Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

All relevant points.  America is bigger than the UK, a point borne out by the comparative emptiness when you fly over it.  Distances between towns and cities are greater, and AFAIK with the exception of the NYC water troughs, pans as they called them, were not used.  Trains were longer and heavier, and there was little work for tank engines outside of industrial work and the logging railroads; even yard switchers had tenders.  Larger boilers were made possible by the larger loading gauge, and massive cylinders were fed by them; even in the large US loading gauge and with bigger axle loads allowable, there was little room on board some of the really big engines that emerged after the WW1 to put water tanks of a useful size.  Enormous tenders resulted, the Pennsy being particularly spectacular in this respect.

 

So, there is I think much to be said for the concept of the American equivalent of any given British type being a loco with an added driving axle and trailing wheel.  But while much can be said for it, there seems little point, as we are not comparing like for like.  British locos that visited the US, KGV and the Royal Scot and Coronation ringers, attracted much interest and admiration, but made no impact on practice; they represented, albeit in an advanced form of efficiency, what had been cutting edge in the States before WW1, and were not powerful enough to do any useful work over there.  The influences were much more west to east, with Swindon building large numbers of what the Americans would have called 10 wheelers and moguls, and Gresley being influenced by the Pennsy K4 for his pacifics.

 

I would consider that more is to be learned from comparing 20th century British practice to what was going on on the Continent, especially France, where operating conditions and traffic were more similar.  Belgian innovations in the later 19th century were widely adopted, and the French de Glehns informed British compound practice and engine layout in the case of Churchward's 4 cylinder locos and their LMS pacific derivates under Stanier.  European trains were more akin to ours in length and weight, distances between stops more comparable, and it is possible to suggest that some European practice represented what we would like to have done had we had their somewhat larger loading gauge, still tiny be American standards.  4-8-2s appeared in France, Germany, and Spain; the French Chapelon ones were about as good as it got anywhere!

 

The USATC S160 2-8-0s show the American reaction to building locos for the British loading gauge.  They built what was to their view a branch line goods engine, a modernised 10 wheeler with a fat short boiler, which was taken into use here on heavy main line freight work where it was badly needed during the traffic peak of the build up to D-Day and the supply operation for the Normandy invasion before being shipped over to join most of the supplies it had been hauling.  Comparable British locos are the 28xx, Stanier 8F, 04, and the later 01 and Riddles Austerity, the largest considered necessary to haul a 60 wagon goods or mineral train on a British main line where the length was limited by signalling and the length of loops and layby sidings; there was no point in having anything bigger.

 

This is a point that comes up repeatedly on this topic; we imagine 2-10-0s or 2-8-4s derived from pacifics, KIngs enlarged into 4-8-0s or 4-8-2s, and pacifics fattened out to be 4-8-4s, and sometimes even model them, but none of them would have been capable of earning their keep on a British railway as there were no loads suitable for them.  We imagine Stanier 4-8-4s with roller bearings and mechanical stokers cruising easily up Shap or Beattock unassisted at 80+, safety valves feathering and 20 coaches hanging on the hook of their 12 wheel bogie tenders , but no peacetime traffic requirement justified such a train, which would have run half empty and uneconomically most of the time.

 

It's enormous fun and I'm not knocking it, but the main point is that we can learn lessons about the practical issues involved in running a steam railway on a daily basis from the exercise.  How about an additional slightly different topic, locos and stock designed from scratch for a UK equivalent of the Ruhnian State Railway, in which we could indulge our fantasies and have them criticised and analysed.  

 

Suggested rules; British loading gauge, 25 ton axle load limit, maximum 20 coach/60 standard wagon length trains, drawhooks and couplings compatible with normal British practice of the period the stock is designed for (i.e hook and screw or instanter with buffers except for fairly modern image).  

