Imaginary Locomotives

[2251]

On 27/04/2024 at 21:39, Northmoor said:

That really would be an alternative universe!  At the time of the pit closures which precipitated the 1984-85 strike, the annual subsidy to NCB from central government was eye-watering.

 

Indeed. In 1982, the annual subsidy was said to be in the order of £1,000 million at a time when West Germany was subsiding its mining industry to the tune of something under £700 million, France about £350 million, and Belgium about $140 million.

 

While there was certainly considerable scope for arguing about whether that was comparing like-with-like, the comparative efficiency of British and German pits, etc, etc, the basic point that a very large amount of public money went on subsidising the National Coal Board is impossible to argue with.   

 

[billbedford]

23 minutes ago, 2251 said:

 

Indeed. In 1982, the annual subsidy was said to be in the order of £1,000 million at a time when West Germany was subsiding its mining industry to the tune of something under £700 million, France about £350 million, and Belgium about $140 million.

 

 

 

So about the same as the £12,000 million a year we pay for useless windmills?

[Murican]

Here's an idea I thought of more recently regarding my ideas for the Race To The North.

 

Maybe it'd work better if Peppercorn built a W2 class of 4-6-4s instead of more 4-8-2s in the vein of the proposed Gresley design. Or would the mountains be preferable due to higher tractive effort?

 

On the LMS side, the main idea I had for the Stanier 4-6-4 would be if the Fowler 4-cylinder Pacific was built and the Princess Royals were still Pacifics.

[The Lurker]

On 28/04/2024 at 18:20, Michael Edge said:

In the Yorkshire coalfield we had a ton of coal at a time dumped on the pavement outside our gate, this had to be shovelled/barrowed round to our coal bunker - gave me something of an idea how hard a loco fireman had to work.

How long did a ton of coal last for domestic use? Say a 2 up 2 down or a 3 bed semi. As you can tell, I have never lived in a coal fired house, although my Grandma had a coal fire in her flat

[rodent279]

8 hours ago, Murican said:

Here's an idea I thought of more recently regarding my ideas for the Race To The North.

 

Maybe it'd work better if Peppercorn built a W2 class of 4-6-4s instead of more 4-8-2s in the vein of the proposed Gresley design. Or would the mountains be preferable due to higher tractive effort?

 

On the LMS side, the main idea I had for the Stanier 4-6-4 would be if the Fowler 4-cylinder Pacific was built and the Princess Royals were still Pacifics.

It's been said before that imaginary locomotives really need imaginary railways to run on, and probably need imaginary countries to exist in.

If we imagine huge mineral reserves in Scotland, and maybe a much more densely populated Scotland and northern England, then maybe the traffic would exist for such locomotives - heavy, long trains of minerals travelling at a good speed to keep out of the way of the heavy, fast passenger trains constantly moving people across the country.

[JimC]

To change the subject, Didcot's "Going Loco" blog currently has a feature on the 2251s, so I thought I would sketch up a little brother.

 

This is pretty much a 2251 with an 8750 pannier tank boiler, which I hope ought to bring the weight down to unlimited route availability, replacing the last of the Dean Goods from about 1947 on the routes where a 2251 was too heavy. Ex Cambrian lines spring to mind. Its almost completely a 2251 chassis, but it has been slightly shortened at the rear because the P class boiler is slightly shorter in the firebox than the Std 10. Probably be cheaper to build than the Ivatt derived 2-MT 2-6-0s that eventually replaced the Deans, and a fair bit more powerful as well, presumably 3-MT, the same as the 2251s. 

 

Its a standard Collett era 3,000 gallon tender, but does look rather oversize on such a small locomotive, but that was often the case in real life. 2251s with the big 4,000 gallon ROD tenders spring to mind. I chose to give it the 23xx number series as at least the first 30 Dean Goods (which were 2301 - 2399, 2400-> were gone by 1947, so I figured the series would be reused in the same way 15xx and 16xx 0-6-0T series were reused for modern 0-6-0PT.

I have half a memory of sketching something like this before, but couldn't immediately find it on the PC so I did a new one. 

