Imaginary Locomotives

[rockershovel]

But, from a purely railway perspective, he was not that great (I must point out at this juncture that he was a lot better than I'd have been!). His reasons for choosing an odd gauge for the GW were ultimately flawed, though in all fairness it probably looked right in 1835, and he built the Taff Vale to standard gauge less than 2 years later; his insistence on straight track and easy gradients was not necessary until over a century after his time, which is taking foresightedness a bit far, ......

Marc Brunel was an essentially conventional, albeit very talented engineer working with the materials and technology of his time. Isambard, however, rose to prominence at a time when technology was evolving very rapidly, as were the tasks and concepts it was applied to. This was combined with almost unlimited funds in the (then) wealthiest nation on Earth, possessed of almost unlimited confidence in its visions. Henry, the third generation, was a conventional engineer who is largely forgotten today, although some of his designs remain very much in daily view.

 

There was only one I K Brunel, because no other time and place could have produced one

Edited November 21, 2017 by rockershovel

[Compound2632]

That indeed looks very promising with its 'look again' title!

 

I'm a little disappointed that nothing has been trawled up about the Midland's mainline ambitions at the time of their 1908 Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham 6600V 11Hz overhead electrification

(yes... I'm looking expectantly at you Johnster  & Compound2632  :-)

 

All I can find is that

Richard Mountford Deeley (1855-1944) after being articled to Johnson from 1875 , became chief of the testing department at Derby In March 1890, then progressed to the position of Inspector of Boilers, Engines and Machinery (March 1893), and Derby Works Manager in January 1902,

a year later he added the post of Electrical Engineer .

 

A schplarly man he took his electrical responsibilities very seriously and after research, elected for the German Siemens 6,600V AC overhead. He collaborated with both Siemens and Westinghouse on the 1908 Heysham electrification - utilising two 60 ft motor coaches with Siemens equipment and one with Westinghouse electrical components. The MR OHL was generally slung between telephone poles (except where it had to run above Premier Line trackwork!)

 

But Siemens and the 6,600V 11HZ system had other potentials for hill climbing, utilised in south Germany and in the tyrol, and Deeley projected a scheme for the Belper, Matlock, Peak Forest, Chinley,  Disley electrification using the Siemens system.

deeley siemens electric at Peak Forest.jpg

this is my lash up of the image I recall seeing (don't look too closely)

 

Deeley is of course more famous for the 4-4-0 Compound, for which he looked to Smith of the the North Eastern for its variable control.. It is worth noting how he seems also to have been looking at the NER Shildon - Teeside (BTH) electrification although seeking hill climbing capability.

 

It is also well known Deeley was projecting a 4-6-0 version of the Compound, however."a less-than-holy alliance between the Midland's general superintendent, Paget (the MR Chairman's son) and Deeley's chief draughtsman, Anderson, resulted in the 4-6-0 being indefinitely postponed in favour of the unorthodox and unsuccessful locomotive known as the 'Paget Locomotive'.

Deeley's resignation in 1909 was probably connected with this situation:"

 

Does anyone have anymore than the evening or two's surfing I've just enjoyed posting this up.?

It seems the early miseries of the LMS have its roots in this resignation.

 

dh

 

Rising to the bait...

 

I don't think much research from primary sources has been published on the thinking behind the Lancaster-Heysham-Morecambe scheme but it does seem to have been intended as a test-bed for a Peak Forest electrification; like other such schemes it was killed off by the Great War. S.W. Johnson may just have been reflecting conventional wisdom around 1900 that steam would be replaced by electric traction in due course but he was rather concerned that this would result in the company's Electrical Engineer usurping the Locomotive Superintendent's position (Letter copied into the minutes of the Locomotive Committee, now in the National Archives - I'm afraid I didn't make a transcript.)

 

I have to correct an error in your statements about the compounds. [The author of steamindex makes some uncharacteristic errors in his summary of Deeley while giving the correct information elsewhere. He's compiled an excellent abstracting catalogue but where his own opinions intervene, one has to tread cautiously.] The first five, designed and built under Johnson's superintendency, were based on his close friend W.M. Smith's design for the North Eastern Railway (of which he was chief draughtsman under Wilson Worsdel). They are thus usually referred to as Smith-Johnson compounds. Smith was paid a fee for each engine for the use of his patent. When he came to build further compounds, Deeley had the design modified to avoid Smith's patent features, and altered the Johnson engines tomatch. Charles Rous-Martin got in trouble with Deeley for describing the engines as "compounds on Smith's system" in one of his Railway Magazine articles - "the Midland Railway has no Smith compounds" was the blunt response.

