Imaginary Locomotives

[Gibbo675]

39 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Actually all those are true except the burrowing vermin and damaging earthworks.  Rabbits will happily burrow in almost any soil and don't need trees to do it.  Tree roots bind soil to prevent landslips, think of them as a lattice structure binding through a loose solid.  The skill is planting the right trees with a good root structure, which don't grow too tall, don't shed their leaves and sufficient distance from the track.

Hi Northmoor,

 

Rabbits did for the great big embankment on the Western Mainline near Bristol until it was pumped full of concrete.

 

Gibbo.

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

So was there ever a class 51?

Not that I'm aware of, but both 50 and 52 were 2700 hp, so the next number above 52 (i.e. more installed hp) is 53. Fortunately 54 was empty as well so Falcon can shift to that without clashing with 55, but keeping the proper TOPS sequence.

 

50        52      53*    54**   55

2700   2700  2750  2800  3300

 

* GT3  ** Falcon

 

Alternatively move the Western down to 51, GT3 can then be 52 and Falcon still 53.

Edited April 20, 2020 by BernardTPM

[Trog]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Actually all those are true except the burrowing vermin and damaging earthworks.  Rabbits will happily burrow in almost any soil and don't need trees to do it.  Tree roots bind soil to prevent landslips, think of them as a lattice structure binding through a loose solid.  The skill is planting the right trees with a good root structure, which don't grow too tall, don't shed their leaves and sufficient distance from the track.

 

Properly built embankments don't need tree roots to hold them together quite the opposite, all they need is a nice layer of grass to hold the surface in place.  Grow a tree and it shades out the grass, without grass the surface of the ground dries out, and is easily blown or washed away. Trees also provide cover for burrowing vermin, which both remove the surface layer and dig deeper into the ground causing subsidence. Trees in windy weather pull on their roots putting an un-necessary stress on the soil making up the structure. In the summer trees suck moisture out of the ground, and banks can often be seen with a dip in the track top beside each tree. I repeat trees are a menace and have no place on the lineside.  

[scots region]

3 hours ago, Corbs said:

@scots region are you going to buy Silver Fox's entire stock of GT3 bodies when the new RTR version comes out?

 

Well if your not....

 

Actually what was GT3 fuel consumption like? Data seems a little thin on the ground (by which I mean I'm lazy, and just want someone else to make it easy for me) 

[Flying Pig]

48 minutes ago, scots region said:

Actually what was GT3 fuel consumption like? Data seems a little thin on the ground (by which I mean I'm lazy, and just want someone else to make it easy for me) 

 

Less than a rundown Claughton, as noted above

 

1 hour ago, Trog said:

Trees also provide cover for burrowing vermin,

 

Lovely old tree.  Do ee mean a burrowin' owl in the 'ole, or perraps a slitherin' thing?

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

Not that I'm aware of, but both 50 and 52 were 2700 hp, so the next number above 52 (i.e. more installed hp) is 53. Fortunately 54 was empty as well so Falcon can shift to that without clashing with 55, but keeping the proper TOPS sequence.

 

50        52      53*    54**   55

2700   2700  2750  2800  3300

 

* GT3  ** Falcon

 

Alternatively move the Western down to 51, GT3 can then be 52 and Falcon still 53.

So, if what was to become 47's hadn't been de-rated, would they have become class 50? Would the EE product then have become class 51, and is that why the Westerns were class 52, not class 51?

Or would 47's have become class 52, with Westerns and EE type 5's being 50 & 51 respectively?

Edited April 21, 2020 by rodent279

[runs as required]

11 hours ago, Trog said:

 

Planting trees on the lineside would be madness the things are a menace, Damaging earthworks, dropping leaves on the line, harbouring burrowing vermin, then falling onto the track. The tallest thing grown on the lineside should be grass.

 

I so agree, but have you ever taken a train ride in Finland (or even somewhere like the freight-only line from Peak Forest to Buxton on a supposedly scenic charter) in summer?  It's tediously boring.

 

As for boring vermin - I was pondering something like, I recall, being experimented by with NS  (and used for long stretches of the new HS by the FS) a kind of Bailey bridge type pre fabricated length of track (with integral OHL ) spanning between point set piled columns.

Electric traction anyway should be able to be able to climb and descend terrain far more responsively  (tram route 25 in Lisbon is the most the most extreme adhesion I can think of) .  

I'd like to think a bit more about materials (probably composite) but problems of settlement would not be a direct issue. 

 

Problems of noise everywhere in urban and urbanising areas would will be huge  - more easily responded to with by some "clip on" lengths of visual and sound defect extrusion on the structures above.

 

Its an interesting Challenge!

dh

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by runs as required

[BernardTPM]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So, if what was to become 47's hadn't been de-rated, would they have become class 50? Would the EE product then have become class 51, and is that why the Westerns were class 52, not class 51?

Or would 47's have become class 52, with Westerns and EE type 5's being 50 & 51 respectively?

