Imaginary Locomotives

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, BernardTPM said:

And now, in colour.

 

 

 

Looks nothing like Derby/Sulzer Bo-Bo D5000.

                            

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Just needs the Mars/DP1 style headlight somehow incorporated with the doors now  I like it.

[BernardTPM]

On 08/05/2021 at 16:10, Clive Mortimore said:

Looks nothing like Derby/Sulzer Bo-Bo D5000.

                            

In this alternative universe there's no such thing as a Derby/Sulzer...😈

 

Thought: the B12s were built in Canada (London, Ontario) so a UK version like this possibly could have benefitted from Commonwealth preference terms and would perhaps be politically more acceptable than if they were built in the US.

Edited August 17, 2023 by BernardTPM

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

One unusual feature of the Class 40 is a water scoop for use with the old steam water troughs so that the steam heating boiler could be replenished on the move. There are photos of them in use, but it was another feature that probably added weight. Then again was it to save carrying the extra water around? - discuss.

I suspect the lower nose and three window arrangement was EE's own, possibly as a result of experience with the prototype Deltic where the export style squarer nose and two window arragement gave very squat windows because of the roof curvature. By rounding the nose more the windows could be deeper. Each outer window only needed one windscreen wiper instead of two (and the middle window was just there to let light in), possibly a factor too. A different 3 window design was used for New Zealand.

TTBOMK, the water scoop fitted 40s were the initial LMR batch, including the ocean liner namers, for use on the Royal Scot, Midday Scot, and Caledonian non-stop Euston-Glasgow trains.  These actually stopped briefly at Carlisle Upperby for crew change, but there was no facility on the main running lines there for topping up water tanks and no time anyway.  The earlier GE section locos and later examples did not have them. 

 

I had one, sorry can't recall the number now but not a namer, once on the 03.15 Cardiff (Long Dyke) Carlisle, 7M49, and a regular link job to Hereford for relief.  It was normally booked for a 47 which we took off shed from Canton, me acting secondman, but on this occasion (about '72 or3) the train was waiting for us with the loco attached at Long Dyke and we were taken out to the yard in the shed minibus.  The sight and sound of a whistler made no impact on my driver, who thought it was a 37, and when I pointed out that it wasn't, he didn't initially believe me until I pointed out the water scoop wheel and the tank gauge on the cab rear wall.  Even then he was unimpressed and clearly regarded it as none of the Traffic Department's business, which it wasn't, so I gave him the load and let him get on with it feeling that I'd done as much as might be expected of me (Canton men did not sign traction on 40s), and kept my opinion of him to myself; there were, of course, no problems and we were within the load and brake force for a 40 over the Hereford road (I'd checked in the load book!)..

 

It was, I remember, a warm summer night conducive to spending time out on the van balcony, enjoying that lovely noise!  Hereford did sign traction on 40s, so there was no bother when he was relieved.  The 40s were overweight and underpowered, but there was no denying that they had a solid and impressive 'presence'.  The cab, so far as I could see, was identical to a 37's apart from the scoop equipment.

 

Forward visibility from the cab was not the stronges point of these 3-window nosed designs, or probably the Deltic either.  You had to peer over the bottom corner of the side windows and if you were of shorter stature had to raise the seat to the extent that it was tiring to see out properly and apply pressure to the deadman's pedal at the same time.  It was, of course, better than on large boilered steam which was acceptable at the time, but the better view from a 47, 35, or even a Warship's cab was noticeable.  The 24s and early 25s with gangways were not much better, but the BRCW and Brush Mirrlees Type 2s showed that you could have good forward visibility and a gangway.

[The Johnster]

25 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Looks nothing like Derby/Sulzer Bo-Bo D5000.

                            

 

Would have ridden a lot better, though.  The Derby Sulzer Type 2s were appalling things, awful ride, draughty, noisy, couldn't pull the skin off the milk, and had a nasty habit of triggering the deadman's and trying to wrap guards around their stove pipes.  Rubbish.

[Flying Pig]

2 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

And now, in colour.

 

 

 

 

Nicely done, but I can't say I like the look of it much.  It looks like one of the LMS twins unwisely crossed with something from North British and a Leyland Fleetline.

[BernardTPM]

Agreed it's nothing special visually, but it would have been a simple development, using standard equipment they were already making which should have given it a sound base.

Of course, I could wrap the mechanical parts up in a Wilkes & Ashmore or DRU syle body as a 'second generation' version.

[rodent279]

I think it's very plausible, especially given the Canadian connection. Why GM didn't think of that I don't know. I still say it's reminiscent of the Irish GM's, 071 class etc.

Would be interesting to knock together a model and run it on a layout, and see if anyone notices!

[rodent279]

52 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Forward visibility from the cab was not the strongest point of these 3-window nosed designs, or probably the Deltic either. 

