Imaginary Locomotives

[Murican]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

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!

 

Loosely related side note, but many of my ideas ARE loosely inspired by users on alternatehistory.com who are more knowledgable about British rail history than myself. As well as what I've read in this thread about locomotives that were proposed in real life, or mostly have some degree of historical plausibility.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Murican said:

 

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?

I'm sure it's been discussed before either on this thread, or on the Imaginary Railways thread, but it's interesting to imagine what a UK railway system with a loading gauge more like that on the European mainland would have evolved in terms of motive power?

Even if we did have the larger loading gauge of our European friends, if we still retained the short goods loops and multiplicity of collieries, good yards etc., with sharp radius curves, and a large private owner wagon fleet wedded to the short wheelbase 4 wheel open or covered wagon with no continuous brakes, there's still little point in evolving impressive beasts like the French 4-8-2's, German Br01's, Br44's etc.

[DenysW]

2 hours ago, Murican said:

I had imagined mechanical stoking would show up on these larger engines,

It is my belief (i.e. I expect to be told I'm wrong) that mechanical stoking requires a different size of coal from hand-stoking. Although (parotting W.L. Withun, "American Steam Locomotives", Indiana Univ. Press) it has quite of lot of  unexpected safety and control benefits. So you either go 100% one or the other (the US seems big enough to have gone 100% mechanical), or you duplicate coaling stations on the lines with the bigger locomotives. Cost.

 

The practical limit on UK couplings seems to have been 90-100 16-ton coal wagons (as Toton-Brent with the LMS Garratts), with much more giving you too many trains splitting up as they get jerked forward. As noted earlier (I hope on this thread) the UK choked on cost (and who would pay it) against following the US into minimum %-age requirements for braked goods wagons, and on self-latching couplings.

[Murican]

22 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Even if we did have the larger loading gauge of our European friends, if we still retained the short goods loops and multiplicity of collieries, good yards etc., with sharp radius curves, and a large private owner wagon fleet wedded to the short wheelbase 4 wheel open or covered wagon with no continuous brakes, there's still little point in evolving impressive beasts like the French 4-8-2's, German Br01's, Br44's etc.

Even so, I still feel pleased with my ideas for locomotives. Even if I'm aware I'd need to be rewriting the history of UK rail infrastructure 

[DenysW]

24 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Even if we did have the larger loading gauge of our European friends,

On a quick read on Basel gauge (ca. 1912), the Germans were pushing for bigger yet, and the French were looking appalled at the cost (as have been the Brits a hundred years later - see UK's 'Electric Spine' if you want to be depressed). I've seen notes that the French were still converting to Basel Gauge coming up to WW2, nearly 30 years later. Also that the worst bits in France for Basel-incompatibility were in Normandy, as they'd been engineered by Brits in the early days.

 

The biggest gauge I've seen was the Virginian Railway - locomotives 12' wide that had to be assembled after delivery because they were too wide for other US railroads.

[rodent279]

5 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Also that the worst bits in France for Basel-incompatibility were in Normandy, as they'd been engineered by Brits in the early days.

What, us Brits going abroad and leaving a mess? Never! We shan't admit it Carruthers, we shall carry on as if nothing had happened.

[DenysW]

2 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

What, us Brits going abroad and leaving a mess? Never! We shan't admit it Carruthers,

Or: we'll get contractual and say we built it to the specification that the client approved. And never mind that we wrote the specification, and that the client couldn't have known better.

[rodent279]

18 minutes ago, Murican said:

Even so, I still feel pleased with my ideas for locomotives. Even if I'm aware I'd need to be rewriting the history of UK rail infrastructure 

Oh I think the idea of a Hughes-inspired 4-8-2 thumping along the WCML with a nice hefty payload is fascinating. But I guess the lesson is that it wasn't small locos that was the problem, it was our restricted infrastructure, and that extends to more than the physical bulk of it, it's the length of passing loops, radius of curves etc.

[Murican]

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Oh I think the idea of a Hughes-inspired 4-8-2 thumping along the WCML with a nice hefty payload is fascinating. But I guess the lesson is that it wasn't small locos that was the problem, it was our restricted infrastructure, and that extends to more than the physical bulk of it, it's the length of passing loops, radius of curves etc.

It's a 4-6-2, but yes.

 

Since this thread is about purely imaginary locomotives, I figured it wouldn't hurt to discuss what would need to be changed with infrastructure another day.

[Murican]

For example, one idea I had in mind when creating the Standard 9 Mountain, beyond Gresley and Bulleid getting their chance, was for if the LMS then BR really went full-throttle with intermodal-esque concepts for their non-mineral goods traffic. Meaning trains that go far longer distances with much fewer stops.

[Murican]

33 minutes ago, Murican said:

Even so, I still feel pleased with my ideas for locomotives. Even if I'm aware I'd need to be rewriting the history of UK rail infrastructure 

OR rather, I underestimated just how much of UK rail history would be rewritten.