 

The 4-6-0 was not proceeded with because (a) the Midland had in fact no need of a more powerful engine than the compounds for general use (the Leeds-Carlisle section perhaps excepted) and (b) weak underbridges.

 

The Paget locomotive was purely a rich man's hobby - his position gave him access to Derby works' facilities but at his own expense. The company spent no money on it. However it does seem that this was one aspect of the general "management interference" that led to Deeley's resignation. He wouldn't have lasted as long as he did in a modern corporate environment!

 

EDIT: to add link to and comment on steamindex, and comment on the Paget locomotive.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Compound2632

[Compound2632]

 IKB was a great engineer, no mistake, for the pioneering shield tunnelling and large ship achievements.

 

When it comes to railways though, totally eclipsed by the Stephensons. Not just the UK, but all over Europe there are memorials to the Stephensons for their pioneering railway work. One route to Bristol and the West devoid of systems thinking, and a continuing legacy of problems on sections he engineered due to poor decisions. Second rate at railway to be frank: the problem he had was that he had to be a 'pioneer' and in railway he was definitely the 'johnny come lately'. So the only way to be a  pioneer in railway was to do significantly differently from established practise. He won a great reputation in the South West, because it was all new there. Had he done the same work on territory where the Stephensons were established it would have supported no great claim to reputation: all been done already.

 

 

Both wrong. Joseph Locke's the man. The West Coast route to Scotland north of Birmingham is all his, along with the London & Southampton and many other lines in Britain (in partnership with John Errington) and Europe, where he laid down the principles on which several national railway systems would be developed. No vanity projects such as tunnels aligned with sunrise on one's birthday - in fact, no tunnels.

[Pacific231G]

The function of the Engineer is to define the scope and nature of the project, establish the principles and surround himself with the necessary team and staff to implement them.

 

In the same way that you should never let an accountant write a specification, you should never let an engineer define the actual goal. Like many professionals they are good servants, but bad masters.

 

IKB was a genuine innovator, as was his father. From mechanised production of rigging blocks to tunnelling shields, design of a ship which would lay the first transatlantic Cable (Great Eastern) and the Great Britain, which had a career of thirty years carrying migrants to Australia; doing the “heavy lifting” for the Cunard designs; designing and constructing railway landmarks like the Tamar Bridge, Clifton Bridge and Box Tunnel....

 

He was willing to undertake projects which stretched the bounds of the possible. His over-runs were no greater than other such projects; look at the construction of the American and Canadian transcontinental lines...

Don't get me wrong. I'm a great admirer of IKB (as well as Marc) but not an uncritical one. He was undoubtedly a visionary, and the idea of building the GWR as a flat straight high speed line has certainly stood the test of time. The fact that modern high speed and heavy goods trains happily cross the Maidenhead Viaduct every day is testament to his exceptional abilities as a civil engineer. 

 

Also, some of his "follies"- notably his used of the atmospheric railway patented by Joseph Samuda - were rational answers to real engineering challenges. In that case the problem was the limited power of early locomotives and, despite its reputation as a total failure, the atmospheric railway actually had some success.  It enabled the final section of the Paris- St. Germain-en-Laye railway to be built ten years after the rest of the line. The gradient of the final section up to the town would have been too steep for the locomotives originally available but the extension opened as an atmospheric railway in 1847- the same year as Brunel's South Devon scheme- and operated for thirteen years until 1860 when more powerful locomotives that could tackle the gradient made it obsolete, though banking was still requred until the line was electrified about sixty years later. .

 

The Great Eastern was not a succesfull ship and seems to have been the product of Brunel's desire to build the largest ship possible. It was damaged by gales, particularly its paddle wheels, that a well founded ship should have been well capable of handling  and, unlike the elegant Great Britain, just doesn't look like right, generally an indication of good engineering. That its great size enabled it to carry an entire transatlantic cable was fortuitous but it certainly wasn't designed for that.   