I suppose, thinking about it, If Sir James Milne had really objected to the domed boiler a new small tapered boiler for this (and also 57xx) could have been contrived by cutting a Std 5 (45xx) boiler down to P class proportions.Sadly I'm not lnowledgeable enough to do some sums on the likely weight saving.

 

Edited May 2 by JimC

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, The Lurker said:

How long did a ton of coal last for domestic use? Say a 2 up 2 down or a 3 bed semi. As you can tell, I have never lived in a coal fired house, although my Grandma had a coal fire in her flat

I don’t remember all that clearly, it was 50 years ago. We lived in a brand new 3 bed semi, the coal fire in the living room was the only heating (and hot water) in the house. I think we might have had 2 or 3 coal deliveries a year - most of our neighbours were miners and had fires going all year to use up their allowance..

The house I live in now is the only one I have ever lived in with proper central heating and we can barely afford to keep it warm in winter now.

[JimC]

A few posts above I suggested a cut down Std 5 boiler could be an alternate to a P Class. It would of course be a rather expensive and pointless alternate since the P class was an excellent steamer as it was, but here it is on the lightweight 0-6-0 and also on an 8750. I've numbered the 8750 for post war lots.

 

 

 

[NZRedBaron]

Not sure if I've posted here before, with this idea or otherwise, but there's one notion I've had on my mind for years.

 

Picture this; it's 1939, and the storm of war is looming over Europe, about to fall at any moment; meantime, the North British Locomotive Company of Glasgow is in the process of completing an order for 30 semi-streamlined 4-8-2 mixed traffic locomotives for the New Zealand Railways Department- these being the NZR 'J-class (1939)'.

 

A few draftsmen at the office, partly as a thought exercise, partly as a bet, and partly as their contribution to the war to come, decide to copy and rescale the J-class' plans from 3'6" gauge to 4'8.5" gauge; they strip away the unneccessary headlight, streamlining and cowcatchers, along with various other NZ specific parts, and add British standard couplers, buffers and lamp irons, in an attempt to create a simple, no frills, light and powerful mixed traffic engine for the war effort.

[Anadin Dogwalker]

Going back to ex-submarine power plants, the US manufacturers had a similar experience. General Motors/EMD were one provider of powerplants, already well proven in railroad service, up to V16 size for the FT of 1939. After 42 EMD was prohibited form building smaller engines for switchers, while former stream builders ALCo and Baldwin were only permitted to build small engines for switchers (Alcos RS1 at 1000hp being the largest permissible -two per loco in the DL109) but I dont think they powered any subs.  

Fairbanks-Morse (originally a manufacturer of scales) developed an opposed-piston plant (two crankshafts, like one side of a Deltic) specifically for subs. They were very successful and smoother running than EMDs,  so they had a stab at building locos. starting in'44. Unlike the Crossleys, it was the quirks of the cooling system that was the problem, being suited to life at sea level and low ambient temperatures. The coolant water capacity was something like 3 times that of an equivalent GM engine. According to Marre and Sommers book on Kansa City Southern, the FM"Erie-Builts" would literally cool their heels - ok cylinder linings- waiting in a siding for a meet with an opposing train, individual pistons would seize, tearing up the liners and bust up the crankshafts, especially the top one as gravity tended to ensure a deficit in lube oil.

Union Pacific, using Eries on the Los Angeles + Salt Lake route in passenger service, found the opposite; that same system couldn't keep the pistons cool so with sustained mountain climbing in ferocious heat, the piston heads would disintegrate.  The UP banished their FMs to Oregon and Washington in '53 and they were off the roster by 61. Numerous ex railroad powerplants found their way back to maritime use.

FWIW Alcos Model 244 plants of 1946 were known for turbocharger  and exhaust manifold fires and failures. Baldwins switchers were loved for their bullet-proof  Westinghouse electrical gear (Alcos and FMs were blessed with rugged GE electrics) but the rest of the engine might have been built by a blacksmith, in North British's earth-floored tradition.

