Imaginary Locomotives

[Diesel Dayz]

This topic got way off the OT so perhaps the following would put it back on track . . .

 

In "The Book of the BR Standards: 2" by Richard Derry, Philip Atkins contributed a very interesting article listing the various Annual Building Programmes for steam locomotives in the 1950s which were cancelled as a result of the Modernisation Sceme of 1955.

 

These programmes would have seen additional BR Standards built as follows:

 

Class 9F 92251-307 (57 more)

Class 8F 91000-052 (or additional 9Fs) (53)

Class 7MT 70055-090 (35)

Class 6MT 72010-117 (108)

Class 5MT 73172-281 (100)

Class 4MT 75080-119 (40)

Class 4MT 76115-143 (39)

Class 4MT 80155-185 (31)

Class 3MT 77020-061 (42)

Class 3MT 82045-072 (28)

Class 2MT 78065-097 (33)

Class 2MT 84030-039 (10)

 

(Additional loocomotives) (576)

 

I'm sure no-one will have missed that the biggest addtional build would have been "Clans"! If that had happened, perhaps their well-known problems would have been sorted out and their reputation might have been far better than it turned out.

 

These additional locomotives would have only boosted the Standard class numbers by 58%, so the final totals weren't huge numbers. If the Modernisation Scheme hadn't been overtaken by events maybe other Standard classes might have emerged, such as the 8Fs (which were for the Western Region to replace Churchward 28xxs).

 

Atkins also suggests that Caprotti valve gear would have become the standard, so many of the above would probably have had the gear, these being the most obvious developments or sub-classes then foreseen. Locomotives were intended for a 40 year life, so steam was expected to last into the last decade of the 20th Century.

 

JE

 

 

Steam had had it's day in the late 50's early 60's. Modernisation had to be instigated due to rising costs. Diesel fuel was cheaper than digging lumps of coal out of the ground. Could you imagine a modern world with black and white tv and cars with ohv engines and houses without central heating and inside loos?

[Guest Belgian]

Steam had had it's day in the late 50's early 60's. Modernisation had to be instigated due to rising costs. Diesel fuel was cheaper than digging lumps of coal out of the ground. Could you imagine a modern world with black and white tv and cars with ohv engines and houses without central heating and inside loos?

Yes, you're absolutely right, and that's what happened.

 

But this is a "what if?" (or, rather, a "why not?") thread . . .

 

JE

[pH]

Yes, but in nearly all cases using steam to make electricity on board (e.g. here and here) and not t'other way round.

Later and (much!!) bigger versions of the first arrangement were built in the US for Union Pacific, Chesapeake and Ohio and Norfolk and Western railroads. Seems electrical equipment, water and coal dust never went together very well .

[James]

Modernisation had to be instigated due to rising costs.

Modernisation was very late compared with other European countries. But the wholesale withdrawal of steam didn't have to occur at once. Other countries in europe were modernising hugely but still kept steam in some places.

 

There could have been a concentration of, say, 9F's for certain flows. Maintainence concentrated to reduce costs could have helped and avoided having quite new machines being withdrawn and scrapped. Though there existence is perhaps more to do with a lack of moderisation in the first place.

[PhilJ W]

A little off topic I know, but I found this on the net. http://www.ipswich-underground.co.uk

[halfwit]

More on the topic of imaginary locomotives, this what you get if you glue two class 04 shunters together.

 

Still deciding the best way to go about motorising this creation.

 

My Grandfather did a very similar build to this in the late 60's/early 70's, I think to create a Clayton lookalike. On his the cabs have been extended by cutting and shutting two cab sides together. He used an Athearn? bo-bo chassis, one of the rubber band drive versions. I've often thought about building a replica as a way of remembering him.

[Flying Pig]

There could have been a concentration of, say, 9F's for certain flows.

We've discussed this more than once and the idea of concentrating them in the mining districts on MGR workings had some support. Slow speed control for loading and unloading would probably have been a non-starter so a separate shunting engine would have been required, but air braking to work with HopABs shouldn't have been a problem. I find the idea of 9Fs trundling around Nottinghamshire into the 1980s quite appealing, however improbable, and it would make an interesting layout.

 

[Karhedron]

Seems electrical equipment, water and coal dust never went together very well .