 

Unfortunately, despite his excellent qualities, employing IKB as your engineer tended not to be a good financial investment.  

Edited November 22, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Suzie]

I was wondering what a pair of 'Super Hymeks' with around 7000HP would be used for, but I think I have found the solution. A nice long rake of 100mph 100 tonne milk tankers for a regular Wales to London daily flow would be one user.

 

 

Anyone know what else would require that much power in the 1960s? 

 

 

[FPH 603]

Get a long rake of these and there's a job for a pair of Super Hymeks.

 

Photo from: http://s374444733.websitehome.co.uk/kua/index.htm

Edited November 22, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[DavidB-AU]

How close is this to the proposed Midland 4-6-0?

 

 

Cheers

David

[rockershovel]

Don't get me wrong. I'm a great admirer of IKB (as well as Marc) but not an uncritical one. He was undoubtedly a visionary, and the idea of building the GWR as a flat straight high speed line has certainly stood the test of time. The fact that modern high speed and heavy goods trains happily cross the Maidenhead Viaduct every day is testament to his exceptional abilities as a civil engineer. 

 

Also, some of his "follies"- notably his used of the atmospheric railway patented by Joseph Samuda - were rational answers to real engineering challenges. In that case the problem was the limited power of early locomotives and, despite its reputation as a total failure, the atmospheric railway actually had some success.  It enabled the final section of the Paris- St. Germain-en-Laye railway to be built ten years after the rest of the line. The gradient of the final section up to the town would have been too steep for the locomotives originally available but the extension opened as an atmospheric railway in 1847- the same year as Brunel's South Devon scheme- and operated for thirteen years until 1860 when more powerful locomotives that could tackle the gradient made it obsolete, though banking was still requred until the line was electrified about sixty years later. .

 

The Great Eastern was not a succesfull ship and seems to have been the product of Brunel's desire to build the largest ship possible. It was damaged by gales, particularly its paddle wheels, that a well founded ship should have been well capable of handling  and, unlike the elegant Great Britain, just doesn't look like right, generally an indication of good engineering. That its great size enabled it to carry an entire transatlantic cable was fortuitous but it certainly wasn't designed for that.   

 

Unfortunately, despite his excellent qualities, employing IKB as your engineer tended not to be a good financial investment.

 

.... I don’t think we’re far apart on any of that.

 

The Great Eastern was exactly the sort of thing you tend to end up with, if you provide engineers with virtually unlimited funds and a free hand, at a time when the limits of a rapidly evolving technology are not understood. Cunard would make a great succcess of developing one of IKB’s ships, but not THAT one, precisely because Cunard had a clear vision of what he sought to achieve in the overall scheme of things.

 

The Western main line route was an application of basic principles, at a time when the established technology couldn’t meet the requirements.

 

The tunnelling shield was actually first designed by Marc Brunel, then improved by Barlow and Greathead (who introduced the basic innovations of the circular cross-section and prefabricated segmental lining, which remain in use to this day).

 

It’s also worth pointing out that the construction of projects like the American transcontinental railroad tended to be financial disasters for the original investors, with TML picking up the torch in fine style; it’s clear that the way to actually make money on railway infrastructure, is to pick up the financial wreckage for pennies on the dollar.

[rockershovel]

How close is this to the proposed Midland 4-6-0?

 

MR460.jpg

 

Cheers

David

Hate to say it, but that looks like a classic example of “bad design not looking right”, not least because the 4-4-0 types looked so well balanced. That one looks too long in the boiler..

[Zomboid]

I think the driving wheel spacing on that 4-6-0 compound is too large. If such a thing had been built I suspect it would have been a few feet shorter.

[Compound2632]

How close is this to the proposed Midland 4-6-0?

 

MR460.jpg

 

Cheers

David

 

As Zomboid says, waaay too long. An authentic sketch was posted here. A Smith-Johnson compound atlantic would certainly have been a more elegant machine.

[rockershovel]

As Zomboid says, waaay too long. An authentic sketch was posted here. A Smith-Johnson compound atlantic would certainly have been a more elegant machine.