[Flying Pig]

On 02/05/2024 at 21:31, JimC said:

This is pretty much a 2251 with an 8750 pannier tank boiler, which I hope ought to bring the weight down to unlimited route availability, replacing the last of the Dean Goods from about 1947 on the routes where a 2251 was too heavy. Ex Cambrian lines spring to mind. Its almost completely a 2251 chassis, but it has been slightly shortened at the rear because the P class boiler is slightly shorter in the firebox than the Std 10. Probably be cheaper to build than the Ivatt derived 2-MT 2-6-0s that eventually replaced the Deans, and a fair bit more powerful as well, presumably 3-MT, the same as the 2251s. 

 

It's a pretty engine but access to the motion seems very restricted.  Could the boiler be pitched a little higher?  Might need a less outsize dome in the process. 

[JimC]

2 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

It's a pretty engine but access to the motion seems very restricted.  Could the boiler be pitched a little higher?  Might need a less outsize dome in the process. 

I'll take a look at the proportions next time I'm playing  with drawings. If I didn't stuff up somewhere the access should be the same as a 57xx. But the wheels are larger which means less room between splashers. The intent was that boiler pitch should be the same as the pannier tank, and I assumed footplate height was much the same.  A different sized dome would make for a non standard boiler which would sort of defeat the object. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, JimC said:

But the wheels are larger which means less room between splashers. The intent was that boiler pitch should be the same as the pannier tank, and I assumed footplate height was much the same.  

 

I think that for a range of locomotives using the same boiler, the constant dimension would be the pitch of the boiler above the centre-line of the cylinders. So pitch of the boiler above rail level would be different for locomotives with different driving wheel diameters. Thus, express passenger engines have higher-pitched boilers than goods engines from the same stable.

 

One supposes that engines using the same boiler would have cylinders of the same volume; i.e. standardisation of the front end, though if engines with inside and outside cylinders use the same boiler, there might be differences. This might also depend on whether using slide or piston valves.

[rockershovel]

11 hours ago, NZRedBaron said:

Not sure if I've posted here before, with this idea or otherwise, but there's one notion I've had on my mind for years.

 

Picture this; it's 1939, and the storm of war is looming over Europe, about to fall at any moment; meantime, the North British Locomotive Company of Glasgow is in the process of completing an order for 30 semi-streamlined 4-8-2 mixed traffic locomotives for the New Zealand Railways Department- these being the NZR 'J-class (1939)'.

 

A few draftsmen at the office, partly as a thought exercise, partly as a bet, and partly as their contribution to the war to come, decide to copy and rescale the J-class' plans from 3'6" gauge to 4'8.5" gauge; they strip away the unneccessary headlight, streamlining and cowcatchers, along with various other NZ specific parts, and add British standard couplers, buffers and lamp irons, in an attempt to create a simple, no frills, light and powerful mixed traffic engine for the war effort.

These are sub-70ton locomotives. Smaller than a Black 5. They would certainly have good route availability, assuming they would fit the turntables ...

[Flying Pig]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that for a range of locomotives using the same boiler, the constant dimension would be the pitch of the boiler above the centre-line of the cylinders. So pitch of the boiler above rail level would be different for locomotives with different driving wheel diameters. Thus, express passenger engines have higher-pitched boilers than goods engines from the same stable.

 

One supposes that engines using the same boiler would have cylinders of the same volume; i.e. standardisation of the front end, though if engines with inside and outside cylinders use the same boiler, there might be differences. This might also depend on whether using slide or piston valves.

 

The constant is more likely to be the distance between the boiler centreline and the foundation ring at the firebox end. There's more scope for variation between smokebox and cylinders - compare LMS standard 2P and 4F which I believe share a boiler.

 

Moving the boiler and firebox up and down is going to alter the position of the grate and hence the firehole, though.  Was the height of the footplate adjusted pro rata, or did the fireman just have to cope?

[rodent279]

14 hours ago, NZRedBaron said:

Not sure if I've posted here before, with this idea or otherwise, but there's one notion I've had on my mind for years.

 

Picture this; it's 1939, and the storm of war is looming over Europe, about to fall at any moment; meantime, the North British Locomotive Company of Glasgow is in the process of completing an order for 30 semi-streamlined 4-8-2 mixed traffic locomotives for the New Zealand Railways Department- these being the NZR 'J-class (1939)'.

