Imaginary Locomotives

[Deeps]

8 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Most interesting and an illuminating comment, thanks Deeps.  I’m assuming that the reactor, once commissioned, runs more or less continually until it is decommissioned at the end of the boat’s service, and supplies all the electrical needs of the boat once it is at sea, and that the backup diesel powerplant drives a generator in the same way as on a loco of it is ever needed, but surely that would compromise the boat’s ability to stay submerged and quiet (don’t answer if any of this skirts the boundaries of Official Secrets!)?  

 

The reactor is not always critical as it will be shutdown when alongside, with an electrical shore supply connected for various services onboard. However, if the boat needs to move to another wharf, whilst the reactor is shutdown, and shore services will need to be temporarily disconnected, then the diesel(s) will be flashed up to support essential services. It takes several days to get a the reactor flashed up from a cold state so this would not be practical for such a move.

 

The diesels do indeed drive generators; 2 DC ones on Fleet Boats and on the Tridents one DC and one AC. The main battery is the first ‘back up’ if reactor power is lost at sea, due to a reactor ‘Scram’, and can support essential services for a limited time until the reactor is back on line. This allows the boat to stay submerged and quiet.

 

If the shutdown is protracted then it will be necessary to run diesels to recharge the battery. This can be done with the boat at periscope depth, using a snorkel, but the stealth element will obviously be compromised.

[Mike 84C]

Very interesting Deeps  I felt its a pity all those redundant reactors could not be hooked up to the National Grid to help with power shortages but which wears out first the hull or the reactor? 

[Deeps]

3 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

Very interesting Deeps  I felt its a pity all those redundant reactors could not be hooked up to the National Grid to help with power shortages but which wears out first the hull or the reactor? 

The reactor, at least the viable fuel in it. The pressure hull is quite thick, as you would expect, which is why our decommissioned boats can safely be laid up in harbours for decades without concerns over watertight integrity or radioactive ‘leakage’. They are routinely taken into dry dock for surveys and hull preservation. The fuel elements are exhausted and will have been removed for reprocessing, but the reactor pressure vessels themselves, and associated systems, remain radioactive. This explains the problem of what to do with our old boats but as we have time on our side we can delay the final decision until the safest and most environmentally effective process is decided on.

 

As to the issue of supplying the grid, despite the fact that unburnt fuel remains in the core of a decommissioned boat the nature of our operating procedures prevents us safely taking the plant critical. The technicalities are quite complex and, even if I was allowed to, it would take me hours to explain them.

 

Interestingly, the reactor design of the early boats was such that they needed refuelling after about 7 years, even when there was still a critical mass of unburnt fuel remaining in the core. Current designs and procedures mean that the fuel elements are engineered so that the reactors will last the life of the boat without refuelling, possibly over 25 years.

[rockershovel]

On 23/04/2024 at 16:02, Deeps said:

The reactor is not always critical as it will be shutdown when alongside, with an electrical shore supply connected for various services onboard. However, if the boat needs to move to another wharf, whilst the reactor is shutdown, and shore services will need to be temporarily disconnected, then the diesel(s) will be flashed up to support essential services. It takes several days to get a the reactor flashed up from a cold state so this would not be practical for such a move.

 

The diesels do indeed drive generators; 2 DC ones on Fleet Boats and on the Tridents one DC and one AC. The main battery is the first ‘back up’ if reactor power is lost at sea, due to a reactor ‘Scram’, and can support essential services for a limited time until the reactor is back on line. This allows the boat to stay submerged and quiet.

 

If the shutdown is protracted then it will be necessary to run diesels to recharge the battery. This can be done with the boat at periscope depth, using a snorkel, but the stealth element will obviously be compromised.

