tythatguy1312

11 minutes ago, AlfaZagato said:

Could envision something like a Yorkshire boiler, or two parallel boilers.   Maintenance on two boilers would be a pain, but two 3.5' boilers I'd wager could make plenty of steam for huge cylinders.

The high-pressure water-tube boilers might have worked in a Brunelian gauge, too.

I've heard anecdotes from the Ffestiniog that 2 boilers are a pain. Wouldn't be surprised if crews from Ballybunion thought the same. This COULD be solved by either oil firing or mechanical stokers though

16 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

Here's the Queensland Rail loading gauge diagram. 2850mm maximum width is 9'4" on 3'6" gauge and modern coal hoppers are built to the absolute limits of the loading gauge. Container flat wagons are more typically around 2450 mm  (7'11").

 

 

But to show what really can be done on 5'3" gauge, the South Australian Railways 500 class built by Armstrong Whitworth was massive. Although "only" 9'7" wide, they weighed a massive 222t and had a TE of 51,000 lb.

 

 

 

Terrified to imagine what a 7ft gauge 4-8-2 would've looked like in the best way.

56 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not necessarily. Japan is an archipelago with no very high prospect of creating a fixed link to continental Asia. So there was absolutely no external constraining factor on the choice of gauge for a high speed passenger network - they could have gone down the route of a maglev monorail.

that seems to have been a big thing for islands & archipelagos. The Ponta Degalda harbour railway is a prime example, using 7ft gauge on an isolated network into the 1960's.

Something which I admittedly find rather perplexing is the fact that 3ft gauge never took off in the UK, at least compared to 2ft or even 2ft 3in gauge. I think it was only used on about 3 passenger railways and a couple tramways & industrial lines. I'm certainly questioning what locomotives would've been built had 3ft gauge seen more widespread use, especially considering its prevalence in Ireland and the US.

7 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

Since Ireland was mentioned, what might have been the next step from the GSR 800 class?  The few 800s were already built to the max width of the Irish broad gauge.   Understandably, there wasn't much demand for the 800s when they outshopped.   Still, could an Irish 'Pacific' been the next move?

If I'm being technical, an Irish Pacific did exist!


However I have significant doubts as to whether a "proper" 4-6-2 would've worked on Irish rails, especially following the devastating blow to Irish passenger rail known as the United States Limits on Immigration. The fact that the 800 class existed at all is a beautiful miracle to me.

24 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

ive been wondering about a lost opportunity with rack & pinion in the UK, which was only used in small amounts such as Middleton colliery, Snowdon mountain or in drift mines, while there were many places around the world such as Chile, Bolivia, New Zealand, Japan or Switzerland that used it on mainlines over particularly steep sections. not having to be restricted by adhesion could have opened up more places the railways could have gone or exisitng lines for better economy

 

for example take the Midland 7f and replace the 2nd wheelset for a rack, powered by inside cylinder/(s) to work on the Lickey, i think it would be more useful than the Bertha while most of it being parts compatible with a standard 7f.

 

some inspiration

 

Beyer Peacock 5175 Usui Pass, Japan Governemnt rlys

 

borsig 6063 Transandine, chile

I get the concept but the 7fs were already hardly light, meaning the pressure on the Rack would've been rather high and the load on the rest of the axles increased. Plus I hardly wish to see what would occur if a tender scoop hit a rack section

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

I was surprised to find that the Turf Burner, being mechanically similar in many ways to a Double Fairlie, should have revived the long-discarded concept of a single firebox feeding two boilers. 

 

I also wasn't aware that the Talyllyn Railways number 7 was based on a loco originally built for turf burning. Apparently there were three, ran reasonably well but saw little use and all survived into preservation 

I honestly suspect that a few of the concepts for No.7's rebuild could've appeared on this thread as high power industrial designs. One which stuck out to me was an 0-4-4-0t design

17 minutes ago, 6990WitherslackHall said:

Are there any more photos of these?

so far I've found another image showing one, as well as a conversion in the same style for the same work done on the County Donegal Railway

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

I presume that is turf, or peat? I'm surprised that the carriage sides were strong enough to take the side load from the turf.

It's peat, and I suspect the carriages were reinforced internally to handle it.