Basically TOPS allowed a fresh start for classification so the classes were neatly arranged in ascending order of installed horsepower. This would have been done some time around 1966-67, though didn't appear in any form before 1968 when TOPS data panels started to be applied (actual renumbering of individual locomotives didn't take place until the 1970s). As far as Type 4s are concerned, if the Brush type 4s had been left at 2750 hp they would have been one place higher than Westerns. Speculative, but the logical order would have been:

EE type 4 (1Co-C01), Warship NBL (A1A-A1A)*, Warship Swindon, Warship NBL (B-B), Peaks**, Derby type 4 (Crompton), Derby type 4 (Brush), Brush type 4 (V engine), EE type 4 (Co-Co), Western, Brush type 4, Falcon.

40 to 46 would be unaltered. 47 would be the V engined Brush type 4 of 2650hp that became 48, but here are less powerful than the standard machines assuming those were left at the original figure of 2750hp. The remaining locos are almost in the same order as they actually were except for the Brush type 4. Class numbers still available run from 48-54. so I would suggest the last four could still be given classes 50-53, but with the Westerns Class 51 and the fully rated Brush type 4s Class 52.

Of course, if you throw a 2750hp GT3 into the mix then it would probably fit in just before the Brush type 4 as tractive effort is less.

 

That's one of the problems with altering history - the ripple effects!

 

 

* Some say these were never counted in the TOPS scheme, but since the last wasn't withdrawn until 30/12/'67 it seems likely that the last few were in service when TOPS was being formulated. The class number was reused in 1972 for the prototype HST power cars.

** D1-D10, the only ones actually names after 'peaks'.

Edited April 21, 2020 by BernardTPM

[rodent279]

7 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Basically TOPS allowed a fresh start for classification so the classes were neatly arranged in ascending order of installed horsepower. This would have been done some time around 1966-67, though didn't appear in any form before 1968 when TOPS data panels started to be applied (actual renumbering of individual locomotives didn't take place until the 1970s). As far as Type 4s are concerned, if the Brush type 4s had been left at 2750 hp they would have been one place higher than Westerns. Speculative, but the logical order would have been:

EE type 4 (1Co-C01), Warship NBL (A1A-A1A)*, Warship Swindon, Warship NBL (B-B), Peaks**, Derby type 4 (Crompton), Derby type 4 (Brush), Brush type 4 (V engine), EE type 4 (Co-Co), Western, Brush type 4, Falcon.

40 to 46 would be unaltered. 47 would be the V engined Brush type 4 of 2650hp that became 48, but here are less powerful than the standard machines assuming those were left at the original figure of 2750hp. The remaining locos are almost in the same order as they actually were except for the Brush type 4. Class numbers still available run from 48-54. so I would suggest the last four could still be given classes 50-53, but with the Westerns Class 51 and the fully rated Brush type 4s Class 52.

Of course, if you throw a 2750hp GT3 into the mix then it would probably fit in just before the Brush type 4 as tractive effort is less.

 

That's one of the problems with altering history - the ripple effects!

 

 

* Some say these were never counted in the TOPS scheme, but since the last wasn't withdrawn until 30/12/'67 it seems likely that the last few were in service when TOPS was being formulated. The class number was reused in 1972 for the prototype HST power cars.

** D1-D10, the only ones actually names after 'peaks'.

Which explains why the V-engined Brush type 4's became class 48, when at 2650BHP they were more powerful than the derated twin-bank version.

Did any actually carry class 48 TOPS data panels? And did any Brush type 2's carry class 30 data panels, before re-engining?

[BernardTPM]

It's quite possible the data panels could have been carried on both Class 30 and 48 as they were applied from the latter part of 1968 and the re-engine programmes were completed in 1969 and 1971 respectively, but before the actual TOPS numbers were applied, of course.

 

I was thinking about the gap (49) and it occurred to me that effectively 2700hp and above locos were all given low 50s numbers. The only true BR Type 5 of the time started halfway at 55. While Kestrel was never a BR loco, speculatively it could have been a Class 56...

Edited April 21, 2020 by BernardTPM

[The Johnster]

19 hours ago, rodent279 said:

So was there ever a class 51?

Lion?

[BernardTPM]

Withdrawn in 1964 and scrapped in 1965. Very short lived so probably not accounted for in TOPS. The engine went into a production Brush type 4 I believe.

[PhilJ W]

DP2 was to all intents and purposes a class 50.

 

[BernardTPM]

Class 51 possibly could have been DP2 as it was still in service until the crash in July 1967. It also had a slightly higher Tractive Effort than the Class 50, even though the engne was basically the same (and same installed hp). I think that may be the missing piece.

[Northmoor]

14 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Class 51 possibly could have been DP2 as it was still in service until the crash in July 1967. It also had a slightly higher Tractive Effort than the Class 50, even though the engne was basically the same (and same installed hp). I think that may be the missing piece.

Then DP2 would probably have been 50101.  Just like the 90s were originally going to be 87/2s, although they are significantly different externally.

[rodent279]

23 hours ago, scots region said:

 

Well if your not....