I don't care to speculate on what a "reactor scram" might involve 

[Deeps]

12 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

I don't care to speculate on what a "reactor scram" might involve 

‘Scram’ is a term for the automatic shutdown of a nuclear reactor, due to operating parameters exceeding safe margins. The term was originally used during the early days of development in the USA when if things went slightly ‘pear shaped’ the action of the operators was to leave with all haste! A reactor scram on a submarine can result in a partial or a full shutdown dependant on the criteria being monitored. If it is a partial scram the reactor can be brought back on line fairly quickly, which is quite desirable where continued propulsion and electrical generation is needed whereas a full scam will result in a protracted recovery and loss of critical functions. The ‘partial’ scram facility is unique to submarine plants, compared with civil plants, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

I feel it may be necessary to create a separate thread for submarine technicalities, possibly in the Wheeltappers area?

 

Out of interest, are there any other serving or ex-submariners in RMweb?

[Murican]

I decided to revisit some of my older ideas for locomotives, and try to keep it tamer than I originally posted.

 

Here are some ideas I have for a BR Standard 10 Mountain: 

• Built to serve on long-distance express passenger and freight trains. Mainly intended to operate such long distances on such express freights with a minimal number of fuel, water, or maintenance stops. For instance, a theoretical run from London Euston to Glasgow would only see the engine stop for refuelling at Crewe and Carlisle.
• A 4-8-2 wheel arrangement, based on locomotives that'd exist in thus AU like the LNER Gresley/Peppercorn I series Mountains, Southern's Bulleid Merchant Navy 4-8-2s, and to a lesser extent the LMS Stanier 10MT 4-8-4s.
• Conventional 2-cylinder layout like on the other BR Standards.
• 5' 8'' Driving Wheels based on those of the Standard 4 4-6-0 to help reduce size to one acceptable for British loading gauge. I originally considered Standard 5 wheels, but worried that'd be pushing it. 
• Unique in that initially these locomotives are painted in BR Express Blue, which had been mostly phased out after only a few years before. However some members of the class are repainted in Brunswick Green.
• Continue the naming conventions of the Standard "Britannia" Class, leading to the nickname "Ultra Britannias". Some namesakes include Benjamin Disareli, Robert Louis Stevenson, Richard Trevithick, etc.
• Mainly see service on the WCML, ECML, and Southern Region due to said routes being acquianted to such large locomotives in this AU. Although some rarely venture on to the Western Region - rarely being the key word here.
• Among the last BR locomotives to be retired, the last ending BR steam in my AU when it ends in September 1974.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Deeps said:

‘Scram’ is a term for the automatic shutdown of a nuclear reactor, due to operating parameters exceeding safe margins. The term was originally used during the early days of development in the USA when if things went slightly ‘pear shaped’ the action of the operators was to leave with all haste! A reactor scram on a submarine can result in a partial or a full shutdown dependant on the criteria being monitored. If it is a partial scram the reactor can be brought back on line fairly quickly, which is quite desirable where continued propulsion and electrical generation is needed whereas a full scam will result in a protracted recovery and loss of critical functions. The ‘partial’ scram facility is unique to submarine plants, compared with civil plants, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

I feel it may be necessary to create a separate thread for submarine technicalities, possibly in the Wheeltappers area?

 

Out of interest, are there any other serving or ex-submariners in RMweb?

Not me, but early in my engineering career I used to park my car every day right next to three of the dead boats in Rosyth basin, as I worked at the South Arm.  A couple of years later I spent a couple of days on HMS Vanguard inspecting its gear teeth (and being very, very careful not to drop anything into the gearbox....).  The V-boats are massive; once onboard I found it easy to forget I wasn't on an older and slightly more cramped surface ship.

[Deeps]

17 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Not me, but early in my engineering career I used to park my car every day right next to three of the dead boats in Rosyth basin, as I worked at the South Arm.  A couple of years later I spent a couple of days on HMS Vanguard inspecting its gear teeth (and being very, very careful not to drop anything into the gearbox....).  The V-boats are massive; once onboard I found it easy to forget I wasn't on an older and slightly more cramped surface ship.

Absolutely correct. Gearbox inspections were carried out with exceptional attention to cleanliness and the control of tools used in maintenance. The work area was encased in a tent, all overall pockets empty and all tools were religiously logged in and out. 