I may have found a potential solution to the issues caused by the severely outdated nature of British rolling stock, although the photo is from Ireland

Alright so this idea just kinda hit me. What if more railways adopted the Midland/Southern practice of smaller, more frequent passenger trains? It seems reasonable to me that the absolute peak of steam locomotive size in the UK could've reasonably been hit with 4-6-0's & 4-4-2's, optimised for more frequent and regular timetabled services.

19 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Compare with the NYC Hudsons taking on 27 (short) tons at the halfway point.... 

I'm starting to question how Gresley's A1's managed to do with 9 tons what the NYC couldn't do with 20. Really shows the difference in loco design doctrine.

12 minutes ago, toby_tl10 said:

Imagine if the LMS Garratts were built under Stanier reign instead of Fowler

the issue is... they weren't built under Fowler or Hughes. They were ordered by James Anderson (locomotive superintendent) behind Fowler's back, as Anderson was capable of enough doublethink to call the Garratts 2 small engines that just so happened to be permanently coupled together. If they'd been ordered with the supervision of anyone who wasn't as stubborn and conservative as Anderson, they may have been spectacular machines.

40 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

All I was saying was that I was agreeing with you that the starting tractive effort was key; once you've got the train rumbling along at a speed from which it can be safely brought to a halt, that's as much as you need the engine to do.

 

The S&DJR 2-8-0s and the Lickey Banker were tried on the Toton-Brent trains as an experiment; both failed because although they were designed for high starting tractive effort, they failed at the rumbling along part of the exercise.

That has me failing to see why the Midland 0-10-0 was tried at all. It's clear from a design standpoint that Big Bertha was designed to maintain an absurd tractive effort for 2 miles at the expense of all other abilities, meaning that she'd be awful at continuous running for more than those few miles. The 4f's, though pathetic as far as tractive effort was concerned in comparison to a 2-8-0 or the 0-10-0, were damn good when it comes to rolling under mostly momentum.

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

@Compound2632 is correct. However, it should be noted that the LMS Garratts were partly funded by the Government, and this seems to have ended-up with more than were needed just to do Toton-Brent. That was 8/day in each direction plus, say, 6-8 more to cover down-time, failures, maintenance, etc.. But the Gorvernment/LMS had purchased 33, not the minimalist 22-24. Hence the use on other freight to York, Gloucester, Birmingham, and the (failed) attempt in passenger service. If you've got a one-trick pony, you have to try to use a surplus on other tricks, even if they're not the best fit.

It's generally a shame that the Garratts proved so... underwhelming because they had the makings of an incredible machine. A rebuild along the lines of the Royal Scot rebuilds would've done them wonders.

I'm really failing to see why Articulated types failed to catch on for issues specific to the Aberdeen route and... basically wherever Kings, Night Owls and the Bear were banned. The LMS saw success with the Garratt on heavy trains, and a mallet (perhaps a 4-4-4-2) might've proven an excellent heavy mixed traffic type for services such as the Aberdeen route. Yes Mallets were generally seen as slow, but Union Pacific regularly used them for fast goods and passenger traffic.

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

This is the basic problem of capitalist democracy, political short-termism and business profit-taking, also a form of short termism.  And this is what is reckoned to be the best form of government; we're doomed.  Don't care much any more, I'll be dead soon anyway and the water is rising...

I feel like we've all spent enough time debating the innate flaws of capitalism and how society as we know it is slowly going to ****, so can we please get back on track. What would British Rail have looked like had the 1955 scheme's Locomotive plan been scrapped early? I feel like it goes without saying that British rail tried to dieselise too fast, resulting in a lot of ignored & misread warning signs. Would better diesels and more efficient steam locomotives have been built continuing on?

I suspect at least part of the reason for "conventional wisdom" may have been America's success with 2,000hp diesels replacing even larger locomotives, seemingly in ignorance of the fact that American diesels conventionally worked in groups, as well as the fact that American passenger trains of the day were rarely heavy enough to warrant anything more powerful than 2000hp. This would've undeniably been compounded by the fact that steam locomotives could easily put on more power than their continuous maximum, albeit only for a short time. Making the issue worse for Diesel-Electric designs was the fact that some of their engine power was siphoned off to power electronic systems in the locomotive or the train itself, with 1 notable example, the Class 31/4, losing 1/3rd of its power to the electric components, such as air-con. It all seems to have been a perfect storm against Rugby's calculations in my opinion.

