains? 😄

Make that a 4-8-8-4 Kitson-Meyer tank, with 4’ driving wheels, and picture a pair of them blowing holes in the sky moving simultaneous 120-wagon drags of ‘Ocean’ 7-plankers across from Cadoxton yard onto the docks, or simultaneously blasting up the bank with the empties.  They’d have looked good in the dark red Barry livery, too!

 

Now picture them in the thirties, ‘Swindonised’ with no.1 boilers, four separate pannier tanks to remedy the leakage problem, and high-roofed cabs/Swindon extended bunkers.  Possible kitbash?

 

 No.1 boiler from old Triang or kit Hall, cab/extended bunker from Hornby or kit 72xx, 8-coupled mechs from H0 German tank engines with small wheels, pannier tanks from whitemetal kits, suggest Wills/Southeastern 94xx.  You’re on your own for the running plate but it’s only a flat thing with a valance.