Imaginary Locomotives

[sir douglas]

i would guess that; inside cylinders are kept cleaner withut muck on the rails being kicked up by the wheels and falling on the slidebars & crosshead, the stroke throw forces are kept between the frames making it stronger and its less likely to waddle, outside cylinders are much more likely to getting damaged in a rough enviroment with many derailments or collisons

[billbedford]

Outside cylindered locos, allowed drivers to be fatter...

[AlfaZagato]

Inside cylinders help with route availability - important with industrial or shunting locomotives.   Also, as Johnster stated, the Austerities were evolutionary, not revolutionary.   Probably a common part, with tooling to hand.

[The Johnster]

Don't know much about the USATC tanks, but the 15xx were well known for poor riding.  They had been intended as dock shunters for Avonmouth and the South Wales ports, but found their way on to the Old Oak ecs jobs because of their 'modern' appearance, and the 40-50 mph needed for this work was not something that allowed them to play to their strengths. 

 

You would have to ask someone who has fired both types in heritage service on passenger trains, but I would be very surprised if the answer was that the 15xx rode as well as the Austerity, and frankly amazed if it rode better.  Wheel diameter and wheelbase were in the same ballpark, as is the 08 incidentally, another spectacularly  bad rider even at its top speed of 15mph.  The 15xx was an excellent dock shunter, capable of working over curvature that had previously been the preserve of  4-coupled locos of much less power, or very small 6-coupled, with much heavier loads.

 

A story existed in my time at Canton in the 70s dating from Barry Docks during the war, when the US army was using the port to unload munitions from ships during the build up to (and for a while after) the Normandy landings, using their S100 tanks, which were sent to France after the beachhead was secured.  Some of the GIs doing the manual work were a bit scornful of the antiquated looking (to their eyes) 67xx that were doing the GW's dock shunting, one thing led to another, challenges were issued and accepted, and a competition was held to see which loco could haul the greatest load, in the dead of night away from the gaze of any officialdom that might have put a stop to the fun.  Despite all this, the matter was well known around the town, and pretty much everybody in Barry had a bet on, most backing the 67xx against the American bookies' odds, and of course cleaning them out when the it emerged as an easy winner!  I have no idea if any of this is true, but it would be nice if it was; several of my railway colleagues who were there at the time swore to it!

 

[JimC]

I was mulling over the 15xx in a blog post. There are some surprising dimensions. If only one could talk to the people who designed it and know what they were doing in detail. Here's a chart of some of the measurements of the 15 against vaguely comparable types. Do they altogether make sense when you look at it as a dedicated dock shunter? 

Weight: Why did they put such a big boiler on the 15xx? A P class boiler like the 57 would have been perfectly adequate for short distance shunting work. It was basically a bigger boiler than the ones on the Austerity and USA tanks. The big boilers on the GWR locomotives make sense when you consider their traffic duties.

 

Wheelbase: Its arguable whether the 15xx is in the same ballpark as the Austerity and 08 - 10% longer than 08, 25% longer than the USA. I have doubts about enthusiast second guessing on technical design matters, especially when its me(!) but I think there's a case to be made that the 15xx wheelbase was as long as it could be without having the locomotive fall on its nose because of the weight of the big cylinders. 

Its interesting that there's a known study of an outside cylinder 2-6-0PT with a P class boiler and 14'6 fixed wheelbase. I wonder if the longer and rear heavy (because tapered) Std10 boiler was chosen because it aided the weight distribution?
 

Edited February 26, 2022 by JimC

[Alex Neth]

On 06/02/2022 at 07:36, Johnson044 said:

Well - yes - not quite so Jacobean but still on-topic for this channel, I think. The GNofSR drawing office came up with a number of never-were locomotives that could inspire some wonderful models. 

On the topic of never-were locomotives, what are some other pre-grouping locos that never-were, or might have been "were"?

[DK123GWR]

12 minutes ago, Alex Neth said:

On the topic of never-were locomotives, what are some other pre-grouping locos that never-were, or might have been "were"?

A locomotive with a Standard No.1 boiler and 5ft 8inch driving wheels was apparently proposed in Churchward's day.

[Alex Neth]

1 hour ago, DK123GWR said:

A locomotive with a Standard No.1 boiler and 5ft 8inch driving wheels was apparently proposed in Churchward's day.

Could I have a drawing or a diagram of what you are talking about?

[Murican]

I was thinking lately about the LNER P1 Mikados.

 

Was there ever a way there could have been a viable Mikado goods counterpart to the A3 Pacifics? Say such a thing happened, would the LMS also try Mikados for important fast freights?

 

I personally am sticking to the idea of a Gresly 4-8-0, but I thought it was worth discussing anyway.

[john new]

15 minutes ago, Murican said:

..cut

 

Was there ever a way there could have been a viable Mikado goods counterpart to the A3 Pacifics? Say such a thing happened, would the LMS also try Mikados for important fast freights?