Sounds like they would get on like a house on fire!

[modfather]

F#M - did you not know about the 17/2's tendered for by drewry after the fiasco with the 17/1's from clayton...

[Bernard Lamb]

Steam had had it's day in the late 50's early 60's. Modernisation had to be instigated due to rising costs. Diesel fuel was cheaper than digging lumps of coal out of the ground.

Not completely true. One of the biggest factors driving modernization was the lack of labour. People were no longer prepared to do dirty jobs. Riddles tried to design labour saving features into his locomotives but even this was not enough. For an exercise let us draw a graph with modernization (not just on the railways) x immigration.

Bernard

[edcayton]

I'm not sure what point you're making Bernard. I understand that immigration was encouraged (especially from the West Indies) to bring in people to do these unpleasant jobs. If that was the case then I'd have thought modernisation could have been delayed rather than rushed in to as it was.

 

Ed

[Pennine MC]

I'm not sure what point you're making Bernard. I understand that immigration was encouraged (especially from the West Indies) to bring in people to do these unpleasant jobs. If that was the case then I'd have thought modernisation could have been delayed rather than rushed in to as it was.

 

 

Bernard will correct me if I'm wrong (he's older than me) but said immigrants were (amongst other things of course) employed on the Underground and the buses. So the 'cleaner jobs available' argument stands, and is why the oft-trotted out

But the wholesale withdrawal of steam didn't have to occur at once.

is a flawed concept which ignores wider social factors

 

Not sure that 'all at once' is truly reflective either, from 1957 (as a convenient date, the introduction of Modernisation Plan diesels plus the gathering pace of DMU building) to 1968 is hardly overnight even if it was quicker than planned

[Guest Belgian]

 

Not sure that 'all at once' is truly reflective either, from 1957 (as a convenient date, the introduction of Modernisation Plan diesels plus the gathering pace of DMU building) to 1968 is hardly overnight even if it was quicker than planned

Furthermore, the elimination of steam was accelerated by the Beeching Reoprt that eliminated a large part of the network, both eliminating much work for steam and resulting in a surplus of modern traction which had been ordered as a direct replacement for steam based on 1957 route mileage. Steam may well have lasted into the 1970s on a pre-Beeching network.

 

JE

[Mr Nik]

Hi guys. I've just stumbled over this topic whilst digging around RMWeb for some prototype information.

 

 

 

I have to be honest and say I agree with the OP there is definitely room for imaginary locomotives and even freight and passenger stock. As a couple of people have said the US modelers are really good at it and Tony Koester being just one example.

 

 

 

Whenever I flick though old copies of Motive Power Review i keep seeing references to a diesel class 38 as being ideal for high speed freight workings, i.e. Speedlink. The death of wagonload put paid to this but with DBS running out of Class 37s is it time to revisit the idea of a low axle weight diesel? I always liked the idea of doing the 38 as a cut and shut class 92 with a roof made up of various 37/9 conversion parts. This makes sense as the 92 was derived from the class 60 shell so utilising the cab front and bulkhead designs makes a lot of sense and would look right for something designed or built in the early 1990s.

 

 

Of course, to look right now would mean that a loco would have an international feel to it and would probably be based on the design practices of GM.

 

 

 

To my mind this idea is a simple extension of the 'what ifs' relating to railway lines continuing past their original terminus.

[relaxinghobby]

Is this the sort of design that a modern high speed steam engine would be like?

 

This one is from the 1930's and was a prototype in Germany for super fast steam trians, it was the sort

that inspired Gresley to do something similar, better and more usefully work-a-day on the important London to Edinburgh route.

 

The 1930's era was the start of the diesel versus steam debate and Art Deco streamlined go faster shapes were the fashion, what is the best for high speed travell?

 

There was the Flying Hamburger DMU between Berlin and Hamburg over in Hitler's brave new Germany and the Heafty Hiawatha Stream, 100 mph, 1000 ton streamliner trian running between New York

and Chicargo across the Atlantic in the 'States.

 

This picture is from the Backtrack magazine.

[Flying Pig]

More info about the loco in the picture posted by relaxinghobby here. It's actually a conventional early 20th Century loco apart from the forward cab and a bit of extra casing, so probably not like anything that would be built today. A later (and apparently not successful) German attempt at complete streamlining is shown here (for comparison, here's its prettier sister).

