Imaginary Locomotives

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

Surely with the haul lengths (and shorter trains, in particular freight trains) in the UK, having such large locos would benefit us very little as we wouldn’t be able to utilise them that well?

 

I appreciate trains lengths are somewhat limited by the length of passing sidings, historically speaking, but I would imagine the case for improving those, hence increasing train size would suffer from similar problems of cost because it would inevitably require increased capacity. 

You've just pointed out the flaws in most of the locomotives imagined on this thread (which goes round in circles on a pretty regular basis).  It's why I found the (now gone quiet) Imaginary Railways thread more interesting, because for UK locos and rolling stock to be different, the railways would have had to be different and for them to be different, certain decisions (most political) would have had to be different (see below*).  Unless you start imagining completely different and fanciful geography - such as assuming the GER needed heavy freight engines because most of Norfolk was a coalfield - you quickly conclude that the Big Four built the locos they actually needed.  If certain types weren't built, it was because they didn't need them.

 

*As an example, suppose the Irish gauge question had been settled at 4' 8.5"; since several Irish railways were part-owned by British railway companies, what British classes might have operated in Ireland (which until 1921, was still the UK)?  What if Stranraer-Larne was operated as a train ferry?

[The Johnster]

Or Fishguard-Rosslare as part of a through GW sleeper service Paddington to Cork? 

[tythatguy1312]

18 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

what British classes might have operated in Ireland

I've heard of a few Maunsell Kits being sent to Ireland, as well as some Fowler 3f's during WW2, I imagine a couple more would've definitely ended up there, mostly 4-4-0's and maybe the Standard 2

[DenysW]

There is a saying "We judge ourselves by our excuses, and others by their reasons".

 

There are plenty of excuses (and several reasons) for the UK not to have invested in upgrading its rail infrastructure from the 1820s loading gauge inherited from Stephenson to later standards that would have allowed better and faster trains. Others upgraded, we chose not to. My reading is that it was simply about money for safer trains, the last of the trinity of Safer, Better, Faster (hon. exception: GWR), although many excuses were always proffered.

 

What sticks in my craw, then, is when we pretend the UK was still world-class at the same time (1870-present) as drifting down the world league tables. "Ultimate" 9F heavy freight engines - once you discount comparisons with locomotives with mechanical stoking. "World speed record" locomotives - once you allow downhill at speeds that destroy the transmission. And so on.

 

"Ultimate Cheapy narrow-gauge" 9F freight engines just don't make you feel as proud, even if it's closer to the truth.

 

[tythatguy1312]

36 minutes ago, DenysW said:

once you allow downhill at speeds that destroy the transmission

with all due respect, at least Mallard had a dynamometer car and a believable narrator backing it up, which is more than can be said for the PRR Duplexes or DRG Class 05.

But yeah our inability to expand our loading gauge left us on par with Japan's, despite Japan having a much narrower rail gauge. Yes, the locomotives built for it did get truly as much power as possible, but it lead to a lot of complexities in locomotives that simply weren't necessary elsewhere. The US was content with 2 cylinder simplex's or, at a push, 4 cylinder articulates whilst France and Germany could build faster, larger & stronger locomotives on average. Frankly Mallard's record is more owed to Luck, and the HST's owe it to "well nobody else has tried". It ultimately strangled the expansion of locomotive designs, as well as the speeds due to automatic brakes not being mandated until the 1960's IIRC.

[The Johnster]

5 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I've heard of a few Maunsell Kits being sent to Ireland, as well as some Fowler 3f's during WW2, I imagine a couple more would've definitely ended up there, mostly 4-4-0's and maybe the Standard 2

Rode behind a CIE Woolwich Mogul in 1961 between Rosslare and Waterford (where the car had been sent on the cattle boat while we went on the passenger ferry).  I was 9, and recall the loco looking very smart in green 'flying snail' livery and a lively run with 5 coaches.  The NCC in Ulster had some Jinties and some 2-6-4Ts based on the Fowlers.  There were plenty of Brit built industrials over there as well.