I rather like that 0-6-0 .... a sort of pre-Q1....

[The Johnster]

Not so much too long in the boiler as too short in the firebox; it would have been a very poor steamer.  This hits a fundamental problem; you cannot enlarge the firebox with that wheel spacing, and need to redesign the loco from scratch; an extended 4-4-0 won't work, or not well anyway1

[runs as required]

I was wondering what a pair of 'Super Hymeks' with around 7000HP would be used for, but I think I have found the solution. A nice long rake of 100mph 100 tonne milk tankers for a regular Wales to London daily flow would be one user.

 

Unigate tanker.jpg

 

Anyone know what else would require that much power in the 1960s? 

Intrigued by this - a daily flow no less!

How many trad GWR 'siphons' does this replace - or Black and White Friesan cows per acre/hectare or metre run of cow shed to fill?

Probably a post Brexit transporter of bulk milk to Southampton for the Chinese trade.

dh

Edited November 22, 2017 by runs as required

[TheQ]

Both wrong. Joseph Locke's the man. The West Coast route to Scotland north of Birmingham is all his, along with the London & Southampton and many other lines in Britain (in partnership with John Errington) and Europe, where he laid down the principles on which several national railway systems would be developed. No vanity projects such as tunnels aligned with sunrise on one's birthday - in fact, no tunnels.

The roumer often quoted in books that the Box tunnel was aligned to Brunels birthday has been proved to be false. it never was aligned for his birthday

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...need to redesign the loco from scratch; an extended 4-4-0 won't work, or not well anyway1

 This was 'the problem' facing the UK's loco engineers after the wet steam 4-4-0 format (and a near identical boiler and engine layout on an 0-6-0) had been developed close to limit of loading gauge and axle weight prevailing; and the traffic department were demanding greater sustained power and adhesion. The design teams that successfully moved on were led by CME's with a willingness to look outside the UK where the increased  power and traction demands had arisen earlier, and to then apply what had been learned elsewhere: Churchward, Ivatt, Gresley. It's arguable that a man like Deeley would have joined this select group had he remained CME on the MR, he had the intellectual curiosity that drives this behaviour.

 

 

Both wrong. Joseph Locke's the man ..

 Did it the right way, successfully developed and significantly improved on what had been established.

[Compound2632]

The roumer often quoted in books that the Box tunnel was aligned to Brunels birthday has been proved to be false. it never was aligned for his birthday

 

I'd read that the rising sun would have shone through it on his birthday were it not for the gradient. However, having looked it up, I'm delighted by the suggestion that it was aligned for his sister's birthday three days earlier.

[DCB]

How close is this to the proposed Midland 4-6-0?

 

MR460.jpg

 

Cheers

David

The coupled wheelbase would have to be longer at 8ft + 8ft 6" to keep the lads at Derby happy.    The excess boiler length plagued all the 4-6-0s (and 4-6-2s) with drive solely on the leading axle except the B12s and hampered a lot of UK 4-6-2s.  The CR Cardeans had the front tube plate recessed into the boiler barrel to make the smokebox appear shorter and Great Bear was supposed to have had the same feature but ended up with ridiculously long tubes at 23 feet or so.  The GWR did some studies and concluded that shortening barrels and raising pressure was the way to improve efficiency so the County Boiler was born but originally intended for a Castle chassis.

I believe Gresley was the only engineer who cracked the drive problem on big engines by driving the middle cylinder on the middle axle.  Just look at the elegance of the A3s.   I think if development had continued streamlining would have been essential as boiler barrels became progressively shorter and smokebox fronts migrated rearwards.  

It is noticable how the short barrel version of several boilers were regarded as excellent steamers while the long barrel versions were not, see GCR Directors and GCR Lord Faringdons, though the Faringdons were on the hardest turns...

[rockershovel]

I'd read that the rising sun would have shone through it on his birthday were it not for the gradient. However, having looked it up, I'm delighted by the suggestion that it was aligned for his sister's birthday three days earlier.

Surely the REAL point, true or not, is that it be suggested at all; and having been suggested, widely believed? His son worked on the design of one of the most iconic images of London - Tower Bridge - but is largely forgotten today. Apart from Thomas Telford, I can’t think of another engineer remembered for designing a bridge, and I certainly can’t think of another engineer with his name on the main piers, as at Saltash. Stephenson’s claim in the popular imagination rests mainly on a single Locomotive.

