Imaginary Locomotives

[BernardTPM]

How to get yourself lynched at an exhibition!

Yes, I suspect it might not necessarily go down well with 'Streak' fans (which I do think are probably the best-looking streamlined steamers ever as they're neither bulbous nor look like upturned bath tubs! Two aerofoil shapes in perfect harmony).

 

No, actually, I wonder what it would have looked like when running.

The look is a bit brutalist (taken from their DT43 Indian railcars), and I would guess they might sound like pairs of Rats in a hurry!

Edited March 9, 2012 by BernardTPM

[scots region]

You could always look to see what designs from the commonwealth could be adapted for Blighty side.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

some kind of turbine drive? Would have to think about the fuel source though.

 

Wind turbine?

[Sylvian Tennant]

Gas turbine, I know a bloke at my club who would help greatly!

[69843]

A friend challenged me a while back to design a locomotive using the Rolls-Royce Griffon to power it (used to power later Spitfires). Lets just say I'm looking at the price of a Hornby Class 20 now...

 

British Rail D0130

 

D0130 (later Griffon), was a prototype 2,420hp Type 3 mainline diesel locomotive built in 1960 by English Electric in association with Rolls-Royce, at the English Electric Vulcan works in Lancashire, as a demonstrator locomotive for British Railways. The locomotive’s number was derived from its engine variant, the Griffon 130.

 

Built in 1960 using a modified Class 20 body shell (without headcode box) and internals, Griffon was powered by a modified version of the Rolls-Royce Griffon 130 engine, which ran on diesel. It had a top speed of 100mph, and weighed 75 tons. It was painted in standard BR Brunswick Green as per the Class 20s.

 

Initially tested mainly on the Eastern Region (in particular on the Flying Scotsman and The Queen of Scots), D0130 was later tested all over the network. Able to haul 15-coach trains without problems, D0130 was deemed a success despite being a one-off. It was decided to fit D0130 with steam heating (and later ETH) from new, due to the smaller size of the engine compared to the Class 20 creating room in the locomotive for a boiler.

 

Upon completion in 1960, Brush received two cast steel Spitfire plates from the RAF. These were mounted to the middle of the nose end, facing the nose. D0130 was officially named ‘Griffon’ in June 1963 by the Queen at York station. Nicknamed ‘Charlie’ by spotters due to the origin of the engine, it was to remain in service until 1967.

 

Withdrawn from Barrow Hill shed in October 1967, D0130 was sent to Barry Scrapyard, wherein she had a lucky escape from the cutters torch. The day that D0130 was due to start being cut up, a group of ex-engineers from English Electric that had helped to build D0130 called up the scrapyard to see whether she was still available, and duly purchased her. Moved from Barry back to Barrow Hill for storage, she has remained there ever since, slowly being restored. The Griffon 130 and one of the nameplates became part of the National Collection, but negotiations are underway between the D0130 Group and the NRM for the release of the engine to be refitted into D0130 so this unique diesel may run again.

 

D0130 is currently being restored to her 1963 condition (with small yellow warning panels), and will hopefully be hauling trains on the mainline where she belongs soon.

 

Edit: Image attached

Edited June 18, 2012 by 69843

[scots region]

Very nice

[Unknown Warrior]

I would recomend to anyone who wants to seriously model something out of the ordinary to invest in a copy of Robin Barnes 'Locomotives that never were'. Its a fantastic read for those long winter nights.

 

Edit:04/02/12

I've been looking at the V4 design and I've been wondering whether it could be modified to take a slightly longer boiler and a leading Four-wheel bogie, to give you a nice looking A9 light pacific.

 

ScR

 

I wondered how long I would have to plough through this thread before someone mentioned this wonderful book illustrated with paintings so that you get a real feel for how the locos would have looked. Many of the locos mentioned in this thread are illustrated including the 2-6-0 PT. Sadly the book is quite rare. My copy came from Australia, but worth every penny!

 

My favourite is the 4-8-4 Stanier/Coleman design of 1938. It would have comfortably out performed any of the first generation diesels, probably including the Deltics with four 17 1/2 in x 28in cylinders, 5'6" coupled wheels, 300psi boiler and a mechanical stoker. Designed to take 600 tons plus over the northern hills of the west coast mainline unaided. Way beyound anything proposed by Gresley or Bulleid. Would have been a fitting climax to steam design in this country! Still at least we have the Duchesses!