[The Johnster]

Just now, The Johnster said:

All relevant points.  America is bigger than the UK, a point borne out by the comparative emptiness when you fly over it.  Distances between towns and cities are greater, and AFAIK with the exception of the NYC water troughs, pans as they called them, were not used.  Trains were longer and heavier, and there was little work for tank engines outside of industrial work and the logging railroads; even yard switchers had tenders.  Larger boilers were made possible by the larger loading gauge, and massive cylinders were fed by them; even in the large US loading gauge and with bigger axle loads allowable, there was little room on board some of the really big engines that emerged after the WW1 to put water tanks of a useful size.  Enormous tenders resulted, the Pennsy being particularly spectacular in this respect.

 

So, there is I think much to be said for the concept of the American equivalent of any given British type being a loco with an added driving axle and trailing wheel.  But while much can be said for it, there seems little point, as we are not comparing like for like.  British locos that visited the US, KGV and the Royal Scot and Coronation ringers, attracted much interest and admiration, but made no impact on practice; they represented, albeit in an advanced form of efficiency, what had been cutting edge in the States before WW1, and were not powerful enough to do any useful work over there.  The influences were much more west to east, with Swindon building large numbers of what the Americans would have called 10 wheelers and moguls, and Gresley being influenced by the Pennsy K4 for his pacifics.

 

I would consider that more is to be learned from comparing 20th century British practice to what was going on on the Continent, especially France, where operating conditions and traffic were more similar.  Belgian innovations in the later 19th century were widely adopted, and the French de Glehns informed British compound practice and engine layout in the case of Churchward's 4 cylinder locos and their LMS pacific derivates under Stanier.  European trains were more akin to ours in length and weight, distances between stops more comparable, and it is possible to suggest that some European practice represented what we would like to have done had we had their somewhat larger loading gauge, still tiny be American standards.  4-8-2s appeared in France, Germany, and Spain; the French Chapelon ones were about as good as it got anywhere!

 

The USATC S160 2-8-0s show the American reaction to building locos for the British loading gauge.  They built what was to their view a very small branch line goods engine, a modernised 10 wheeler with a fat short boiler, which was taken into use here on heavy main line freight work where it was badly needed during the traffic peak of the build up to D-Day and the supply operation for the Normandy invasion before being shipped over to join most of the supplies it had been hauling.  Comparable British locos are the 28xx, Stanier 8F, 04, and the later 01 and Riddles Austerity, the largest considered necessary to haul a 60 wagon goods or mineral train on a British main line where the length was limited by signalling and the length of loops and layby sidings; there was no point in having anything bigger.

 

This is a point that comes up repeatedly on this topic; we imagine 2-10-0s or 2-8-4s derived from pacifics, KIngs enlarged into 4-8-0s or 4-8-2s, and pacifics fattened out to be 4-8-4s, and sometimes even model them, but none of them would have been capable of earning their keep on a British railway as there were no loads suitable for them.  We imagine Stanier 4-8-4s with roller bearings and mechanical stokers cruising easily up Shap or Beattock unassisted at 80+, safety valves feathering and 20 coaches hanging on the hook of their 12 wheel bogie tenders , but no peacetime traffic requirement justified such a train, which would have run half empty and uneconomically most of the time.

 

It's enormous fun and I'm not knocking it, but the main point is that we can learn lessons about the practical issues involved in running a steam railway on a daily basis from the exercise.  How about an additional slightly different topic, locos and stock designed from scratch for a UK equivalent of the Ruhnian State Railway, in which we could indulge our fantasies and have them criticised and analysed.  

 

Suggested rules; British loading gauge, 25 ton axle load limit, maximum 20 coach/60 standard wagon length trains, drawhooks and couplings compatible with normal British practice of the period the stock is designed for (i.e hook and screw or instanter with buffers except for fairly modern image).  

 

[melmerby]

I think we need to realise that British/European loco practice, although it started the US railroads was soon surpassed by local developments.

We talk about classic locos, this to me is what is surely "the Classic" loco from which all later US development sprang and is a precursor to some later UK practice.