 

...cut

The P2 was their big 2-8-2 passenger engine, did you mean that? I ask as there was an A3 freight equivalent 2-8-2, the LNER built two P1s for freight which is the loco you actually mentioned. The problem as I understand it was the P1s were a good 'un if very coal hungry: problem they could pull too big/long a load for the available track layouts so were too big and powerful for the coal train freight jobs available. To mangle a proverb - wrong horse for the course (track)!

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by john new
For clarity and a typo correction.

[DK123GWR]

6 minutes ago, Alex Neth said:

Could I have a drawing or a diagram of what you are talking about?

Not from me. Of course, if you stick a Churchward cab on a Grange you'll probably have the general idea. The source cited by Wikipedia is volume 9 of the RCTS' The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway.

[tythatguy1312]

20 minutes ago, Murican said:

would the LMS also try Mikados for important fast freights?

They did consider a massive 4-8-2 so the idea of a 2-8-2 would've been thrown around, but I doubt it left the Idea phase.

[Alex Neth]

28 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

Not from me. Of course, if you stick a Churchward cab on a Grange you'll probably have the general idea. The source cited by Wikipedia is volume 9 of the RCTS' The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway.

Could you give me more details to work with? I don't think I'm getting the full picture.

[john new]

13 hours ago, Murican said:

I was thinking lately about the LNER P1 Mikados.

 

Was there ever a way there could have been a viable Mikado goods counterpart to the A3 Pacifics? Say such a thing happened, would the LMS also try Mikados for important fast freights?

 

I personally am sticking to the idea of a Gresley 4-8-0, but I thought it was worth discussing anyway.

Another key question of course is what fast freight existed that needed anything bigger than a pacific? 

• parcels - went behind smaller engines and/or was carried on existing pax services
• fish - the LNER ran that with swinger tail loads or with smaller engines in the K and V classes.
• the infamous Scotch Goods - could be handled by a pacific, with potential for speeds in excess of that which the existing wagon axle-boxes could cope with.

A bigger, longer, train would need to be stopped if necessary, braking power is more important than speed. If the companies had lengthened the trains they would still have hit the same problems as experienced with the long, slow goods trains, namely they would be too long for signalling sections and, where needed to be put aside, also too long for the loops. The GWR did have a need for fast freights and built the 47** 'Night-owls' for the job and they were 2-8-0s. Nothing much bigger was needed, BR had the 9F later.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by john new
Spotted a grammar error.

[Murican]

7 minutes ago, john new said:

Another key question of course is what fast freight existed that needed anything bigger than a pacific? 

• parcels - went behind smaller engines and/or was carried on existing pax services
• fish - the LNER ran that with swinger tail loads or with smaller engines in the K and V classes.
• the infamous Scotch Goods - could be handled by a pacific, with potential for speeds in excess of what the existing wagon axle-boxes could cope with.

A bigger, longer, train would need to be stopped if necessary, braking power is more important than speed. If the companies had lengthened the trains they would still have hit the same problems as experienced with the long-slow goods trains, namely they would be too long for signalling sections and, where needed to be put aside, also too long for the loops. The GWR did have a need for fast freights and built the 47** 'Night-owls' for the job and they were 2-8-0s. Nothing much bigger was needed, BR had the 9F later.

Understood. Thanks for the input.

 

That said though, what would have been a good evolution for GWR traction from the Night Owl? I know that Colliet built the 2884s, but those were more derived from the 2800s.

[john new]

7 minutes ago, Murican said:

Understood. Thanks for the input.

 

That said though, what would have been a good evolution for GWR traction from the Night Owl? I know that Colliet built the 2884s, but those were more derived from the 2800s.

A bit flippant but arguably they got it under BR(W) with the Westerns and Hymeks!

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by john new
Typos corrected

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Alex Neth said:

Could you give me more details to work with? I don't think I'm getting the full picture.

Something like this I expect. Grange with a 47xx cab (slightly *shortened* to my surprise), a tall safety valve cover, no fire iron tunnel and inside steam pipes. I've called her Salmon because Churchward was much keener on natural names than Collett's buildings, he was an outdoors type and he'd already used birds and flowers...

Edited February 28, 2022 by JimC

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Murican said:

That said though, what would have been a good evolution for GWR traction from the Night Owl? I know that Collett built the 2884s, but those were more derived from the 2800s.

Apparently when the running department wanted more 47s Collett decided to build Castles instead as being more versatile. But a Collett 47 is easy enough to imagine. Side window cab and fire iron tunnel!

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Alex Neth said:

Could I have a drawing or a diagram of what you are talking about?

Effectively a Grange, but with Churchward cab and running plate, and no top feed inititally.  In the event the 43xx were considered sufficient.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, JimC said:

Apparently when the running department wanted more 47s Collett decided to build Castles instead as being more versatile. But a Collett 47 is easy enough to imagine. Side window cab and fire iron tunnel!