[shortliner]

The photo in Relaxinghobbys post reminds me very much of the McKeen railcar in its shaping at the front http://www.victorian...een/mckeen.html

[Guest Phil]

Hi guys. I've just stumbled over this topic whilst digging around RMWeb for some prototype information.

 

I have to be honest and say I agree with the OP there is definitely room for imaginary locomotives and even freight and passenger stock. As a couple of people have said the US modelers are really good at it and Tony Koester being just one example.

 

Whenever I flick though old copies of Motive Power Review i keep seeing references to a diesel class 38 as being ideal for high speed freight workings, i.e. Speedlink. The death of wagonload put paid to this but with DBS running out of Class 37s is it time to revisit the idea of a low axle weight diesel? I always liked the idea of doing the 38 as a cut and shut class 92 with a roof made up of various 37/9 conversion parts. This makes sense as the 92 was derived from the class 60 shell so utilising the cab front and bulkhead designs makes a lot of sense and would look right for something designed or built in the early 1990s.

 

Of course, to look right now would mean that a loco would have an international feel to it and would probably be based on the design practices of GM.

 

To my mind this idea is a simple extension of the 'what ifs' relating to railway lines continuing past their original terminus.

 

 

Certainly achievable, but how about the proposed class 18 ?

 

These contraptions were supposed to be put in multi overnight to trunk trains to hubs, then split to perform local trips, then multi'd again for the overnight work. IIRC they were four-wheeled "things" intended for the RfD sector of BR and several could be put together in multi.

[Black Sheep]

I one day hope to model lakeside station, windermere as it was in 1948 (nationalisation-ish) but also fancy running it as a modern day layout

 

the building was demolished in the late 60's due to ''pier strengthening'' and it is now a preserved line - but what if traffic had continued enough that it's still there, possibly running partly alongside the preserved route?

 

why not? surely part of the point of building a model is to have the option of ''what if?''

 

I'm currently pondering modeling my current layout as what if nationalisation had not happened - would the LMS be running a deltic and some DMU's in the 50's?

what would it's colour scheme have been on DMU's?

 

I feel that it would be perfectly legitimate to "imagineer" locos/rolling stock based upon actual real designs if one so wished!

I have heard of 'redgate models' idea of building the BR standard 2-8-2 (which the 9F nearly was!) and there have been others, notably GWR pacifics and even a GWR 2-10-2T along with C-C 'super Hymek's and so on.

Why not, if one has the skill to build such a model and make it look realistic and/or feasable, IMHO go for it! I don't think a sci-fi version of a Duchess or an A4 would be very 'realistic' but how about a 4-8-2 version of a Duchess or A4? A 2-8-4T version of the Stanier etc 6 coupled tank would be a most impressive machine!

Or, how about a 12 wheeled BR mark 1 restuarant or sleeper?

A Co-Co version of the HST was i believe, discussed in railway circles in the eighties, how about a Co-Co version of a class 86 or 87?

Cheers,

John E.

 

 

indeed, the other reason for modeling something, want to model a main line station served by a class of the LNER's number 10000 'hush hush''? why not? it was a prototype that was built to see if it would work and was abandoned, but what if it had worked and been put into service, would the A4 have been displaced?

 

The answer may lie in the reasons folk choose imaginary locations. Some layouts are just generic backgrounds to their locomotives, suiting the individual's taste. If one was to pick generic locomotives and drop them onto generic layouts, well it seems to lose all connection to reality.

 

 

 

my layout perhaps should be just a single line widening into a run round two platform station with goods loop - but I want trains to be able to pass each other - it's built for my enjoyment so it has two lines (partly because this will help with actual running of the layout)

 

I know someone who used to enjoy sending a Union Pacific big boy round his 1920's midland layout - I'd join in by running Bill and Ben on the narrow gauge section.

 

If you can't enjoy your hobby, why bother?

 

I understand the enjoyment someone would get from accurately modeling York (for want of an example) in the steam / diesel transition period who would be very accurate with detail including stock used

 

I can understand someone who wants to model accurately but occasionally run a locomotive that's from a different company or different era for the simple reason of ''i like the loco''

[Sailor Charon]

Well, I've had a few sleepless nights recently. At least, I think they were sleepless.