1865 Nashville, apart from one derelict 2-6-0 all the rest are "Americans" (4-4-0) although barely two are identical.

https://www.shorpy.com/node/6548

 

But they all have:Taper boiler, outside cylinders & valves with inside Stephenson motion, fully compensated suspension bar frames,bogie tender, lovely big wooden shed of a cab to give the crew somewhere to work in relative comfort.

These locomotives were being built in their hundreds from the 1850s onwards and were way ahead of UK practice.

e.g in the 1870s, 20 years or so after the first "Americans", the GWR was building BG "Rover" class 4-2-2s wth rigid frames, inside cylinders, no cab etc.

Edited May 14, 2019 by melmerby
more info

[RLBH]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

It's enormous fun and I'm not knocking it, but the main point is that we can learn lessons about the practical issues involved in running a steam railway on a daily basis from the exercise.  How about an additional slightly different topic, locos and stock designed from scratch for a UK equivalent of the Ruhnian State Railway, in which we could indulge our fantasies and have them criticised and analysed.  

 

Suggested rules; British loading gauge, 25 ton axle load limit, maximum 20 coach/60 standard wagon length trains, drawhooks and couplings compatible with normal British practice of the period the stock is designed for (i.e hook and screw or instanter with buffers except for fairly modern image).  

Realistically, I think it's going to be hard to materially improve on A. J. Powell's Garratt built on running gear from the first Black Fives, precisely for the purpose of dragging heavy (20-coach) passenger trains over Shap and Beattock. As it was devised by a professional steam engineer - albeit as a flight of fancy - I think we can safely assume that it would have been a practical locomotive for the work intended. This locomotive would also be very useful on fast goods work, for instance the Condor that was booked for a pair of Type 2 diesels but often wound up with a pair of Class 5 4-6-0s instead.

 

It's easy to imagine a dedicated goods version bearing a similar relationship to the Powell Garratt as a Stanier 8F does to a Black Five. This would be a 2-8-2+2-8-2 Garratt with 56.5" drivers, presumably also built in very small numbers, and fully capable of handling 60-wagon goods trains (i.e. 1,500 tons) on the toughest jobs. In effect, this is a main-line version of the LNER U1 of comparable size and tractive effort. On something like the famous Birmingham to Glasgow overnight goods - 55 12-ton vans, fully fitted, over Ais Gill - this would eat a 9F for breakfast.

 

Of course, 9Fs did the work just fine, and Coronations did just fine on the passenger jobs, so these monsters would certainly be uneconomic. But they'd look spectacular as they wasted money!

[Steamport Southport]

4 hours ago, RLBH said:

I believe there was some interest from the LMS in a big 2-6-2, but that never came to pass; the point is, though, that the rule-of-thumb indicates that a big British 2-6-2 tender locomotive would probably be appropriate for the type of work a 2-8-4 was used for in North America. Just as 2-8-2s didn't really take off, nor did 2-6-2s, due to operational conditions on our railways. 

 

The equivalent to our mixed traffic 4-6-0s would, then, be a 4-8-2 - which were indeed used extensively as mixed traffic and fast freight locomotives in the United States; the Britannia perhaps equates to some of the smaller-drivered American 4-8-4s that were intended for similar heavy mixed traffic work. It's a rule of thumb, rather than a law of nature, but one that I think helps with making fairer comparisons between the state of the art in locomotive design and in traffic conditions.

 

Comparing British and American 2-8-2s (say) isn't terribly informative, because on this side of the Atlantic they were some of the biggest and most powerful locomotives, whilst the American ones were a smallish, go-anywhere, do-anything type of locomotive. Similarly, a British 2-6-2T would be completely lost on an American railroad - they'd probably use a 2-8-4T for similar work, except that such locomotives were't built. They use tender locomotives instead.

 

The Midland experimented with the Paget locomotive. Now that does look like an imaginary locomotive. 