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

which is more than can be said for the PRR Duplexes or DRG Class 05.

Didn't the DR set out more to show that 200km/h was possible with a viable load, and that it was repeatable, rather than break a record?

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

with all due respect, at least Mallard had a dynamometer car and a believable narrator backing it up, which is more than can be said for the PRR Duplexes or DRG Class 05.

 

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Didn't the DR set out more to show that 200km/h was possible with a viable load, and that it was repeatable, rather than break a record?

 

The record set by 05 002 is well documented; it was made with a slightly lighter train than Mallard's but on the level and the 200 kph was sustained over several kilometres. That is to my mind an altogether more impressive performance than that of Mallard, which was an instantaneous maximum that, as Nock recounts, was a slightly unusual feature on the speed recorder chart. It's notable that the 126 mph claim wasn't made until after the war. 

 

On the other hand, the 05s were a small class of three experimental locomotives, rather than a class of 35 engines that saw nearly three decades of top-link express duty.

[TerryD1471]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Didn't the DR set out more to show that 200km/h was possible with a viable load, and that it was repeatable, rather than break a record?

I think it had as much to do with Hitler's megalomania as anything. I hold nothing but contempt for the Nazis, but realistically the 125 mph on level track was a more valid speed record than Mallard's 126 mph downhill.

 

It's never going to happen but I would have loved to see what a double chimney streamlined Duchess would have done in the same circumstances as Mallard. I have read somewhere that 46245 was unofficially timed at 118 mph down Stoke bank in 1963, but this may be apocryphal?

[rodent279]

32 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

It's notable that the 126 mph claim wasn't made until after the war. 

 

I believe Gresley never claimed more than 125mph.

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

It's notable that the 126 mph claim wasn't made until after the war. 

 

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I believe Gresley never claimed more than 125mph.

It was only discovered after a minute examination of the recording roll IIRC.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, TerryD1471 said:

I think it had as much to do with Hitler's megalomania as anything.

 

But I think one has to give credit to Richard Wagner and his staff - Wagner was a good friend of Stanier and his standardisation policies had a great influence on Riddles' BR Standard designs, something that for obvious reasons was not made much of at the time. 

[tythatguy1312]

54 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

a great influence on Riddles' BR Standard designs

not just the BR Standards. Although the larger BR Standards used LMS Style deflectors, it was the German Witte type deflector design applied to the Gresley A3's, in contrast to the 3 deflector designs the LNER had

Edited April 13, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

not just the BR Standards. Although the larger BR Standards used LMS Style deflectors, it was the German Witte type deflector design applied to the Gresley A3's, in contrast to the 3 deflector designs the LNER had

Anyone tried a photo shop of a Brit, 9F or DoG with Witte style deflectors?

[tythatguy1312]

I'm gonna be honest I have a lot of ideas, but perhaps the wildest is if British Rail chose to expand the 750v dc system instead of overhead, would this have been feasible?

Edited April 16, 2022 by tythatguy1312

[Northmoor]

30 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I'm gonna be honest I have a lot of ideas, but perhaps the wildest is if British Rail chose to expand the 750v dc system instead of overhead, would this have been feasible?

Feasible (and affordable) or not, it would actually have been adequate for the vast majority of the UK.  Electrification of any kind is justified on traffic volume/frequency rather than speed and very few densely trafficked routes had sustained running over 90mph.  The whole of the Paddington suburban network could have been covered by 3rd rail and the GER 25kV O/H network should have been able to achieve the same timetable with 3rd rail.

I had a similar "What if?" idea some time ago: What if Thameslink had been completed by British Railways in the 1960s; could we have had dual-voltage Class 309s?