1 hour ago, DenysW said:

Almost all of the Southern Pacific cab-forwards steam locos were rated at 6,000 hp, plus whatever you get short-term from mortgaging the boiler. Maybe 9,000 hp peak, 6,000 hp continuous at 25 mph? Did they just had the same confusion on deiselisation that we had - that it wasn't just the continuous output that determined a Really Useful Engine, but how well it performs on real-world tasks.

 

Summary: I don't think you can create even an imaginary locomotive without a specification.

It really came down to the issue of available power. The most common freight diesels in the US only had 1500-1600hp, being MU'd into groups of 2-6 to accommodate. Unfortunately this massively drove up maintenance costs (on account of having to maintain 4 diesels for the equivalent power of 1 steam locomotive), which is what prompted Southern Pacific to buy the 3500hp Kraus Maffei units. Similar issues on Union Pacific lead to perhaps the single most successful turbine locos ever built.

Turns out I misremembered and the Kraus Maffei ML-4000 units were only rated for 3500hp, though operation in groups of 2-3 wasn't uncommon for them

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Why not.  There’s no advantage to two, 3,300hp, which the Kraus-Maffei beats all round, but three Deltic prime movers would probably fit on a big American loco frame and there is no real problem with the loading gauge or axle weight, at least not in comparison with UK practice.  A Deltic prime mover as used in the Class 55 is rated at 1,650hp (there were two on that loco for 3,300hp), so three would deliver 4,950hp.  Whether the loco would be suitable for the work is moot, and they needed a specialised maintenance regime in the UK, but the Americans are good at that sort of thing and would not baulk at providing the necessary facilities
 

 

If its of any help, I have heard that the Deltic engines used in the Norwegian Tjeld class patrol boats were rated at 3,100hp each. Whether the engine from a Scandinavian PT boat would even fit in the US's generous loading gauge is up for debate though.

Well I do believe this thread's name isn't specifically "Imaginary British Locomotives" so I do have an intriguing idea. In the US, the Southern Pacific Railroad often struggled with locomotives being underpowered, leading to the acquisition of a series of Kraus Maffei Diesel Hydraulics rated at 4500hp. Could a locomotive using 2-3 Deltic prime movers have been used in its place?

16 minutes ago, DenysW said:

the implications of trying to operate water troughs alongside 3rd-rail DC

I do believe that this is a wonderful way to fry any poor lad who happens to make contact with the tracks

36 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I suppose that touches on another "what if" scenario.

If North Sea oil hadn't happened, maybe the relative costs of diesel traction using imported oil vs electrification using home grown coal would have been more favourable towards the latter?

I have no doubts that electrification would be more popular without north sea oil. Lines like the Woodhead route may have never lost their wires, and the 1973 oil crisis may have prompted earlier ECML electrification. On an industrial scale, steam & fireless types may have survived as far as the 1990's due to the increased price of oil. There's no preventing main line dieselisation (oil was only struck proper in 1964) but it would've accelerated proposals for electrification and slowed down private steam withdrawal.

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, locomotive development would have followed the route set by Raven's electrics. The GNR probably wouldn't have ordered the A1s as the writing would have been on the wall for express passenger steam locomotive development - no Raven pacifics, either. The situation might have been more like that on the Southern, where investment was focused on electrification, largely to the detriment of steam development - but with the difference that LNER electrification would have been chiefly on the long-distance main lines, whereas on the Southern, those were the lines that retained steam.

I'm going over what types of locomotive may flourish under this and this could lead the GNR into building a light 4-6-0 for secondary traffic and heavy branch work in place of the A1's, something along the lines of the Raven B16's. There isn't exactly concept art so... idk picture Henry the green engine, he's pretty close.

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

in the latter half of the 1910s, with the rest of the route following on swiftly at grouping,

Oh god imagine what kind of monstrous electrics Gresley would've designed. That aside, we wouldn't have been spared the first 3 A1's (1470, 1471 and 1472) on account of them being ordered by the GNR prior to grouping.