Imaginary Locomotives

[DavidB-AU]

A few years before the NSW variant certainly, but the South Australian order seems to have been pretty early in the production run...

 

The first 6 delivered to SAR in 1955 were single ended. The double ended ones entered service in the same month as the first of the 44s.

 

Cheers

David

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...The only possible market I can see for any future steam development would be in a country rich in coal that could not for political reasons legally import oil, and I would have no intention of supporting the transport network of such a country...

Yes, but coal is the worst, I believe.

 Back to the ACE project for modern coal fired steam. You have to look at the total impact, and ACE was posited around a coal rich country (USA) using this traction burning the standard mine product, processed for chain grate firing in power plants, to fuel it on the merry go round between the mine and those power plants. Fuel is not being processed elswhere and transported in to run the trips, it is locally sourced (zero fuel miles!) and cheaper than oil per unit energy content; and the steam locomotive is cheaper in first cost (and that includes energy content) than the equivalent diesel or electric power, largely because is mostly steel rather than requiring quantities of more expensive metals like copper.

 

Economically the Norfolk and Western didn't see much difference between its final heavy steam design on this traffic and the oil fuelled diesel replacements. And that was when oil and coal energy costs were roughly equivalent. Coal's a lot cheaper now relative to oil, and this is the moment wheh the project holds a Trump card...

[The Johnster]

How interesting... I never knew this was actually part of the plan. Then what changed? What made BR withdraw steam locomotives earlier than planned? I suspect (but don't know for sure) that this could have been Beeching's doing.

 

 

The entire economic situation under which BR was operating changed drastically between 1955 and 1965, and BR, despite their perceived reputation as an inefficient bureaucratic nationalised industry that was slow to change, adapted very quickly and well to the new world.  In 1955 we had, to all intents and purposes, the same railway we had in 1935; by 1975 we had the basic formation of the one we have now, with air conditioned stock on some main lines and HSTs about to roll out.

 

What happened was a huge change in the way railways were used, in conjunction with a massive road building programme culminating in the present motorway network, huge increases in car ownership, and the development of the 40 foot articulated lorry, as a faster and arguably more efficient method of transporting wagon load goods.  It was already accepted, and mentioned by Beeching in his report, that goods depot traffic was doomed to be lost to road haulage, and that the railway should concentrate on bulk mineral, steel, and container traffic.  This enabled BR, who were under a political imperative to appear modern, to dispose of steam, no longer needed for the vanishing smalls, mileage, and door to door traffic, and largely unsuitable for fast block freight trains (imagine a 1960s designed 4-8-4 based on Duke of Gloucester with 5'8" drivers and oil firing for Freightliner or bulk oil traffic, though the 9Fs would have done quite well, as they did on the Fawley oil trains) much more quickly than the original plan had allowed for.  

 

Riddles' concept, disposed of rather brutally as he was himself in the 1955 plan, was for steam to last until the 80s by which time the new standard 25kv electrification of main lines would be complete and there would be a few diesel electrics for non electrified places; this was more or less the pattern in several European countries.  Nobody laughed at this in 1950, but questions were raised over it only 5 years later and the idea that a new Chairman might have followed Beeching in 1963 with a plan to continue using steam would have been met with utter derision.  

 

Of course, government and Treasury interference in the form of delays, funding withdrawals, and cancellations of electrification schemes had their part to play as well, as the railway hastily ordered more diesels to make up the shortfall, not always particularly good ones!  There were some terrible wastes of resources; the later build standards, 94xx, 16xx had ridiculously short working lives and some of the new diesels were ill advised; should the D95xx ever have been built at all?  But these examples of undoubted waste must be considered against the holistic backdrop of falling and, most of all, changing traffic patterns.  

 

The '50 years end of steam' thread shows photos of a run down, often semi derelict, dirty, slow, railway clearly not up to the job of challenging the new motorways and the artics, much as we loved the atmosphere; within less than a decade it was (very) profitably running the fastest trains in the world that could run on normal tracks, and which were fully air conditioned to boot, at no supplementary fare, a truly remarkable achievement.

 

Nowadays, the motorways are victims of their own success, blocked arteries that cost billions, and railways are resurgent, though hampered by the need to provide dividends to shareholders.  One can only imagine the efficiencies that could be achieved by re-nationalisation, though that would block investment capital for political reasons!