[tythatguy1312]

If I remember correctly the key turn-off against 750V DC was due to it being poor for heavy freight

what heavy freight. Most traffic in a lot of areas was, at worst, 40 wagon coal trains. With the right transmission settings a Class 73 could probably handle that, albeit possibly a double header

[rodent279]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

Feasible (and affordable) or not, it would actually have been adequate for the vast majority of the UK.  Electrification of any kind is justified on traffic volume/frequency rather than speed and very few densely trafficked routes had sustained running over 90mph.  The whole of the Paddington suburban network could have been covered by 3rd rail and the GER 25kV O/H network should have been able to achieve the same timetable with 3rd rail.

I had a similar "What if?" idea some time ago: What if Thameslink had been completed by British Railways in the 1960s; could we have had dual-voltage Class 309s?

I have seen correspondence from the LMR CM&EE dept to the operating dept in response to a query about the feasibility of adding 3rd rail equipment to class 310's, to allow through running  onto the DC lines into Broad St. This was in the late 60's, the 310's were barely 5yrs old at the time. The idea was given short shrift-not impossible, but would add extra weight, complexity and maintenance requirements to a very successful EMU. Had the requirement been made known at the design stage, it would have been easier to design in, but it wasn't considered feasible or cost effective at that stage.

[Satan's Goldfish]

On 11/04/2022 at 17:12, Flying Pig said:

 

Was any kind of steam engine - locomotive or static - ever built with the piston rod off-centre?  I suspect that's asking for a bent piston rod due to the uneven loads and resultant horrible cylinder wear. The severity of the pain would be a function of piston thrust not speed, so not mitigated by the loco being a shunter and made worse by big cylinders.

 

If there was such a beast, it will be documented no doubt at http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm

 

Not quite the same but I can remember seeing a picture of an engine (0-6-0?) where the piston rod was inside the connecting rod for the wheels. It joined on the middle wheel, but to clear the leading driven wheel the piston rod was formed into a circle where the connecting rod pin went through. 

 

So not a straight rod, but also I'd guess a circle with even loads would have more strength than a one-sided jiggle. By being inside the connecting rod iit would probably allow an extra couple of inches of cylinder diameter.

 

I've no idea how successful it was, but I'll try and find a picture. 

[Flying Pig]

17 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Not quite the same but I can remember seeing a picture of an engine (0-6-0?) where the piston rod was inside the connecting rod for the wheels.

 

Strictly, I think you mean the connecting rod was inside the coupling rod.  The piston rod joins the piston itself to the crosshead and passes through the gland in the cylinder end.  The connecting rod joins the crosshead to one of the crankpins and the coupling rods couple the wheels.

 

[PhilJ W]

Compound traction engines have both hp and lp cylinders attached to a common crankshaft and sometimes with a common connecting rod but they seem to deal with any imbalance effectively. Though this may be why they need a large flywheel. The flywheel effectively balances the mechanism so an off centre piston rod is possible with the appropriate balance weights.

[Flying Pig]

53 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Compound traction engines have both hp and lp cylinders attached to a common crankshaft and sometimes with a common connecting rod but they seem to deal with any imbalance effectively. Though this may be why they need a large flywheel. The flywheel effectively balances the mechanism so an off centre piston rod is possible with the appropriate balance weights.

 

No, because the forces on the piston itself would be unbalanced.  The centre of pressure needs to coincide with the point where the reaction is applied by the piston rod or there will be a moment on the piston causing it to twist off axis.  That could both bend the piston rod and cause excessive wear between the piston and the cylinder.

[Satan's Goldfish]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Strictly, I think you mean the connecting rod was inside the coupling rod.  The piston rod joins the piston itself to the crosshead and passes through the gland in the cylinder end.  The connecting rod joins the crosshead to one of the crankpins and the coupling rods couple the wheels.

 

 

Yes, that... still can't find a picture of the damn thing though.

[Northroader]

This sort of thing? (Stockton & Darlington rly.)

[tythatguy1312]

37 minutes ago, Northroader said:

This sort of thing?

And I thought Dolgoch's running gear was a mess