I wonder if the greater height and shorter bonnet on the F units made forward visibility a bit better?

[John Besley]

20 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The F-M vertically apposed engines would have been to tall for the BR loading gauge. They were however adopted by the Soviets, because they had a higher loading gauge. Enjoy.

 

 

They look like something from Mad Max...

[Flying Pig]

18 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if the greater height and shorter bonnet on the F units made forward visibility a bit better?

 

Greater height would actually make things worse as more of the track immediately in front of the loco would be hidden. In the drawings I can find online (here) the nose doesn't look particularly, but it is much more rounded than the EE designs which may have improved sightlines.

[John Besley]

On 07/05/2021 at 23:12, Clive Mortimore said:

The F-M vertically apposed engines would have been to tall for the BR loading gauge. They were however adopted by the Soviets, because they had a higher loading gauge. Enjoy.

 

 

Look at some of the other videos of these and you wonder if these are actually coal fired ... 

[The Johnster]

20 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if the greater height and shorter bonnet on the F units made forward visibility a bit better?

I'm sure it did, along with a very high cab floor.

[Ramblin Rich]

20 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I wonder if the greater height and shorter bonnet on the F units made forward visibility a bit better?

 

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Greater height would actually make things worse as more of the track immediately in front of the loco would be hidden. In the drawings I can find online (here) the nose doesn't look particularly, but it is much more rounded than the EE designs which may have improved sightlines.

It's interesting too that there doesn't seem to be much actually within the noses on the drawings - the blowers and air tanks are under the cab floors. So the noses seem to be decorative only & could be curved as much as desired. I wonder if they were intended as a 'crush zone' in event of accidents?

Going the other way, a clone to BR loading gauge could use the nose for equipment to lower the cab floor ...

[ScottishRailFanatic]

Meanwhile, here's a possible candidate for the Type 1/shunter role - this locomotive was being sold in Japan by Kanto Rail recently and has been given a Hunslet-esque makeover.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

clone to BR loading gauge could use the nose for equipment to lower the cab floor ...

Cab floors were raised on 1955 Plan locos, and one had to step down into the nose to get at stuff in there, a feature continued on the 37s, 45s, and 46s which were not strictly Plan locos.

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, ScottishRailFanatic said:

Meanwhile, here's a possible candidate for the Type 1/shunter role - this locomotive was being sold in Japan by Kanto Rail recently and has been given a Hunslet-esque makeover.

I take it its 3' 6" gauge.

[Cunningham Loco & Machine Works]

9 hours ago, Ramblin Rich said:

 

It's interesting too that there doesn't seem to be much actually within the noses on the drawings - the blowers and air tanks are under the cab floors. So the noses seem to be decorative only & could be curved as much as desired. I wonder if they were intended as a 'crush zone' in event of accidents?

Going the other way, a clone to BR loading gauge could use the nose for equipment to lower the cab floor ...

From my understanding, the nose was and is intended to protect the engine crew in case of accident.

[AlfaZagato]

On 07/05/2021 at 17:12, Clive Mortimore said:

The F-M vertically apposed engines would have been to tall for the BR loading gauge. They were however adopted by the Soviets, because they had a higher loading gauge. Enjoy.

 

 

I don't know that you approached my second point.   Could a drop-center frame have allowed for the height?   Is a drop-center frame practical for a diesel locomotive?   Is the height issue considered only from application via 'normal' prime mover installation, i.e. support underneath the motor, vs. an automotive-style installation suspended above the oil pan?

[Hroth]

19 hours ago, John Besley said:

Look at some of the other videos of these and you wonder if these are actually coal fired ... 

 

Perhaps a Soviet spy had nicked Bulleids plans when he was developing the "Leader" class?

 

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

I don't know that you approached my second point.   Could a drop-center frame have allowed for the height?   Is a drop-center frame practical for a diesel locomotive?   Is the height issue considered only from application via 'normal' prime mover installation, i.e. support underneath the motor, vs. an automotive-style installation suspended above the oil pan?

Where do you put the fuel tanks, water tanks, batteries etc without making the loco longer and heavier?

[Northmoor]

41 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Where do you put the fuel tanks, water tanks, batteries etc without making the loco longer and heavier?

Also, all those things are, like the engine, heavy and you don't want to position that weight any higher than you have to, or else the riding characteristics can become, err, "interesting".

[BernardTPM]

You wouldn't necessarily need to drop the frame. The base of a diesel engine isn't that wide so it would be slung between frame girders in much the same was as this transformer wagon.

[AlfaZagato]

For a single-prime locomotive, you could mount tanks under the generator.   Given the narrowness of the F-M motor, batteries could be mounted either side of the motor.

[PhilJ W]

The Deltics were also opposed piston 2-strokes. They managed to fit two such engines in a locomotive and keep it within the British loading gauge.