A little background...

In 1914, the Baldwin Locomotive Works designed a... rather large loco for the Great Central. It was unusual not just in terms of size, but for its cylinders which were arranged in pairs. That is, it had four external 18" x 30" cylinders.

Oh yes, and the S200 2-8-2 was another American loco made to fit to the British loading gauge.

Now, one of my favourite locos - that isn't British is the Pennsylvania Railroad's I1. Some of which were built by Baldwin...

I think you can see where this is going.

Could you build a loco with the [Jeremy Clarkson] power [/Jeremy Clarkson] of the I1 that would... be usable in Britain? Never mind why you'd want to, Never mind that it could replace double-heading 9Fs. Never mind that the Great Central loco would have needed the top taking off the Conisborough tunnel... Could it be done?

So I got to thinking. Well, when you can't sleep you think of all sorts of things.

 

We start by taking the cylinders from the Baldwin GCR loco - and make them a little bigger. 20" should be doable. Certainly, I've seen locos planned (for use in Britain) that had 20" external cylinders. (I thought the 9F had 19 1/2" cylinders, but apparently they had 20" cylinders) 22" would be nice, but I have a feeling that we'd be pushing it too much for width. And also for clearance from the ground... So, 4 20" x 30" external cylinders. Could it be done as a conventional 4 cylinder design? I'm not sure. My instincts say... no. Again, I've seen designs for British locos with internal cylinders at 20 1/2" but they only had internal cylinders.

 

Next, we borrow the chassis - or at least the wheels and general arrangement from the 9F. On top of this, we're going to need a really good boiler to feed those cylinders. Also, we'll be moving it backwards and down to sit behind the last set of drivers, and also to give us a little more height. The I1 has a boiler that tapers from 7'9 to 7', and a firebox that's 10'8" long and 6'8 wide. These should fit within the British loading gauge- well, width-wise at least . (The boiler is 7" bigger than the Baldwin GCR loco.) Oh yes, and we'll want a mechanical stoker. This is going to be one really hungry engine. And thirsty too. Not sure what kind of tender you'd need, but I'm guessing it's going to have bogies.

 

Oh, in terms of power... I have no idea the tractive effort should be.

I have plugged the numbers into the relevant formula, and get an answer that feels wrong (too large.) I've also taken the relevant figures for the 9F and adjusted them for the differences (again, according to the formula) And that too feels too large. I'm prepared to believe a figure of between 80 and 89 thousand pounds of tractive effort, but not the figures I get. Especially as I put the figures for the I1 into the formula, and it too came out too high.

 

So, what do we call it, this... monster?

I've had a few ideas for loco names... [in no particular order]

John Michael Osbourne

Randall William Rhoads

William Penn

George Fox

Yui Ikari

Matthias W. Baldwin

 

As for class names... No idea at all.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Sailor Charon

[Black Sheep]

What about a DDMU (Deltic DMU) ?

 

basically split a deltic in two, one engine and cab at each end, putting half a coach onto the back end of the cab and engine and putting more in the middle to make a set - you've got a 1950's HST set going on.

 

 

infact, I might well do it myself!!!

[Burkitt]

One of the forum members avatars looks like that, a Deltic cab on a multiple unit. Can't remember who though, and can't search by avatar subject.

Paul

[Guest Belgian]

I think it's Ceptic (4-CEP + delTIC)

[Black Sheep]

If you'll excuse the very quick chop job in photoshop,

 

here's my proposed Deltic HST DMU.

 

as I said before, Deltic chopped in two, finish the back end of each power car with half a coach, insert dedicated stock between the two (or regular stock for that matter) and away you go!

 

[Guest Max Stafford]

Not completely true. One of the biggest factors driving modernization was the lack of labour. People were no longer prepared to do dirty jobs. Riddles tried to design labour saving features into his locomotives but even this was not enough. For an exercise let us draw a graph with modernization (not just on the railways) x immigration.

Bernard

 

Whilst I wouldn't query this logic for the south of England, Bernard, it was a very different picture in Scotland where traditional heavy industry was already dying on its @rse in the early '60s. Up here as in later eras, people clung tooth and nail onto whatever work they could.

Might have been a good reason to concentrate 9Fs at Motherwell though!

 

Dave.