 

I mean, I already knew that UK loading gauge can be pretty unforgivingly small, but I originally thought it was fairly exaggerated to some degree.

[DenysW]

What I believe the attached chart shows is that we may be over-gloomy in our expectations of what can (and can't) be achieved with the introduction of larger locomotives. Thus the LNWR started introducing 4F engines (coincidentally 0-8-0 compounds) and reducing its fleets of 3F-and-under 0-6-0s, and its receipts per loco-mile increased by 50% company-wid. Not shown is that its receipts/ton were essentially unchanged. A relatively small number of bigger locomotives seems to have made a big difference on what could be achieved in costs.

 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Murican said:

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?

My view FWIW was that it would have been  very unlikely.  Even now 25ton axle loads are the maximum, and it took years of upgrading track, formations, bridges &c to get as far as that!  As for increasing the loading gauge, forget it: every overbridge, tunnel, signal gantry, platform, loco/goods shed, colliery tipple, ship loading hoist, industrial loading/unloading equipment would have to be adapted to the new loading gauge, and nobody wants to shell out for that…
 

The cost of widening and heightening tunnels or replacing them altogether on new alignments in a country where space is at a premium and land expensive would have been prohibitive even if the loss of of coal revenues that set in during the 1926 General Strike and never recovered, or the privations of the Great Depression were not the huge shadow over capital investment of that sort that they were in reality.  And there were aircraft carriers to pay for!
 

The British are culturally reluctant to invest in railways, following the Hudson bubble and the Overend Gurney bank failure, which ruined many of the core investing middle class.  The folk memory of these 19th century events is still haunting us today, as the full cost of HS2 is realised and the long investing game before divvies are paid out considered.  We don’t trust our railways with our money, and sometimes we have had good reason not to.  
 

Track widening projects were common in the years prior to the Great War, and some were undertaken in the early days of the grouping to relieve bottlenecks, but few were started after 1926.  Capital was much more freely raised in the States during those years, if it needed doing it simply got done, and, following WW2 (and to a large extent funded directly or indirectly with Marshall Plan dollars or Kruschev’s roubles depending on which side of the fence you were) the mainland European railways electrified their main lines, something that has been very slow in development here with several important trunk routes not done yet.  
 

In fact, as regards loading gauge, the trend in Europe is to buy locos and stock built to the British gauge in the interests of standardisation of products for the European market as a whole including the UK.  The classic example is the Canadian-built GM Class 66, which is pretty ubiquitous everywhere and traded around freely between countries and operators, but it is not unique! 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Murican said:

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?

My view FWIW was that it would have been  very unlikely.  Even now 25ton axle loads are the maximum, and it took years of upgrading track, formations, bridges &c to get as far as that!  As for increasing the loading gauge, forget it: every overbridge, tunnel, signal gantry, platform, loco/goods shed, colliery tipple, ship loading hoist, industrial loading/unloading equipment would have to be adapted to the new loading gauge, and nobody wants to shell out for that…
 

The cost of widening and heightening tunnels or replacing them altogether on new alignments alone in a country where space is at a premium and land expensive  would have been prohibitive even if the loss of of coal revenues that set in during the 1926 General Strike and never recovered, or the privations of the Great Depression were not the huge shadow over capital investment of that sort that they were in reality.  And there were aircraft carriers to pay for!
 

The British are culturally reluctant to invest in railways, following the Hudson bubble and the Overend Gurney bank failure, which ruined many of the core investing middle class.  The folk memory of these 19th century events is still haunting us today, as the full cost of HS2 is realised and the long investing game before divvies are paid out considered.  We don’t trust our railways with our money, and sometimes we have had good reason not to.  
 

Track widening projects were common in the years prior to the Great War, and some were undertaken in the early days of the grouping to relieve bottlenecks, but few were started after 1926.  Capital was much more freely raised in the States during those years, if it needed doing it simply got done, and, following WW2 (and to a large extent funded directly or indirectly with Marshall Plan dollars or Kruschev’s roubles depending on which side of the fence you were) the mainland European railways electrified their main lines, something that has been very slow in development here with several important trunk routes not done yet.  
 

In fact, as regards loading gauge, the trend in Europe is to buy locos and stock built to the British gauge in the interests of standardisation of products for the European market as a whole including the UK.  The classic example is the Canadian-built GM Class 66, which is pretty ubiquitous everywhere and traded around freely between countries and operators, but it is not unique! 

[Murican]

3 minutes ago, DenysW said:

What I believe the attached chart shows is that we may be over-gloomy in our expectations of what can (and can't) be achieved with the introduction of larger locomotives. Thus the LNWR started introducing 4F engines (coincidentally 0-8-0 compounds) and reducing its fleets of 3F-and-under 0-6-0s, and its receipts per loco-mile increased by 50% company-wid. Not shown is that its receipts/ton were essentially unchanged. A relatively small number of bigger locomotives seems to have made a big difference on what could be achieved in costs.

 

That's another reason I thought of my ideas for what proposed locomotives I would have bought into reality. The idea of several stronger engines doing the work of more smaller engines.