Edited June 18, 2012 by Unknown Warrior

[69843]

My favourite is the 4-8-4 Stanier/Coleman design of 1938. It would have comfortably out performed any of the first generation diesels, probably including the Deltics with four 17 1/2 in x 28in cylinders, 5'6" coupled wheels, 300psi boiler and a mechanical stoker. Designed to take 600 tons plus over the northern hills of the west coast mainline unaided. Way beyound anything proposed by Gresley or Bulleid. Would have been a fitting climax to steam design in this country! Still at least we have the Duchesses!

 

Put these figures into the relative formula and you get a whopping 66,261lbf!

[Etched Pixels]

Would have been a fitting climax to steam design in this country! Still at least we have the Duchesses!

 

Steam may not be dead yet!

 

Even though it sounds like should be an imaginary locomotive Voith are testing a closed loop steam heat recovery add on for diesel units. It's been around for marine use for a while but is now getting tested on the continent for rail use.

[TerryD1471]

Put these figures into the relative formula and you get a whopping 66,261lbf!

 

The proposed Stanier/Coleman mixed traffic 4-8-4 has always been a topic of great interest, along with its sister 4-6-4 passenger loco, if only because they represent a more realistic approach (to my mind) than a large wheeled 4-8-2. I always thought that the latter would have been crippled by excessive length between tubeplates and therefore would not have steamed well.

 

As it was the 4-6-4 large passenger loco would have had the advantage of a big firebox (stoker fired) and contemporary commentaries suggested that 6 coupled wheels would have been sufficient "because the Duchesses didn't have an adhesion problem". The latter day large 4-6-4s in France (by De Caso etc) perhaps pointed to the truth of this, whereas large wheeled French 4-8-2s didn't cover themselves in glory.

 

To those who think that large driving wheels are a pre-requisite for express work, I would point to the performance of 6' 2" Merchant Navy Pacifics and the 5' 9" J class 4-8-4s of the Norfolk & Western (110 mph machines). And didn't South African Railways use 4-8-4s with 5' 3" wheels for express work?

[Etched Pixels]

And British Rail 9Fs proved to be fine passenger locomotives

[ARCModels]

The proposed Stanier/Coleman mixed traffic 4-8-4 has always been a topic of great interest, along with its sister 4-6-4 passenger loco, if only because they represent a more realistic approach (to my mind) than a large wheeled 4-8-2. I always thought that the latter would have been crippled by excessive length between tubeplates and therefore would not have steamed well.

 

As it was the 4-6-4 large passenger loco would have had the advantage of a big firebox (stoker fired) and contemporary commentaries suggested that 6 coupled wheels would have been sufficient "because the Duchesses didn't have an adhesion problem". The latter day large 4-6-4s in France (by De Caso etc) perhaps pointed to the truth of this, whereas large wheeled French 4-8-2s didn't cover themselves in glory.

 

To those who think that large driving wheels are a pre-requisite for express work, I would point to the performance of 6' 2" Merchant Navy Pacifics and the 5' 9" J class 4-8-4s of the Norfolk & Western (110 mph machines). And didn't South African Railways use 4-8-4s with 5' 3" wheels for express work?

Indeed, smaller driving wheels are of no deterrent to high speeds, in fact, smaller driving wheels allows for shorter cut-offs and therefore greater use of steam in the cylinders, the only deterrent is inadequate piston head packing, you have to ask 'why is the rate of wear of a steam locomotive piston lining much greater than the diesel?' Porta showed the way.

 

Also, none other the No.3450 'The Red Devil' reached over 90mph, with Wardale claiming that 100 would have been reached, easy.

[TerryD1471]

Ah, so many issues to consider! To David Elvar I would say, yes Fuglesang sounds superb; is it "birdsong?". If so, perhaps it's not the first thing you want to hear next morning!

 

Let's not forget the reason why we're posting here.

 

ARC models, I agree with since the SAR 4-8-4s (Class 25NC?) formed the basis of the "Red Devil" and they seemed to me to be superb machines, Astounding, particularly since they ran on 3'6" gauge. Would that Wardale and Porta had been able to follow that experiment up.

[Guest]

Indeed, smaller driving wheels are of no deterrent to high speeds, in fact, smaller driving wheels allows for shorter cut-offs and therefore greater use of steam in the cylinders, the only deterrent is inadequate piston head packing, you have to ask 'why is the rate of wear of a steam locomotive piston lining much greater than the diesel?' Porta showed the way.

 

Also, none other the No.3450 'The Red Devil' reached over 90mph, with Wardale claiming that 100 would have been reached, easy.