 

I served a couple of years on Victorious and they are indeed big boats, substantially bigger than the Fleet boats I had traditionally served on. It is easy for the uninitiated to get lost on them!

[rockershovel]

7 hours ago, Murican said:

I decided to revisit some of my older ideas for locomotives, and try to keep it tamer than I originally posted.

 

Here are some ideas I have for a BR Standard 10 Mountain: 

• Built to serve on long-distance express passenger and freight trains. Mainly intended to operate such long distances on such express freights with a minimal number of fuel, water, or maintenance stops. For instance, a theoretical run from London Euston to Glasgow would only see the engine stop for refuelling at Crewe and Carlisle.
• A 4-8-2 wheel arrangement, based on locomotives that'd exist in thus AU like the LNER Gresley/Peppercorn I series Mountains, Southern's Bulleid Merchant Navy 4-8-2s, and to a lesser extent the LMS Stanier 10MT 4-8-4s.
• Conventional 2-cylinder layout like on the other BR Standards.
• 5' 8'' Driving Wheels based on those of the Standard 4 4-6-0 to help reduce size to one acceptable for British loading gauge. I originally considered Standard 5 wheels, but worried that'd be pushing it. 
• Unique in that initially these locomotives are painted in BR Express Blue, which had been mostly phased out after only a few years before. However some members of the class are repainted in Brunswick Green.
• Continue the naming conventions of the Standard "Britannia" Class, leading to the nickname "Ultra Britannias". Some namesakes include Benjamin Disareli, Robert Louis Stevenson, Richard Trevithick, etc.
• Mainly see service on the WCML, ECML, and Southern Region due to said routes being acquianted to such large locomotives in this AU. Although some rarely venture on to the Western Region - rarely being the key word here.
• Among the last BR locomotives to be retired, the last ending BR steam in my AU when it ends in September 1974.

... which neatly illustrates why 4-8-2 types were never developed in UK. 

 

LNER showed conclusively that 2-8-2 types could handle trains too big for the network (London coal traffic) and that the 8-coupled wheelbase was too long for the Scottish main lines

 

A loco which requires fuel at London, Crewe and Carlisle to reach Glasgow is hardly "long distance", apart from being beyond the limits of hand firing. Look at the enormous tenders used in the US - 12 and 14 wheel tenders carrying loads far beyond anything used in UK, and the mechanised loading used to cope with them. 

[rodent279]

Imaginary locomotives like that really need imaginary railways to run on, so let's suppose that the two London - Scotland routes had, after the grouping mandated the use of

1. auto couplers of the US Janney type, which are stronger than conventional UK couplings
2. fully fitted freight trains

This reduces, possibly eliminates the need for slow, unfitted goods trains, limited in length due to coupling strength and loop size. Then there might be the work for such large, powerful locos.

Of course this would require a seismic shift in how coal traffic was handled-the tens of thousands of short wheelbase 10/12t coal wagons, largely privately owned, would have to go, and be replaced with fully fitted, preferably bogie wagons of say 50t capacity. This would require changing colliery & distribution yard track layouts to accommodate longer wheelbase wagons.

All this would require the cooperation of colliery owners and coal merchants, which is why it didn't happen. 

Then there is the tens of thousands of general merchandise vans, many of which were railway owned,  but still had to negotiate short radius curves in the thousands of small goods yards across the country.

So it would really require a concerted effort on the part of all the railways, colliery owners, coal merchants and other general merchandise carriers.  This requires government action, and this is another reason why it didn't happen. We preferred to just muddle through rather than tackle the problem.

Even if it had, I still somehow doubt there would be the traffic to justify a fleet of fast powerful 4-8-2's.

[rockershovel]

20 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Imaginary locomotives like that really need imaginary railways to run on, so let's suppose that the two London - Scotland routes had, after the grouping mandated the use of

1. auto couplers of the US Janney type, which are stronger than conventional UK couplings
2. fully fitted freight trains

This reduces, possibly eliminates the need for slow, unfitted goods trains, limited in length due to coupling strength and loop size. Then there might be the work for such large, powerful locos.