[Compound2632]

The coupled wheelbase would have to be longer at 8ft + 8ft 6" to keep the lads at Derby happy.    

 

More unwarranted Derby-bashing - see drawing linked to above. Otherwise I agree with the struggle to produce an effective 4-6-0 that beset the designers of brilliant 4-4-0s - especially those in the Drummond tradition such as the great man himself, McIntosh and Pickersgill.

 

Surely the REAL point, true or not, is that it be suggested at all; and having been suggested, widely believed? His son worked on the design of one of the most iconic images of London - Tower Bridge - but is largely forgotten today. Apart from Thomas Telford, I can’t think of another engineer remembered for designing a bridge, and I certainly can’t think of another engineer with his name on the main piers, as at Saltash. Stephenson’s claim in the popular imagination rests mainly on a single Locomotive.

 

Robert Stephenson's Menai Bridge? Now which Stephenson did you have in mind? George is associated in the popular mind with Rocket, which was really Robert's work... 

[Pacific231G]

Surely the REAL point, true or not, is that it be suggested at all; and having been suggested, widely believed? His son worked on the design of one of the most iconic images of London - Tower Bridge - but is largely forgotten today. Apart from Thomas Telford, I can’t think of another engineer remembered for designing a bridge, and I certainly can’t think of another engineer with his name on the main piers, as at Saltash. Stephenson’s claim in the popular imagination rests mainly on a single Locomotive.

And Brunel's bridges didn't fall down. Robt. Stephenson was of course a very successful locomotive builder but the Stephensons real place in railway history, apart from George's design of the first modern railway, was surely their development of the steam locomotive into the form that it took for the rest of its history. In a real sense almost every steam locomotive ever built was directly descended from the Rocket just as almost every aeroplane is directly descended from the Wright Flyer..

Edited November 22, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

How close is this to the proposed Midland 4-6-0?

 

MR460.jpg

 

Cheers

David

I think the driving wheels would need to be rather closer together.

[Hroth]

Not so much too long in the boiler as too short in the firebox; it would have been a very poor steamer.  This hits a fundamental problem; you cannot enlarge the firebox with that wheel spacing, and need to redesign the loco from scratch; an extended 4-4-0 won't work, or not well anyway1

It looks even worse than my proposed Dean-Churchward Outside Framed 4-6-0 based on the CoT layout.

 

I've partially cobbled a prototype together using two Dapol CoT kits it looks good, but as you say, stretching a 4-4-0 leaves you with a longish boiler and smallish firebox, although if you look at the GER "Claud Hamilton" S46 (D16) 4-4-0 against the S69 (B12) 4-6-0, the S69 looks pretty much a stretched design that did work.

[Compound2632]

And Brunel's bridges didn't fall down. Robt. Stephenson was of course a very successful locomotive builder but the Stephensons real place in railway history, apart from George's design of the first modern railway, was surely their development of the steam locomotive into the form that it took for the rest of its history. In a real sense almost every steam locomotive ever built was directly descended from the Rocket just as almost every aeroplane is directly descended from the Wright Flyer..

 

Is it the Dee bridge at Chester you have in mind? The limitations of cast iron as a structural material were only just beginning to be understood. I trumpeted Joseph Locke earlier but Robert Stephenson was the only one of the early big names to achieve success in both civil and mechanical engineering - and indeed, very quickly the two professions formally went their separate ways.

[The Johnster]

I do not think it is unfair to describe Robert Stephenson as the father of railways in the UK, which by extension means everywhere.  Quite apart from Rocket and the other early locomotives, he is responsible directly for the standard gauge, the concept of platforms and ramps, the 6 foot way between tracks, the form of compartment coaches that were the staple for so many years, up and down lines, and the first railway policemen, and hence the concept of sectionalised signalling.  

 

He also provided Brunel's GWR with their first successful locomotive and a very capable locomotive engineer to go with it!  Much as my loyalties lie with the GW, I cannot but accept that Stephenson was ultimately more influential than Brunel, and was vital to the development of the early GW.