 

Withdrawal of steam earlier than planned is associated with Beeching, but IIRC he never said anything much about the type of motive power the trains on his 'rationalised' railway were to use.  It is not fair to blame or credit him with getting rid of steam, though his closures greatly accelerated the process.  He closed a lot more than the branch lines everyone talks about, remember, huge numbers of small stations, goods yards and depots on main lines that remained open and very much in business, and the sidings to store the stock (which was also decimated rapidly at around this time).  The railway was contracting in response to changed economic conditions and traffic levels; his report created a sort of perfect storm of closures but was a symptom not the disease!  

 

I would certainly argue that some routes should never have been closed, and it is possible than some would not have been were it not for Beeching.  His job was to stop the railway making losses, and he did it the way a bean counter would, with a simplistic view that, if it didn't make a profit, it went.  A more holistic view that some loss making services fed in to profitable ones and made them more profitable might have produced a different outcome and made the railway more efficient and profitable overall, but he introduced a culture of closure in which one could not make a successful career on the railway by pursuing any other course than finding things to close, closing them, and crowing about how much money you'd saved in a short sighted and blinkered sort of way which did not take into account the effect on profitable traffic elsewhere.  Small main line stations fed traffic to big ones where passengers on stoppers changed to expresses; hardly surprising that, when their local station was closed, they bought cars!

 

OTOH, some lines should have been closed years before, and were very much black money holes.  It is arguable that the Great Central should never have been built in the first place, and many branch lines never made a penny in a century of operation, even in the sense of feeding main line traffic.

Edited January 16, 2018 by The Johnster

[Compound2632]

many branch lines never made a penny in a century of operation, even in the sense of feeding main line traffic.

 

But may have made an unquantifiable contribution to their local economy.

[BernardTPM]

But may have made an unquantifiable contribution to their local economy.

What some politians might call 'namby pamby' economics (perhaps especially those with shares in road building companies).

[Coryton]

But may have made an unquantifiable contribution to their local economy.

 

In some cases, perhaps, but it's hard to see any sensible alternative reality in which, for example, the good people of Hemyock (which, last time I looked, supported a once daily bus service) took the train to Tiverton Junction for onward journeys.

[Compound2632]

In some cases, perhaps, but it's hard to see any sensible alternative reality in which, for example, the good people of Hemyock (which, last time I looked, supported a once daily bus service) took the train to Tiverton Junction for onward journeys.

 

It was not the passenger journeys I had in mind. Also, I was thinking historically, rather than in the contemporary (or post-60s) context.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Compound2632

[Coryton]

It was not the passenger journeys I had in mind. Also, I was thinking historically, rather than in the contemporary (or post-60s) context.

 

Fair point.

[Hroth]

The other thing that forced the continuation of steam in the early 50s, was the parlous state of the British economy. We just couldn't afford to buy fuel oil to power a fleet of diesel locos.  I believe in the late 40s, the WR, thinking outside the box (as usual) converted one or more Halls to burn oil fuel, to evaluate the labour savings from simplified disposal on shed and so on.  Some mandarin at the BTC latched onto this and a scheme was started to trial oil burning on other regions.  Then someone did the sums and realised that British Railways would run out of money PDQ. The scheme collapsed and it was decided to build a fleet of new indigenous coal burning locos* predicated on the traffic flows of 1939.

 

Of course, by 1955 things were looking brighter and it was decided that British Railways could have diesel engines, get rid of all the dirty steam locos they'd just built and whoopee for the broad sunlit uplands of decreased fuel costs and labour cost cuts too!

 

To hell with writing off the past 5 years plus of capital expenditure on steam...

 

Beancounters can't see beyond the line at the bottom of the page.

 

 

 

* Shades of the Stable Genius, eh?

 

 

Edits for spelin and clarification.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Hroth

[Corbs]

This is an interesting discussion but let us not forget to allow ourselves to dream of Standard 8Fs and Peppercorn 'Baltics'.

I did find myself wondering if, had the USA not built so many S160 locos, perhaps more WD 2-8-0s would have stayed abroad, leaving a gap for a standard 8F in BR's line-up?

[The Johnster]

Hmm, possibly.  I would still like to have seen the fast mixed traffic 3 cylinder 4-8-4, though, with 4 character backlit headcode boxes and yellow buffer beams, roller bearings throughout, and Porta modifications running rings around class 47s.