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Railway_Paget_locomotive

 

Jason

[Compound2632]

58 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The Midland experimented with the Paget locomotive. Now that does look like an imaginary locomotive. 

 

 

Cecil Paget, not the Midland Railway Company, experimented with the Paget locomitive - it was his personal project, initially self-financed although using the company's facilities. It was no doubt due to the fact that Paget's father was Charirman of the company that he was allowed to indulge in this experiment. Paget's engineering training was in the Derby Locomotive Drawing Office under S.W. Johnson (who packed him off to Schenectady to oversee production of their batch of moguls for the Midland), so a lot of standard Midland practice went into the design.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Compound2632

[rodent279]

This is a fascinating thread. Is there one for Imaginary Railways?

Edited May 15, 2019 by rodent279

[Gibbo675]

39 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

This is a fascinating thread. Is there one for Imaginary Railways?

Hi Rodent,

 

Let us all be thankful that we are not on the "Imaginary friends" thread !

 

Assuming for comedic purpose that such may exist, perhaps I could start one ?

 

Gibbo.

[rodent279]

Just now, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Rodent,

 

Let us all be thankful that we are not on the "Imaginary friends" thread !

 

Assuming for comedic purpose that such may exist, perhaps I could start one ?

 

Gibbo.

How do you know I have imaginary friends? 

 

I guess the whole point of a model railway is it's an imaginary railway.

I just wonder though, if for example, Edward Watkins's dream of a channel tunnel had come true in say the early 20th century, would we have seen continental gauge trains running up through Leicester? Maybe MSW electrification would have been extended south, with a changeover to 3rd rail somewhere in north London. Perhaps, really pushing it now, we would have seen SNCF CC6500's working into southern England, maybe as far as Leicester or Manchester? Dual voltage EM2's working to Paris Nord?

Flight of fantasy maybe-but then so are many of the imaginary locomotives discussed on here!

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

How do you know I have imaginary friends? 

 

I guess the whole point of a model railway is it's an imaginary railway.

I just wonder though, if for example, Edward Watkins's dream of a channel tunnel had come true in say the early 20th century, would we have seen continental gauge trains running up through Leicester? Maybe MSW electrification would have been extended south, with a changeover to 3rd rail somewhere in north London. Perhaps, really pushing it now, we would have seen SNCF CC6500's working into southern England, maybe as far as Leicester or Manchester? Dual voltage EM2's working to Paris Nord?

Flight of fantasy maybe-but then so are many of the imaginary locomotives discussed on here!

 

CC6500s would probably have blown the fuse at the substation. We always do electrification on the cheap here.

 

And would UK modellers have adopted HO?

Edited May 15, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

This is a fascinating thread. Is there one for Imaginary Railways?

There is a thread with that very name on the Modelling Musings & Miscellany area.  I posted a few ideas of my own.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

There is a thread with that very name on the Modelling Musings & Miscellany area.  I posted a few ideas of my own.

Ooh good, I'm currently cooking up my own alternative history.

[Traintresta]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

How do you know I have imaginary friends? 

 

I guess the whole point of a model railway is it's an imaginary railway.

I just wonder though, if for example, Edward Watkins's dream of a channel tunnel had come true in say the early 20th century, would we have seen continental gauge trains running up through Leicester? Maybe MSW electrification would have been extended south, with a changeover to 3rd rail somewhere in north London. Perhaps, really pushing it now, we would have seen SNCF CC6500's working into southern England, maybe as far as Leicester or Manchester? Dual voltage EM2's working to Paris Nord?

Flight of fantasy maybe-but then so are many of the imaginary locomotives discussed on here!

I wondered myself about completion of MSW electrification extending to London and possibly joining the GEML electrification as they were both originally the same voltage.  EM1's and EM2' in east Anglia anybody?