Of course this would require a seismic shift in how coal traffic was handled-the tens of thousands of short wheelbase 10/12t coal wagons, largely privately owned, would have to go, and be replaced with fully fitted, preferably bogie wagons of say 50t capacity. This would require changing colliery & distribution yard track layouts to accommodate longer wheelbase wagons.

All this would require the cooperation of colliery owners and coal merchants, which is why it didn't happen. 

Then there is the tens of thousands of general merchandise vans, many of which were railway owned,  but still had to negotiate short radius curves in the thousands of small goods yards across the country.

So it would really require a concerted effort on the part of all the railways, colliery owners, coal merchants and other general merchandise carriers.  This requires government action, and this is another reason why it didn't happen. We preferred to just muddle through rather than tackle the problem.

Even if it had, I still somehow doubt there would be the traffic to justify a fleet of fast powerful 4-8-2's.

I think the REAL reason these types weren't required, is that the country simply isn't big enough. 

 

Also, most traditional steam-era freight, especially coal, didn't warrant a premium in speed 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Then there is the tens of thousands of general merchandise vans, many of which were railway owned,  but still had to negotiate short radius curves in the thousands of small goods yards across the country.

So it would really require a concerted effort on the part of all the railways, colliery owners, coal merchants and other general merchandise carriers.  This requires government action, and this is another reason why it didn't happen. We preferred to just muddle through rather than tackle the problem.

 

There was, in 1919, a plan put forward by a Mr A.W. Gattie for an improved method of goods handling, known as the 'Gattie transport system', which I've not found very much out about but would appear to have been some form of containerisation. it attracted enough attention to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, with a report published in December 1919. In a parliamentary debate, it was claimed that ' that the North-Eastern Railway Company asked Mr. Gattie to inspect their Hull Station and report on the possibility of installing his system there, and that Mr. Gattie reported that it would be necessary to clear away the existing station, thereby involving a capital outlay which the North-Eastern Railway could not undertake?' [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1919-07-17/debates/724ebbb0-49cf-4f28-a666-a88f1a719fd9/GattieTransportSystem]

 

16 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Of course this would require a seismic shift in how coal traffic was handled-the tens of thousands of short wheelbase 10/12t coal wagons, largely privately owned, would have to go, and be replaced with fully fitted, preferably bogie wagons of say 50t capacity. This would require changing colliery & distribution yard track layouts to accommodate longer wheelbase wagons.

 

It also completely ignores the subtleties of the coal industry: that many small communities required relatively small quantities of several different types of coal, from different seams within one coalfield and from different coalfields. Such small communities, or the coal merchants who served them, could not afford to have money tied up in large stockpiles of coal. One man could unload an 8-ton wagon in a day's work, hence avoiding demurage charges; the wagon would be back on its way to the colliery within a couple of days of arrival. It would take the same man a whole week to unload a 50 ton wagon which would be out of circulation for that length of time, tying up capital unproductively. How could that possibly be more efficient?

 

What it all comes down to is that these big mineral engine fantasies depend on the MGR principle of operation, with a single large colliery supplying a single large customer. That was achieved in the 1970s, the customer being the CEGB, but by that time steam was dead. The conversion to electricity, with the National Grid, ought to have gone hand in hand with railway electrification - that's where governments chose to muddle through rather than tackling the problem.

 

But I remember those MGR trains thundering through the centre roads at Oxford station in the 1980s, Class 56 roaring away at the head. A better engine for the job than any Mountain you can devise.

[billbedford]

It's worth remembering that most northern American cities had district heating systems, which made coal deliveries by hopper wagons efficient. 