 

Porta. I'm glad someone mentioned that name. To his and Wardale's, I would add Jos Koopmans, whose book The Fire Burns Much Better is a thorough examination of that sometimes neglected part of the steam locomotive, the exhaust. I think we've mentioned elsewhere on the parish noticeboard that it's a great pity the 5AT project never got off the ground. Given the knowledge and research available to us now, steam could really be given the chance it deserves to show what it can do.

 

Ah, so many issues to consider! To David Elvar I would say, yes Fuglesang sounds superb; is it "birdsong?". If so, perhaps it's not the first thing you want to hear next morning!

 

Let's not forget the reason why we're posting here.

 

ARC models, I agree with since the SAR 4-8-4s (Class 25NC?) formed the basis of the "Red Devil" and they seemed to me to be superb machines, Astounding, particularly since they ran on 3'6" gauge. Would that Wardale and Porta had been able to follow that experiment up.

 

Fuglesang does indeed mean birdsong. The company makes a very good range of beers, including Hvid Bock with an alcohol content of 7.6%. Good stuff. Various companies over here do a range of rather good stouts, too. Unfortunately, my wife can't take them - give her a headache - so I don't get to sample them as often as I would like.

 

To get back on topic before a Mod shoots me, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that steam had not reached its peak of development when it was summarily (perhaps even criminally) executed. Somewhere in another thread, someone (apologies to the author for forgetting who you are) said that Chapelon claimed to be able to get 16,000hp out of a Big Boy if he could only get his hands on one. I believe the claim. I know he'd suggested raising the power of an NYC Niagara from 6,000hp to 8,000hp while eliminating the usual volcanic displays of smoke and unburned coal that spewed from the stack, so it would have been interesting to see what he might have achieved.

[TerryD1471]

There seem to be almost limitless possibilities presenting themselves.

 

I have just been given a book on the life of Henry Fowler (thanks Oliver) and there are many "might have been " locos schemed out there. Some were covered by Robin Barnes in his excellent book "Locos that never were", but many more are drawn and one can only speculate how they would have performed had they been built.

 

The unfolding of history is, of course, the subject of much speculative interest, but had certain designs been built, it is sure that many subsequent actual designs would not have seen the light of day. For instance the LMS compound Pacific of 1924 might well not have been a sparkling success, but would almost certainly have been the basis for further developments that probably would have meant the LMS would never have needed to order the Royal Scots in a hurry from NBL. And remember that they and their linear descendents, the Patriots and Jubilees eventually accounted for 314 3 cylinder express 4-6-0s or 86% of LMS express passenger locos. What would have been built if they had never appeared? Hugely improved Claughtons or Dreadnoughts? Or something completely different? We'll never know!

 

All I would say is that I would like to encourage anyone who is minded to build one of these "might have beens" to have a go and not worry. I certainly intend to!

 

On a recent visit to see Roy Jackson's superb layout "Retford", I noted that he had indulged in a little "might have been " work himself. He has a model of a streamlined P2 in BR brunswick green as if it had never been rebuilt to an A2/2 and on an earlier visit I noted a similarly unrebuilt BR blue "Earl Marischal". Wonderful looking machines.

 

Terry D

[Guest]

All I would say is that I would like to encourage anyone who is minded to build one of these "might have beens" to have a go and not worry. I certainly intend to!

 

Terry D

 

Agreed! To be honest with you, Terry, it's this aspect of railway modelling more than anything else that keeps me in the hobby. The Robin Barnes book is superb, yes, and a lot of his work can be accessed via his website:

 

http://www.robinbarnes.net/

 

Click on the Galleries link on the left and follow the gallery marked Stillborn. The one marked Alternatives is worth a look, too.

[Guest]

 

Glad to read your comments. Always felt that the 4-8-0 configuration was a good one, ever since I read of the work of Chapelon in converting a middling Pacific into a world class 4-8-0. I don't think the power to weight ratio of the 240Ps has ever been beaten. And that was achieved burning rubbish fuel (briquettes) in a narrow firebox!

 

That brings me on to another area where I think there is a little misunderstanding. I've read posts which suggest that grate area is crucial to ability to burn fuel and create horse power. I don't believe it is. I believe it's combustion chamber volume that is the operative factor which is why the 240P with a 38 sq ft grate under a narrow firebox could produce 25% more power than a similarly sized Duchess with a 50 sq ft grate. I always understood that the wide grate was needed only to deal with the larger amounts of ash produced by inferior quality coal, a pressing requirement post-war.

 

Terry, your post from over in the freelance layouts section. I've been wanting to answer this for some while but pressure of time has prevented it.