 

Actually what was GT3 fuel consumption like? Data seems a little thin on the ground (by which I mean I'm lazy, and just want someone else to make it easy for me) 

According to "Prototype Locomotives", by Robert Tufnell, on test GT3 achieved :-

0.7lb/hp-hr at full load (55mph)

0.95lb/hp-hr at half load (40mph)

1.33lb/hp-hr at ¼ load (35mph)

It also states that problems with overheating of the turbine blade tips necessitated them being shortened, which meant maximum speed was reduced to 7700rpm, from 8250rpm. This reduced turbine power output to 2190hp, from 2700hp and wheel rim output to just under 2000hp. So although GT3 was nominally a Type 5, in reality it was a Type 4, making it class 49?

[runs as required]

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

DP2 was to all intents and purposes a class 50.

 

 

3 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

DP2 was to all intents and purposes a class 50.

 

And a lot more handsome than the raw looking 50s

[scots region]

44 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

According to "Prototype Locomotives", by Robert Tufnell, on test GT3 achieved :-

0.7lb/hp-hr at full load (55mph)

0.95lb/hp-hr at half load (40mph)

1.33lb/hp-hr at ¼ load (35mph)

It also states that problems with overheating of the turbine blade tips necessitated them being shortened, which meant maximum speed was reduced to 7700rpm, from 8250rpm. This reduced turbine power output to 2190hp, from 2700hp and wheel rim output to just under 2000hp. So although GT3 was nominally a Type 5, in reality it was a Type 4, making it class 49?

 

So a real gas guzzler at low speed? 

[BernardTPM]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Then DP2 would probably have been 50101.  Just like the 90s were originally going to be 87/2s, although they are significantly different externally.

I don't think you can compare what they proposed in the late 1980s with what happened 20 years earlier in terms of TOPS numbering. As it was the 87/2 numbering never happened anyway. Besides that there were numerous technical differences between DP2 and the 50s e.g. slow speed control for MGR working. They were about 10 tons heavier too.

 

Interestingly the Ian Allen abc combined volume for 1971 has some 'surprising' TOPS classes like 33/3, which are the 33/2s - the standard locos are given Class 33/1 i.e. there was no 33/0. Was this an error by Ian Allan or did the original TOPS sub classes started at xx/1? (that would be consistent with individual Class loco numbers starting at 001). I don't have enough reference material to find out.

Edited April 22, 2020 by BernardTPM

[BernardTPM]

54 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

According to "Prototype Locomotives", by Robert Tufnell, on test GT3 achieved :-

0.7lb/hp-hr at full load (55mph)

0.95lb/hp-hr at half load (40mph)

1.33lb/hp-hr at ¼ load (35mph)

It also states that problems with overheating of the turbine blade tips necessitated them being shortened, which meant maximum speed was reduced to 7700rpm, from 8250rpm. This reduced turbine power output to 2190hp, from 2700hp and wheel rim output to just under 2000hp. So although GT3 was nominally a Type 5, in reality it was a Type 4, making it class 49?

Just 2190 hp would rate it below the later Warships and Derby type 4s - more like Class 42 (with what were called 42 to 48 all shifted up one to become 43 to 49).

Edited April 21, 2020 by BernardTPM

[Northmoor]

28 minutes ago, scots region said:

 

So a real gas guzzler at low speed? 

Yes, that's how gas turbines work; they are most efficient at or near maximum power.  Which is why they are generally unsuited to rail applications but highly suited to aircraft.

[Flying Pig]

15 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

Just 2190 hp would rate it below the later Warships and Derby type 4s - more like Class 42 (with what were called 42 to 48 all shifted up one to become 43 to 49).

 

I believe EE offered 2400hp for the production series type 4s, which BR declined.  Had that gone ahead the 40s would have sat between the pilot scheme Peaks and the 45/46s in terms of installed power.

 

 

[runs as required]

The only gas turbine traction I ever rode were the SNCF units that ran on the Paris /Caen/Cherbourg line.

They were short lived due, I understood,, for being suddenly uneconomic due to their excessive fuel consumption after that first OPEC price increase in 1973. They were publicised as Jet trains, and were as noisy!

 

As regards GT3, I can still remember the incredulity of the 'Industrial Design' brigade at such a deliberately anti-modern 'retro' project. Not least as it seemed they were intended for the WCML which was so proud of its 'ultimate' E3000s (and where so many incidents had poor forward vision as a contributory factor).

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by runs as required
forgot the SNCF GT noise issue

[rodent279]

I rode on an SNCF gas turbine unit once, they also ran to Calais for a while. They had a fairly reasonable life, this was in 1983. They lasted until the early 2000's, finishing up on cross country services in the South. Don't remember much about what they sounded like, but I remember the interior and the ride being similar to an HST.

Edited April 22, 2020 by rodent279

[rodent279]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I believe EE offered 2400hp for the production series type 4s, which BR declined.  Had that gone ahead the 40s would have sat between the pilot scheme Peaks and the 45/46s in terms of installed power.

 

 

Wasn't a 40 found to have been uprated, and running at something well over 2000hp, when it entered preservation, either deliberately or accidentally? I'm sure I remember reading about that sometime.

 

Edit- I may have been thinking about a hydraulic, possibly a Hymek.

Edited April 22, 2020 by rodent279