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There was, in 1919, a plan put forward by a Mr A.W. Gattie for an improved method of goods handling, known as the 'Gattie transport system', which I've not found very much out about but would appear to have been some form of containerisation. it attracted enough attention to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, with a report published in December 1919. In a parliamentary debate, it was claimed that ' that the North-Eastern Railway Company asked Mr. Gattie to inspect their Hull Station and report on the possibility of installing his system there, and that Mr. Gattie reported that it would be necessary to clear away the existing station, thereby involving a capital outlay which the North-Eastern Railway could not undertake?' [https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1919-07-17/debates/724ebbb0-49cf-4f28-a666-a88f1a719fd9/GattieTransportSystem]

 

 

It also completely ignores the subtleties of the coal industry: that many small communities required relatively small quantities of several different types of coal, from different seams within one coalfield and from different coalfields. Such small communities, or the coal merchants who served them, could not afford to have money tied up in large stockpiles of coal. One man could unload an 8-ton wagon in a day's work, hence avoiding demurage charges; the wagon would be back on its way to the colliery within a couple of days of arrival. It would take the same man a whole week to unload a 50 ton wagon which would be out of circulation for that length of time, tying up capital unproductively. How could that possibly be more efficient?

 

What it all comes down to is that these big mineral engine fantasies depend on the MGR principle of operation, with a single large colliery supplying a single large customer. That was achieved in the 1970s, the customer being the CEGB, but by that time steam was dead. The conversion to electricity, with the National Grid, ought to have gone hand in hand with railway electrification - that's where governments chose to muddle through rather than tackling the problem.

 

But I remember those MGR trains thundering through the centre roads at Oxford station in the 1980s, Class 56 roaring away at the head. A better engine for the job than any Mountain you can devise.

This is true, and pre-national grid, coal fired power stations tended to be smaller, more localised affairs feeding a town, or several feeding a city, not big multi-MW affairs feeding large geographical areas, with a voracious appetite for coal.

Point is, it's a big scenario with lots of interdependent moving parts with complex relationships-you can't just look at one part of it and say "bigger engines", or "bigger wagons".

I think @rockershovel is right-Britain just wasn't big enough to justify changing the relationship between all those interdependent systems.

[Flying Pig]

8 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I think @rockershovel is right-Britain just wasn't big enough to justify changing the relationship between all those interdependent systems.

 

As others have pointed out, it's more nuanced than that. Block trains of high capacity wagons hauled by 3000+hp locos have become the norm in recent decades and Britain hasn't grown in the meantime.  What has changed utterly is the traffic and the operations and infrastructure that support it.

[Compound2632]

29 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

What has changed utterly is the traffic and the operations and infrastructure that support it.

 

But that is driven by factors outside of the railway itself - the change from coal to electricity (and natural gas) in providing energy for industrial and domestic use. 

[John Besley]

9 hours ago, rockershovel said:

... which neatly illustrates why 4-8-2 types were never developed in UK. 

 

LNER showed conclusively that 2-8-2 types could handle trains too big for the network (London coal traffic) and that the 8-coupled wheelbase was too long for the Scottish main lines

 

A loco which requires fuel at London, Crewe and Carlisle to reach Glasgow is hardly "long distance", apart from being beyond the limits of hand firing. Look at the enormous tenders used in the US - 12 and 14 wheel tenders carrying loads far beyond anything used in UK, and the mechanised loading used to cope with them. 

 

Having said which a large 'what if' type layout would be intresting - modern buildings, 1980 Road vehicles and modified or reinvented BR standards ...

 

4-8-2, 2-8-2 tank engines or 0-8-0T shunter - livery modified version of BR blue .... Mk 2 coaches, air braked locos to run block MGR trains... 

 

Wonder what the paying public would think at an exhibition, defiantly any the rivet counter... 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But that is driven by factors outside of the railway itself - the change from coal to electricity (and natural gas) in providing energy for industrial and domestic use. 

 

Yes, of course.  Just as mineral working on the steam age railway was shaped by outside factors.  My point in this instance was that long trains and large locos are not per se impossible within the confines of Britain.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

My point in this instance was that long trains and large locos are not per se impossible within the confines of Britain.

 

Yes indeed - one sees them every day passing through Reading.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

As others have pointed out, it's more nuanced than that. Block trains of high capacity wagons hauled by 3000+hp locos have become the norm in recent decades and Britain hasn't grown in the meantime.  What has changed utterly is the traffic and the operations and infrastructure that support it.

