Imaginary Locomotives

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

What is even more interesting is that if the GCR had built the proposed 2-6-0 (drawing included) it could have served the West Highland route, probably better than the K4's, as it's larger wheels would have allowed faster running 

 

When the West Highland line was opened in 1894, speed was restricted to 25 mph. It's much higher nowadays (70 mph, presumably with restrictions) but was the speed limit raised in steam days?

[Traintresta]

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

They had problems with the P2's with regard to cracked frames thats why Thompson converted them to pacifics. That may well be the reason that the 2-8-0's were dropped. My own personal opinion is that the P2's should have been transferred south to haul the heavy wartime trains (20 coaches) on the ECML.

 

All the book references I have indicate it was length and weight that were the real factors for the proposed West Highland 2-8-0's.  As for the P2's, it's a real shame they weren't re-deployed to where they could have been most useful, but it's also a shame that Bullied couldn't convince Gresley to use the Krauss-Helmholtz bogie on it to ease this issue.

 

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

When the West Highland line was opened in 1894, speed was restricted to 25 mph. It's much higher nowadays (70 mph, presumably with restrictions) but was the speed limit raised in steam days?

 

The K4's weren't able to attaint he same speeds that the K3's were on the flatter sections nearer to Glasgow, this was the only drawback with the K4 on the West Highland line but was a result of using smaller driving wheels for greater traction.  Hence the proposed GCR 2-6-0 might have been a suitable solution if it was as close to the drawing as possible.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Traintresta

[billbedford]

8 hours ago, Traintresta said:

What is even more interesting is that if the GCR had built the proposed 2-6-0 (drawing included) it could have served the West Highland route, probably better than the K4's, as it's larger wheels would have allowed faster running but it could have been as powerful as a K3, and it would have had a similar weight.  In the drawing attached, the maximum axle weight is the same as that of a K3, but overall weight is less so it would have been feasible.

 

The Robinson 2-6-0 was part of a standardisation plan proposed by the Association of Locomotive Engineers during WW1 which followed on from a similar scheme instigated on Indian Railways. 

[whart57]

10 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

The Robinson 2-6-0 was part of a standardisation plan proposed by the Association of Locomotive Engineers during WW1 which followed on from a similar scheme instigated on Indian Railways. 

 

Yet it was the Maunsell mogul chosen to be built at Woolwich in order to wind down those works slowly after the war

[JimC]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Yet it was the Maunsell mogul chosen to be built at Woolwich in order to wind down those works slowly after the war

Mmm. Well the ARLE committee was a committee. Hence it took considerable time to reach an agreement - indeed I believe it never did. But the Maunsell wasn't a mile from the consensus, and all the drawings already existed for it. Getting the committee to finalise a design and getting all the drawings prepared would surely have been some months more.

[whart57]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

Mmm. Well the ARLE committee was a committee. Hence it took considerable time to reach an agreement - indeed I believe it never did. But the Maunsell wasn't a mile from the consensus, and all the drawings already existed for it. Getting the committee to finalise a design and getting all the drawings prepared would surely have been some months more.

 

The fact the SECR had borne the brunt of WW1 transportation on account of it having the major Channel ports on its patch, its locos were worn out and they were borrowing locos from other companies might have been a consideration too. The SECR could hardly refuse to buy locos designed by its own CME on technical grounds. (Though they did find other reasons)

[brack]

Which modern loco designs were available, tested, fit the brief and would fit most railways loading gauge?

 

Once you've worked that out, the N class might be the only one left*, additionally the fact that plans, patterns, tooling and men experienced in building them were available a very short distance away would probably tip the balance. The ARLE process was a good idea for producing new designs for railways to take off the shelf, but if a design already existed which fulfilled all the criteria, producing a new one seems superfluous.

 

*Whilst the 43xx was very good, it is well known that the n class was an attempt at improving the design, so choosing the older version as standard would seem strange. Plus outside walschaerts valve gear is a definite advantage.

[11ty12]

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned; I have sullied the excellence that is the Midland Railway Lickey Banker to create the world’s first 0-10-8-0

[DenysW]

The response from your (imaginary) crew may be the same for as the Wath Banker: 'Twice the work, same sodding pay'.

 

You'd be kinder to them if you put the steams bits of the tender drive at the far end of it: Sturrocks steam-tenders were beyond toasty-warm in the cab.

 

Other than that - lets have a class of 5!

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned; I have sullied the excellence that is the Midland Railway Lickey Banker to create the world’s first 0-10-8-0

 

Nah. The answer you're looking for is two Lickey bankers.

 

What was the question?

[DenysW]

The Lickey Banker was (part of) the answer when the driver tooted twice or more. This would be (part of)  the answer when he tooted three times or more.

[whart57]

4 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

Forgive me Father, for I have sinned; I have sullied the excellence that is the Midland Railway Lickey Banker to create the world’s first 0-10-8-0

Aaaaarrrghh!  If that is the answer then some serious excavation south of Birmingham to reduce the incline is a better one.