 

Yes, it's interesting that the Chapelon engine should be able to produce more power than a Duchess. But how? On pp.292 and 297-99 of the English edition of Chapelon's book La Locomotive a Vapeur are excellent line drawings of both 4-8-0 classes which don't seem to show much of a combustion chamber. They do show the use of thermic syphons and a double Kylchap exhaust, and it's likely here that the secret of high horsepower lies. You're right, French coal was not the best on the planet yet French locos consistently managed performances that other countries could only envy, and the 4-8-0's performances were among the very best. Not only did they have the highest power to weight ratio of any steam loco, I believe they also recorded the highest thermal efficiency of any steamer bar one, and that Chapleon's 242A1. It's a pity that PLM jealousy was allowed to send them to the scrapheap sooner than they deserved.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Chapelon's thoroughly integrated approach to the whole design was 'the secret'. Draughting, combustion arrangements, boiler circulation, large steam passages and superheaters, valve gear optimisation, low back pressure exhausts. It would have been so interesting if one of his compounds could have competed in the BR trials, and shown what efficiency with steam looked like: the class leading A4's coal and water consumption 50 % greater per unit power output than what a Chapelon design typically delivered. He was pretty sure that 4,000ihp was achieveable from a well designed hand fired UK loading gauge machine.

 

Came at a price mind. French footplate crew were trained in the classroom and passed by examination before being allowed on the footplate of such machines, in order to reliably achieve the performance.

[ozzyo]

 He was pretty sure that 4,000ihp was achieveable from a well designed hand fired UK loading gauge machine.

 

I'm pretty sure that was achieved by one class of British steam loco under test.

 

OzzyO.   

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Show the data and the operating conditions. It isn't pretty!

[DavidB-AU]

Interesting discussion about 4-8-0s producing more power than similar sized Pacifics. Years ago I did a paper exercise to see if I could come up with any specs for a steam loco that could, at least on paper, match an HST. I'll see if I can find the notes.
 
Just for the hell of it I tried to come up with specs for a steam loco that could match TGV performance. The only thing I could come up with with the right power and the right weight was a monstrous 8-8-8+8-8-8 with driving wheels that would make the Bristol and Exeter Railway proud.
 
Cheers
David

[Sam*45110*SVR]

In case you've ever wondered when calculating the TE of the imaginary locomotive you've just thought up of where the formula for TE comes from, here is the derivation.

 

http://www.engine-driver.com/article/show/1070/nominal-tractive-effort-explained

 

I had always wondered how "they" got to this and as it turns out it's simpler than I first thought, just a lot of logical steps

 

Sam.

[TheQ]

Had GWR been able to build the electrified lines would we have had over head electric flying bananas for the local traffic?

or if they hadn't gone back to steam when the bananas were too popular would we have DMUs  in a large scale many years earlier?

 

The Q

[Etched Pixels]

We did have units in general many years earlier - on the southern 8)

 

I think it's a fair bet that but for WW2 we'd have had DMU stuff in traffic in the 40s. All the major players were experimenting. The GWR had the railcars in production and working well. The LMS had trialled various railmotors in the UK and Ireland, a diesel electric railcar, some of the tyred units and also built a truly beautiful diesel hydraulic 3 car DMU whose styling has probably not been equalled and the Southern had long ago figured out commuter electrification even if in hindsight they goofed on going 3rd rail not overhead as had the LNER.

 

What does surprise me is the GWR went with mechanical transmission given they'd run a petrol-electric prototype long before.

 

Railways like the WCPR had by then shown that petrol/diesel railcars could make the difference between commercial viability and failure.

 

 

The LMS tyred ones..

 

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/french-streamlined-rail-car-news-in-a-nutshell/query/LMS

 

The early LMS experimental (quite literally) railbus

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aceanorak/8163853908/

 

The Leyland railbusses

 

http://www.ribblevalleyrail.co.uk/Leyland%20Bus.htm

 

 

and pure style..

 

[Ozexpatriate]

I think it's a fair bet that but for WW2 we'd have had DMU stuff in traffic in the 40s.

Almost certainly.

 

There were so many experiments in the US - most of which were successful, although the long-haul stuff went to locomotive hauled trains.

 

The Burlington Zephyr (CB&Q - 1934)

The UP M-10000 series (UP - 1934)

The New Haven Comet (NYNH&H - 1935)

The Flying Yankee (MEC - 1935)

The Illinois Central Green Diamond (IC - 1936)

The North Shore Line Electroliner (CNS&M - 1941) which was an EMU.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Ozexpatriate