 

A few draftsmen at the office, partly as a thought exercise, partly as a bet, and partly as their contribution to the war to come, decide to copy and rescale the J-class' plans from 3'6" gauge to 4'8.5" gauge; they strip away the unneccessary headlight, streamlining and cowcatchers, along with various other NZ specific parts, and add British standard couplers, buffers and lamp irons, in an attempt to create a simple, no frills, light and powerful mixed traffic engine for the war effort.

I can't see what advantages these would offer over say a Stanier class 5, or a Thompson B1. TE is about the same, the only possible advantages I can think of are the possibility of a wider firebox being able to burn lower grade coal, and a lower axle load, about 11 tons compared to the 18 or so of a Black 5. Not sure it would have a role in the UK.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

24 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I can't see what advantages these would offer over say a Stanier class 5, or a Thompson B1. TE is about the same, the only possible advantages I can think of are the possibility of a wider firebox being able to burn lower grade coal, and a lower axle load, about 11 tons compared to the 18 or so of a Black 5. Not sure it would have a role in the UK.

When I looked at the details I wondered at the tiny wheels (4' 6") and low adhesive weight. I don't know what trains in New Zealand were like but I can't imagine a role for it in Britain - an eight-coupled 5F with the route availability of a 2MT, obtained by shifting so much of the weight onto non-driving wheels. I can't help thinking it would be rather light-footed, which rather defeats the purpose of going for an eight-coupled arrangement.

 

Presumably, axle weight was a big problem in New Zealand.

[JimC]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that for a range of locomotives using the same boiler, the constant dimension would be the pitch of the boiler above the centre-line of the cylinders.

I hadn't thought about that. On a quick look the P class boilers (as above) were only used on locomotives with 4'7.5 and 5'2 wheels, and the pitch is the same distance above wheel centreline for both on all the classes I've checked. Tapered Std 2 boilers, which were fitted on wheel sizes between 4'7.5 and 6'8.5 aren't all the same, although 5'3/5'8/6'8.5 are similar with the 4'7.5 being an outlier. 

[JimC]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Not sure it would have a role in the UK.

No, but might be useful on hastily repaired post invasion lines on the continent. One of the challenges must have been that as soon as an area was captured they immediately need to repair and use the lines that the RAF and USAAF had just attempted to bomb into uselessness, together with what damage the retreating axis forces had caused. 

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, JimC said:

No, but might be useful on hastily repaired post invasion lines on the continent. One of the challenges must have been that as soon as an area was captured they immediately need to repair and use the lines that the RAF and USAAF had just attempted to bomb into uselessness, together with what damage the retreating axis forces had caused. 

The respective railway organisations already had a range of 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 types for that, based on American experience. 

[2251]

On 04/05/2024 at 15:17, JimC said:

A few posts above I suggested a cut down Std 5 boiler could be an alternate to a P Class. It would of course be a rather expensive and pointless alternate since the P class was an excellent steamer as it was, but here it is on the lightweight 0-6-0 and also on an 8750. I've numbered the 8750 for post war lots.

 

 

 

 

Not, perhaps, wholly improbable given that when 20 Dean Goods were re-built into the 3901 class they gained Standard No 5 boilers.

 

[NZRedBaron]

On 07/05/2024 at 07:57, rodent279 said:

I can't see what advantages these would offer over say a Stanier class 5, or a Thompson B1. TE is about the same, the only possible advantages I can think of are the possibility of a wider firebox being able to burn lower grade coal, and a lower axle load, about 11 tons compared to the 18 or so of a Black 5. Not sure it would have a role in the UK.

Yeah, I was specifically thinking for the War Department, for operations overseas in places like Egypt and the wider Middle East; possibly to supplement the 8F's for workings where speed is a priority, like on hospital trains.

[Mike 84C]

I thought the WD already had Canadian built 4-8-2's for those sort of jobs. I believe they are listed in one of Tourrets books on the subject of  WD locos.

  Sounds a bit like a machine looking for a job.