[DavidB-AU]

Hmm, possibly.  I would still like to have seen the fast mixed traffic 3 cylinder 4-8-4, though, with 4 character backlit headcode boxes and yellow buffer beams, roller bearings throughout, and Porta modifications running rings around class 47s.

Feel free to paint it.

 

 

Modification from drawings here.

 

Cheers

David

[DavidB-AU]

Inspired by the French 151 TQ.

 

 

Cheers

David

[Regularity]

Nice, but I expect that the driving wheels would have been closer together - still a bit of a track straightener either way!

[Zomboid]

Feel free to paint it.

 

LNER484.jpg

 

Modification from drawings here.

 

Cheers

David

A beast like that would probably want a bigger tender.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

[The Johnster]

I agree, the Peppercorn 4-8-4 doesn't quite gel, but my concept was for a Duke of Gloucester type 3 cylinder air braked only loco with British Caprotti and oil firing from a big bogie tender, looking a bit like a 25NC.  The design brief would be haulage of a 1,000 ton Freightliner train at 90mph or 1,600 ton bogie oil tanks at 60mph, but the locos would have been in demand for unheated summer excursion work with airbraked stock and possibly for engineering occupations or diversion work when the wires were down on the WCML.  They should have lasted in normal service until about the turn of the century in this role, being replaced by 3.000hp+ diesels in the 70s.  Driving wheels perhaps 5'6", and a 10MT/Type 5 power classification, 4 character headcode panels on front buffer beam, and large yellow warning panels with blue livery, at least until sectorisation.  Later modification might have included video cameras on the buffer beams or contained in adapted headcode panels along with the high intensity headlights, and a noisy American type electricity generator atop the boiler for on board power supply.  These video cameras would have required windscreen wipers, I believe a first on a steam loco in the UK.  A few might be retained in service by NR to cover power outages and the like up to the present time.

 

The boiler would have been pretty close to the loading gauge, and hence so would the double chimney, so smoke deflection is absolutely essential on this locomotive.  An extended version of the BR standard type as applied to Britannias, Clans, Duke of Gloucester and 9Fs would do the job, with either WR or LMR type handholds instead of the handrail.  The curve of the deflectors at the top might have needed to be extended further around the smokebox, and it is possible that the thing might have had a bit of a 141R look to it.  Numbers in the 93xxx range could have continued to be used post-TOPS.

 

They might have been useful at Westbury on the stone train work that the 59s were built for, and if that had never happened we would arguably have no 66s now.  It seems difficult to imagine the current railway without 66s.

[rockershovel]

I’m inclined to agree .. the 4-8-2 sounds rather attractive, but the 4-8-4 wheel arrangement doesn’t really “gel”. There seems to be a “step change” between 4-8-2 and 4-8-4 types, with the 4-8-4 being much larger

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by rockershovel

[Corbs]

I fancy having a crack at a BR Standard 4-8-4.

Some Peppercorn 'what-ifs' made earlier in the thread and reposted here for comparison...

2-8-4

 

4-6-4

 

4-8-2 based on a model by Simon Martin

[Corbs]

The poor, poor fireman....

 

 

My own P2/4 is still in the drawer! I need to get some mojo back for it

 

(edited to reduce the firebox length a bit and add a double chimey!)

Edited January 17, 2018 by Corbs

[The Johnster]

Nice!

[Satan's Goldfish]

Very nice.

 

Constructive comment; any way of beefing the tender up a bit? Maybe a 6 axle bogie tender version of the 1 with the 3 other 'what if's?

[Corbs]

Could do, yes. I already extended it to have 4 axles! Had to reduce the spacing though as it looks too rigid otherwise, so maybe a bigger one will require bogies.

[scots region]

800px-242_DEL_Chapelon.jpg

You know I have wondered what would have happened if Chapelon had escaped to the UK after the fall of France.

[Compound2632]

Very nice!  Mechanical stoker required though, or as a gesture towards improving the employment situation use two fireman.  Larger tender of course.  Giesl ejector instead of double chimney?  Beef up the coupling rods, and put nice big roller bearings on all the motion. A distinctive feature on many trailing trucks is the front wheels are smaller than the second set, to allow for clearance under the firebox.  What diameter are the drivers?

 

Really does lead one to think that using two smaller engines might be a simpler and cheaper option. Much as the LNWR was wont to do.