[brack]

On 14/05/2019 at 15:58, RLBH said:

Realistically, I think it's going to be hard to materially improve on A. J. Powell's Garratt built on running gear from the first Black Fives, precisely for the purpose of dragging heavy (20-coach) passenger trains over Shap and Beattock. As it was devised by a professional steam engineer - albeit as a flight of fancy - I think we can safely assume that it would have been a practical locomotive for the work intended. This locomotive would also be very useful on fast goods work, for instance the Condor that was booked for a pair of Type 2 diesels but often wound up with a pair of Class 5 4-6-0s instead.

 

It's easy to imagine a dedicated goods version bearing a similar relationship to the Powell Garratt as a Stanier 8F does to a Black Five. This would be a 2-8-2+2-8-2 Garratt with 56.5" drivers, presumably also built in very small numbers, and fully capable of handling 60-wagon goods trains (i.e. 1,500 tons) on the toughest jobs. In effect, this is a main-line version of the LNER U1 of comparable size and tractive effort. On something like the famous Birmingham to Glasgow overnight goods - 55 12-ton vans, fully fitted, over Ais Gill - this would eat a 9F for breakfast.

 

Of course, 9Fs did the work just fine, and Coronations did just fine on the passenger jobs, so these monsters would certainly be uneconomic. But they'd look spectacular as they wasted money!

Please let beyer peacock design the garratts - give them the specifications and let them get on with it. A 262-262 would've been a better choice than double 4-6-0, but a double Pacific even better. Post 1920s garratt designs without carrying wheels at both ends of the power bogies are very rare - they'd figured out what worked best.

 

Whilst on the topic of AJ Powell, his narrow gauge 264t, sort of LMS/BR standard inspired is a very interesting thing, and he had a 7mm scale model built from his drawings. It was intended for a 2'6" gauge garve-ullapool line. Drawings and photos were in a 7mm NGA mag a few years back

[RLBH]

9 hours ago, brack said:

Please let beyer peacock design the garratts - give them the specifications and let them get on with it. A 262-262 would've been a better choice than double 4-6-0, but a double Pacific even better. Post 1920s garratt designs without carrying wheels at both ends of the power bogies are very rare - they'd figured out what worked best.

 

Yes - I thought I'd mentioned that the big Garratt was to have been a 4-6-2+2-6-4, with all the best features proved on Beyer-Garratt's export work.

 

Even a relatively modest axle loading of 20 tons 10 cwt, so not too harsh on the track either.

Edited May 16, 2019 by RLBH

[Ravenser]

15 hours ago, Traintresta said:

I wondered myself about completion of MSW electrification extending to London and possibly joining the GEML electrification as they were both originally the same voltage.  EM1's and EM2' in east Anglia anybody?

 

 

I strongly suspect that's why the LNER was going to order a lot of EM2s . Liverpool St-Ipswich maybe . The order was cut down to 6 - even then 90mph passenger electrics were wasted on the Woodhead Route

[The Johnster]

They'd have certainly been an improvement on the B17s!  The GE section was renowned for fast running and drivers who'd 'have a go' if time was to be made up; this could have been fun...

[RLBH]

54 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

I strongly suspect that's why the LNER was going to order a lot of EM2s . Liverpool St-Ipswich maybe . The order was cut down to 6 - even then 90mph passenger electrics were wasted on the Woodhead Route

LNER thinking is quite clearly presented in the 1931 Weir Report - one of the case studies was wholesale electrification of the former Great Northern Railway, as in all of it. Even the marshalling yards. Consideration was given to only wiring those parts of the yards that main-line engines would use, and shunting with steam, but found that you had to wire up so much of the yard anyway that you might as well do the whole lot and get rid of steam entirely.

 

The amount of rolling stock required for this was:

• 35 2,400hp 2D2 express passenger locomotives

• 193 1,200hp Bo-Bo goods locomotives

• 28 1,800hp Co-Co goods locomotives

• 42 1,800hp Co-Co mixed traffic locomotives, of which 14 to have electrically-fired boilers for train heat

• 138 720hp Bo-Bo shunting locomotives

• 258 three-car EMUs

The express passenger locomotives were to be designed for 75mph, the goods locomotives for 35mph, and the mixed traffic would be goods locomotives regeared for 60mph and fitted with vacuum pumps. They were talking seriously about double-headed electric locomotives hauling 60-wagon unfitted coal trains, which is just mad!