[Miss Prism]

5 hours ago, 11ty12 said:

 

The tender looks severely unbalanced, but more importantly, if the axle weight over the 10-coupled bit is significantly different to the axle weight over the 8-coupled bit, the loco will be a failure, as one or the other sections will slip under load.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Miss Prism
typo

[DenysW]

Quote

Whart57 said: "Aaaaarrrghh!  If that is the answer then some serious excavation south of Birmingham to reduce the incline is a better one."

A six-mile tunnel to get to a 1:100 slope. A quick look at the OS map reveals that there wasn't an obvious answer that Locke missed when he reviewed the B&G's proposals before this was built.

 

Or a time machine, and dualling the Redditch Branch to Ashford and tolerating its 1:75 gradients

[john new]

More for the imaginary railways thread but the last two or three posts have made think of the (fictitious) Bromsgrove spiral, a là Poschiavo on the Bernina line.

[whart57]

20 minutes ago, DenysW said:

A six-mile tunnel to get to a 1:100 slope

 

Whatever it takes

[Traintresta]

On 09/01/2022 at 11:54, whart57 said:

 

The fact the SECR had borne the brunt of WW1 transportation on account of it having the major Channel ports on its patch, its locos were worn out and they were borrowing locos from other companies might have been a consideration too. The SECR could hardly refuse to buy locos designed by its own CME on technical grounds. (Though they did find other reasons)

Cost for a start!  When the government sold the parts off cheap they still weren't much of a bargain either.

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, DenysW said:

A six-mile tunnel to get to a 1:100 slope. A quick look at the OS map reveals that there wasn't an obvious answer that Locke missed when he reviewed the B&G's proposals before this was built.

 

Not Locke but W.S. Moorsom, whose brother, C.R. Moorsom, was secretary to the company. But both had worked on the London & Birmingham - so in Robert Stephenson's orbit rather than Locke's. C.R. Moorsom ended up as chairman of the LNWR. They're an interesting pair.

 

Brunel's proposed route - rejected on the score of expense - had no gradient steeper than 1:300. I've never seen a map but I suppose it must have been a long way round!

 

EDIT: Up the Warwickshire Avon to join the L&B at Coventry, or up the Worcestershire Stour to join the GJR near Wolverhampton?

Edited January 11, 2022 by Compound2632

[brack]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

Cost for a start!  When the government sold the parts off cheap they still weren't much of a bargain either.

If the Midland Great Western Railway could afford to buy them, then they were remarkably cheap! You're talking about a railway than mostly ran superannuated 6 wheel coaches (as did its successor GSR and CIE) and 30-40 yr old 240s. Their main line passenger power in the 20s was a bunch of 440s rebuilt 20 years earlier from 1880s 240s.

 

The average price paid by the MGWR was £2200 per loco for their kits. Given that Woolwich had bought the boilers in at a cost of £3375 apiece 3 years earlier, then made all the wheels, cylinders, frames and other bits themselves, they were incredibly cheap for what they were.

 

I imagine other lines didn't want them as they weren't their design (CME pride), they were financially up the creek post ww1 (and indeed may have had other priorities than locos to fix - infrastructure and maintenance had taken a hammering), and had their own works and men (which they had to pay regardless) to keep busy. Hence the buyers were either the SECR/Southern, or smaller concerns with less prideful CMEs and smaller design/works departments - the Met and MGWR. The GSR looked at the new MGWR moguls they'd just inherited in the merger, then the price tag, and promptly bought another batch.

 

The southern bought way more kits than they needed, then worked out what else they could make out of them - that suggests a good deal to me. Additionally they picked up the spare pony truck bits on the cheap and used them to rebuild E1s.

[DenysW]

Locke was asked to review Moorsom's design - possibly knowing that Locke detested lines that rose gently to a hugely expensive tunnel though the highest ridge. It is alleged that Moorsom's contract meant he wouldn't be paid if it his estimate wasn't affordable on capital. Neither Stephenson's nor Brunel's was affordable.

 

Result: Banking locomotives until approximately the 1990s. Maybe not so right.

 

It also explains the bypassing of Worcester. It costs more to go through a built-up area.

[PhilJ W]

The Metropolitan also purchased four of the 'Woolwich' engines and built them as 2-6-4T's for handling heavy freight.

Edited January 12, 2022 by PhilJ W

[tythatguy1312]

...only to lose them to the LNER due to politics on the underground, but they were brilliant. Not that the LNER Needed them, as they'd already had plenty of time testing the "close enough" Chatham K's

[PhilJ W]

The Metropolitan was dragged kicking and screaming into London Transport. The point is that they fancied themselves as a main line company, in which case they should have been taken in to the LNER at the grouping.

[tythatguy1312]

44 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The Metropolitan was dragged kicking and screaming into London Transport. The point is that they fancied themselves as a main line company, in which case they should have been taken in to the LNER at the grouping.

which is how they got ripped in 2 by a weary LT in the 1940's... somehow.

[PhilJ W]

11 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

which is how they got ripped in 2 by a weary LT in the 1940's... somehow.

It was a bit earlier than the 1940's, 1936-38 IIRC.