[Murican]

Loosely related to some of my locomotive ideas: what parts of the S&DJR would have been best as tourist lines?

 

If I wasn't concerned abour plausibility, I'd want to go for preserving the Bath to Bournemouth line as a whole, but I want to try and maintain some degree of realism, which is also why most of my pre-nationalization ideas were based on locomotives that were actually proposed.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Murican

[rodent279]

None of it. It's not especially scenic, not in the same league of the S&C or the Cotswold line, just average southern England green fields,woods and rolling hills. Enthusiasts are attached to it, but its a Railway that never really served a purpose that couldn't be fulfilled by other routes, even if they are a little less direct.

[Murican]

3 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

S&C

Settle & Carlisle, right?

 

If not the S&D, what other pull-up lines could be good tourist railways?

[JimC]

Given the British loading gauge and other limitations really one has to see Garratt types as the right solution for steam super power in the UK. Axle loading, boiler diameter, no need for larger turntables,  it ticks all the boxes. 

[Murican]

9 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

None of it. It's not especially scenic, not in the same league of the S&C or the Cotswold line, just average southern England green fields,woods and rolling hills. Enthusiasts are attached to it, but its a Railway that never really served a purpose that couldn't be fulfilled by other routes, even if they are a little less direct.

Fair enough if it pertains to real-life. But I have wondered what a S&D heritage line could be like if it were an analogue of sorts to the Great Central heritage railways in a reality where the GCR is still active as a mainline mostly for fast freight and occasional passenger trains.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

What I believe the attached chart shows is that we may be over-gloomy in our expectations of what can (and can't) be achieved with the introduction of larger locomotives. Thus the LNWR started introducing 4F engines (coincidentally 0-8-0 compounds) and reducing its fleets of 3F-and-under 0-6-0s, and its receipts per loco-mile increased by 50% company-wid. Not shown is that its receipts/ton were essentially unchanged. A relatively small number of bigger locomotives seems to have made a big difference on what could be achieved in costs.

 

 

That's a very interesting graph. But what I want to know is, is that early 20th century increase in receipts per goods loco mile unique to the LNWR or replicated across the major companies?

[john new]

1 hour ago, Murican said:

Loosely related to some of my locomotive ideas: what parts of the S&DJR would have been best as tourist lines?

 

If I wasn't concerned abour plausibility, I'd want to go for preserving the Bath to Bournemouth line as a whole, but I want to try and maintain some degree of realism, which is also why most of my pre-nationalization ideas were based on locomotives that were actually proposed.

Try the various preserved/miniature railways already in existence on the former S&DJR. At least two standard gauge (Midsummer Norton & Shillingstone) and the miniature/Narrow Gauge Gartell Rly. I think there was also an attempt at establishing one at Radstock which proved not to have a long-term future.

[john new]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I'm sure it's been discussed before either on this thread, or on the Imaginary Railways thread, but it's interesting to imagine what a UK railway system with a loading gauge more like that on the European mainland would have evolved in terms of motive power?

Even if we did have the larger loading gauge of our European friends, if we still retained the short goods loops and multiplicity of collieries, good yards etc., with sharp radius curves, and a large private owner wagon fleet wedded to the short wheelbase 4 wheel open or covered wagon with no continuous brakes, there's still little point in evolving impressive beasts like the French 4-8-2's, German Br01's, Br44's etc.

Given the longevity of the horse as a form of railway traction I think we are lucky to have got what we got in terms of loading gauge size. The counter-factual history options for early C19th transport had Napoleon lost/been beaten much earlier and not forced the Wylam experiments due to the shortage of horses and cost of feeding those they could get gives perhaps many more options. It was the cost of running with horses rather than an, at the time inherent advantage of locomotives, that changed everything. Hedlley and Hackworth's Wylam experimentation with adhesion, followed by Rainhill in 1829, were the crucial turning points, that began to swing matters away from rope and similar options.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

What I believe the attached chart shows is that we may be over-gloomy in our expectations of what can (and can't) be achieved with the introduction of larger locomotives. Thus the LNWR started introducing 4F engines (coincidentally 0-8-0 compounds) and reducing its fleets of 3F-and-under 0-6-0s, and its receipts per loco-mile increased by 50% company-wid. Not shown is that its receipts/ton were essentially unchanged. A relatively small number of bigger locomotives seems to have made a big difference on what could be achieved in costs.

 

Interesting. Unsurprising that larger locomotives =  longer trains = increased receipts per locomotive mile. An interesting question is whether there had to be infrastructure upgrades like longer refuge sidings to cope with longer trains. At any point there must have been limiting factors. The practical problems of managing a loose coupled train have been mentioned above, and presumably the longer the train the greater the challenge, especially on an undulating route if some parts of the train are going uphill and some down. One also suspects that longer trains of indifferently maintained PO wagons would be more likely to experience delays from hot boxes etc, but OTOH fewer trains would need to be run.

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, Murican said:

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

S&C

Settle & Carlisle, right?

Yep