 

The Co-Co mixed traffic locomotives are actually a pretty good match for the EM1s, whilst the express passenger jobs compare well with the EM2s. Note the huge number of EMUs - the advantages of multiple unit traction were obvious even back then.

 

The former LNER/Eastern Region does seem to have kept studying electrification, whilst the LMS/London Midland Region were pretty actively disinterested in it. A shame that the East Coast had to wait so long to finally benefit from all those studies.

Edited May 16, 2019 by RLBH

[Ravenser]

13 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

They'd have certainly been an improvement on the B17s!  The GE section was renowned for fast running and drivers who'd 'have a go' if time was to be made up; this could have been fun...

 

 

That I think was the issue. Gerry Fiennes makes it plain that B1s and B17s simply weren't up to the job in the late 1940s . My suspicion is that the LNER Board was considering solving the problem by extending the Shenfield electrification to Ipswich . Riddles decided to solve it by building LMS- derived light Pacifics....

 

The 1931 scheme was a bit optimistic ... I'm trying to imagine the Spilsby branch or the Horncastle branch worked by a Class 306 EMU + a Shildon/Newport EF1 on the freight. It would make an "interesting" layout

Edited May 16, 2019 by Ravenser

[RLBH]

3 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

The 1931 scheme was a bit optimistic ... I'm trying to imagine the Spilsby branch or the Horncastle branch worked by a Class 306 EMU + a Shildon/Newport EF1 on the freight. It would make an "interesting" layout

It wasn't so much optimistic, as a study to find out what would be economic. As it turned out, the cost advantages on the main lines more than offset the capital expenditure on the minor branches, giving a modest 7.2% rate of return. The LMS Crewe-Carlisle study, by comparison, only electrified the main line, leading to poor asset utilisation, and a rate of return of just 2.5%.

 

The finding was, in effect, that the entire network should be electrified over a period of 15 to 20 years, excepting only branch lines that were specifically shown to be more economically worked by non-electrified means. In other words, a presumption that everything should be electrified unless proven otherwise!

[AlfaZagato]

Can you imagine, teak EMUs?

[BernardTPM]

Well, the Tyneside units in LNER days were red and cream, later blue and grey (wartime to make them less visible) before repainting in BR MU Green.

[Ravenser]

11 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Well, the Tyneside units in LNER days were red and cream, later blue and grey (wartime to make them less visible) before repainting in BR MU Green.

 

 

I think they were much closer to the streamliner stock /garter blue than to BR Corporate image

 

I do think there is potential for an "imaginary railway" layout scenario featuring an unnationalised electrified 1500V LNER c1950. We know which bits of the LNER Southern area might have been electrified, we know what the EMUs would have looked like, we know the liveries ..  

 

If we take your list of types from the 1931 study:

Quote

35 2,400hp 2D2 express passenger locomotives

193 1,200hp Bo-Bo goods locomotives

28 1,800hp Co-Co goods locomotives

42 1,800hp Co-Co mixed traffic locomotives, of which 14 to have electrically-fired boilers for train heat

138 720hp Bo-Bo shunting locomotives

258 three-car EMUs

 

The first is the ex NER electric (can be covered EM2), the second the EF1/EB1 Shildon Newport electrics, three and four are EM1, six is Classes 506/306 and only the shunters /trip freight locos are unclear 

[Ravenser]

45 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Can you imagine, teak EMUs?

 

 

On the whole it's just as well the new LNER Azuima's have not been put into LNER livery...  Teak vinyl EMUs 

[Suzie]

1 minute ago, Ravenser said:

...only the shunters /trip freight locos are unclear 

 

Triang steeple cabs?