Quite so. I give you Keith Tatlinger in evidence. 

 

In the 1950s, Mr Tatlinger invented the container twist lock. Containers weren't new - they appeared immediately after WW2 - but the problem was two-fold; lifting large steel boxes containing heavy loads, and stacking them securely on ships.

 

Like all the best ideas, once someone had thought of it, it was obvious. It also solved the fundamental problem of introducing change, which is to demonstrate its usefulness. Once big shippers were convinced that it would speed up offloading - which it did, immediately - the money to pay for the change appeared immediately.

 

The crucial problem THEN was to standardise the size of the container, which was already pretty much achieved - the ubiquitous 20'x8'x8' box was about as big as the road transport of the day could deal with. 

[rockershovel]

The "rail blue, late steam" layout sounds fun....

[John Besley]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

The "rail blue, late steam" layout sounds fun....

 

In my AU steam carried on onto the 90's due to the sky high price of diesel fuel coupled with economical coal extraction by NCB.

 

This woukd lead to modern loco depots, mechanical Ash disposal - been done before but reinvented, I think there was at least one new steam depot built after WW2... 

 

Intresting to see what comes up as workable ideas ...

[The Johnster]

I would think that the 'rail blue, late steam' concept is not impossible as an early to mid 70s scenario, based on the idea that the actual demise of service steam was driven by political and image considerations within BR to a certain extent, and there seems little doubt that it was.  I would imagine it happening in two ways, firstly the retention of some express steam engines (Britannias being the obvious choice) as reserve motive power to cover failures or booked maintenance of OHLE on the WCML (ISTR the Norwegians did this on the Kiruna-Narvik line), and the retention of double-chimneyed 9Fs as general reserve motive power at main depots everywhere.  The locos are redacted by the 70s and cost little to keep in service.  Air braking would have to be provided, and 4-character headcode boxes fitted, contained between the smoke deflectors at the front, where they can provide a platform for accessing the smokebox, and split on the tenders.  The withdrawal of water troughs might be a case for rebuilding the tenders on 6-wheel bogies and extending the lengths by cut'n'shutting.  Livery, 1966 unlined rail blue, coach chassis brown for smokebox and below running plates, arrows of indecision on tender sides, cabside and smokebox numbers in standard 1966 font, and yellow hi-viz buffer beams.  Running numbers to be retained post-TOPS as for preserved locos, ships, and hotels...  Locos to be equipped with electric lighting and backlighing for headcode panels and all bearings to be replaced by roller-bearings.  I would expect the Britannias to be limited to 90mph, and the 9Fs to 75mph, adequate for 1970s work.  A number of ETHELs would need to be provided to work with the Britannias.

 

There may also be a case for using retained steam on goods sevices that run only occasionally, say weekly.  This means not having to find a loco from your diesel or electric fleet, which you should have a little difficulty with if you have the correctly efficient level of stock, and with the steam engine available at any time the customer requires on 8-hour firing-up-from-cold notice, you can provide a much more flexible service. 

Edited April 27 by The Johnster

[rodent279]

I like the idea of a Brit in BR blue with stainless steel arrows on the tender, brown smoke box and underframes, yellow bufferbeam, train reporting number box in the front footplate.

However, I'd be tempted to give them brown & grey lining as well- a single stripe of brown with a thinner stripe of grey either side. In my AU, BR inter city stock would be in the red & blue that the Research Department stock carried-I always thought this looked far smarter than blue & grey.

If going for electric lighting though, why not fit a sealed beam headlamp at the front, as well?

Edited April 27 by rodent279

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

I like the idea of a Brit in BR blue with stainless steel arrows on the tender, brown smoke box and underframes, yellow bufferbeam, train reporting number box in the front footplate.

However, I'd be tempted to give them brown & grey lining as well- a single stripe of brown with a thinner stripe of grey either side.

 

Frankly, I think that if steam had lasted until 1980ish, the livery would have been reduced to unlined black with double arrows on tender/tank side. Why tart up something you intend to run down?