 

This is the nub of the matter; the 47xx were too heavy for several of the GW's main lines, in particular the South Wales route where they could have been useful on the Milford Haven fish trains.  The usefulness of the designs may be illustrated by the numbers built, a lot more Castles!  The 47xx speciality was heavy overnight express goods, from Birkenhead or Plymouth, and the odd heavy excursion job. 

 

And, as is often brought out in this thread, there was really not much demand on UK railways for fast heavy freight trains that needed fast heavy freight locomotives, because the loads were limited by the length restriction that resulted from the size of passing loops or layby sidings and signalling safety overlaps.  Big passenger engines could do the work well enough, and the heaviest freight was slow enough to be capable of haulage by 8-coupled locos with sub-5' driving wheels.  8-coupled passenger locos were rare, and there was no need for extended A4 or Duchess 4-8-2s or 4-8-4s, or 4-8-0 enlarged Kings.  Even that great red herring the Mattingley Pacific never got past the GA drawing stage; there was no WR work that justified it.

[JimC]

I enjoyed doing the "Churchward Grange" more than I expected and couldn't resist doing some more work on it, and have produced two versions, one pre war and the other post WW1.
For pre war I've removed the raised foot plate over the cylinders and replaced it with a cover as per Churchward 42xx. Its imagined to have been built in 1906/7, so short cone boiler, not superheated, no top feed, no Holcroft curves etc, and carries a 3 digit number as per other Churchward prototypes. I also picked a fish name nearer the beginning of the alphabet.

 

This imagines the class introduced post war, alongside the 47xx which it has much in common with and hence the number 4800 which would have been the logical next series. The running plate is slightly higher, the same as the 47xx, so no cover over the cylinders. If successful these would surely have been built instead of Halls and perhaps also instead of the later lots of 43xx too, so one can imagine it being an exceedingly numerous class..

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by JimC
I put the tenders back on the rails!

[rodent279]

12 minutes ago, JimC said:

I enjoyed doing the "Churchward Grange" more than I expected and couldn't resist doing some more work on it, and have produced two versions, one pre war and the other post WW1.
For pre war I've removed the raised foot plate over the cylinders and replaced it with a cover as per Churchward 42xx. Its imagined to have been built in 1906/7, so short cone boiler, not superheated, no top feed, no Holcroft curves etc, and carries a 3 digit number as per other Churchward prototypes. I also picked a fish name nearer the beginning of the alphabet.

 

This imagines the class introduced post war, alongside the 47xx which it has much in common with and hence the number 4800 which would have been the logical next series. The running plate is slightly higher, the same as the 47xx, so no cover over the cylinders. If successful these would surely have been built instead of Halls and perhaps also instead of the later lots of 43xx too, so one can imagine it being an exceedingly numerous class..

 

Would a 47xx boiler (Std no.7?) fit on it?

(I guess the weight would preclude it from going anywhere far from Swindon though!)

[JimC]

3 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Would a 47xx boiler (Std no.7?) fit on it?

(I guess the weight would preclude it from going anywhere far from Swindon though!)

A Castle boiler would be a better bet for weight. Actually....

[JimC]

There you go, a Castle boiler on a 5'8 4-6-0. Sort of a County equivalent really.

Edited March 1, 2022 by JimC

[The Johnster]

As an alternative to 47xx, this seems entirely cromulent, but to do Grange work might have been a bit heavy on coal and wasteful of steam.  For a 2-cylinder loco a no.1 boiler is probably sufficient, which of course gets us back to the 68xx as built.  These were very well regarded by the crews, who reckoned they were as fast as and a coach better than a Hall, and better climbers, which makes Hawksworth's decision to modify the Hall design and build more of them instead of more Granges a little difficult to justify.   This is a driver's viewpoint as expressed to me at Canton in the 70s by men who'd fired and driven Halls and Granges, so may not take into account other factors in the decision to build more Halls, but one would have thought, especially during wartime, that the smaller wheeled loco was a better choice.

 

Had Hawkworth used the Stanier 8F boiler jigs for boilers for 6959s, an interesting equivalent to a Black 5 would have emerged, but it was clearly thought that the Modified Hall (and the 2884 for that matter) were fine as they were.  My view is that the 10xx Counties should have been built as 3-cylinder machines as Jubiliee equivalents a proven concept, but of course this was against the background of his failure to convince the Ministry of Supply that pacifics were mixed traffic locos, and his opinion of their permitting Bullied to build the MNs is well known.  War is hell.  He was looking to get an express loco past the Ministry and may not have been focussing on the very best possible mixed traffic designs, perhaps to make his name after Collett's perceieved successes with the Castles and Kings; of course, he ended up ordering more Castles postwar.  This is only my opinion of course, and must be taken as such rather than as an unequivocal statement of established fact.