tythatguy1312

44 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The Metropolitan was dragged kicking and screaming into London Transport. The point is that they fancied themselves as a main line company, in which case they should have been taken in to the LNER at the grouping.

which is how they got ripped in 2 by a weary LT in the 1940's... somehow.

...only to lose them to the LNER due to politics on the underground, but they were brilliant. Not that the LNER Needed them, as they'd already had plenty of time testing the "close enough" Chatham K's

here's an unusual proposal I've heard of. Apparently the LNER considered a larger wheeled 2-8-0 for passenger workings for the West Highland line, where the K4's ultimately ended up dominating. What would this have been like?

In an effort to avoid discussion of what I do when not overthinking public transport, might I inquire as to what the Southern Railway would've built as a standardised medium shunter, as opposed to cutting that out of the bill entirely for electrification money

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

fair bit of sinning to contend with

Guess I'll have to avoid that area, I'm... not well liked by smaller American sects of Christianity

I believe the 44 tonner may have been deliberately lightened to fit those union rules, as GE also built an 80 ton shunter and a 65 ton shunter using the same body shell. They certainly look like they should weigh more than a Brighton E1 given their size.

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

railway companies could have circumvented this if the shunting tractors had road tyres

I have a more unique solution, at least for light shunters. Driving a traction engine is apparently a 1 person job, as is driving a Sentinel. I'd say theoretically that 1 man operation could be achieved with these, but the LNER bought 56 Sentinels, possibly for this exact reason.

26 minutes ago, JimC said:

Mea culpa, I shouldn't have started this diversion. 

I'm more confused as to how we went from a conceptual extended Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Class 28 to an extended discussion on pre-WW2 IC Railcars personally

3 minutes ago, BernardTPM said:

wouldn't they best be discussed in the 'Fictional Units' thread?

I believe such a division is meaningless given discussion of a shrunk NSW Tangara Set took place in this thead

It may be due to the 57xx being more powerful, and thus it could've been seen as a waste to shove 1 between 2 autocoaches for commuter or rural service. As for why the GWR wouldn't consider keeping 50 of them in storage to be more of a waste, I'm unaware

I believe that's the Derby Lightweight, or at least the closest approximation

Speaking of the 1400's, I suspect they were built to save on maintenance costs. The 517's were as obsolete as you could get and everything they shared parts with had been withdrawn 30 years prior, meaning maintenance costs went up whilst reliability went down for the class. The Southern had no concern for this, keeping Terriers running into the 1960's, whilst the LNER and LMS replaced elderly engines with standardised tank engines, although that leaves me questioning why the GWR didn't just fit Autotrain gear to a 57xx to do the same work.

Whilst I do suspect the Railcars could do fine work on a Branch line, I am admittedly intrigued as to why. The GWR had 2 distinct classes of "branch line engines" (the 48xx for lighter, rural lines and the 45xx for heavier, more used lines) built just prior to the railcars.

arguably what shocks me most about James is that he wasn't built, as Moguls are ideal light mixed-traffic engines and would be well suited to the many jobs James is depicted doing (stopping passenger, mixed freights, light expresses). He represents a logical evolutionary path for several railways, yet only the Caledonian ever got close with the 34 class.

2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

you end up with an asthmatic Pacific

now where have I heard that one before...

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Erm...

Honestly calling the A1 "Just an extended Atlantic" feels wrong, especially as Wilbert Awdry explained the difference in rather overt detail.

I'd hate to imagine what could've happened if they tried Pacifics, as exemplified by Churchward it would've been a disaster by all accounts, and he was the first one to make a genuinely stellar 4-6-0. If nothing, it would make an extended GNR Atlantic look like an A1.

2 minutes ago, JimC said:

It wouldn't. Its a nice demonstration of why simply lengthening a 4-4-0 isn't a viable design route. The whole locomotive needs to be rethought. 

yeah tell that to Drummond 

26 minutes ago, whart57 said:

 

Those first Dutch streamliners were in fact intended for another purpose namely to run stopping trains in between the faster mainline trains. In common with many others the first reaction the Dutch railways had to motor bus competition was to put loads of halts on their existing lines. Then they discovered this just slowed the trains down, all that extra stopping and starting. So the idea was to serve the halts with a diesel car and keep the mainline trains just stopping at the major stations. They ended up shutting the halts where local growth didn't result in an upgrade anyway.

so the Dutch took the exact opposite route to Germany, the US and Swindon? Never thought I'd see a line take the opposite route

8 minutes ago, john new said:

not just the obvious duplicated nameplate.

or the duplicated dome? I really doubt most British boilers could keep up the steam demand for 2, yet alone whether the cylinders could use all that steam

11 minutes ago, whart57 said:

you have to wonder what it would have looked like had the LMS or LNER tried a similar experiment.

Luckily they did, and they had a variety of railcars & railmotors, albeit almost all on the LNER. 
The Whitworth unit looks a lot like their Sentinel railcars, and was quite a stylish unit for a railcar

Then there's the Clayton unit, which makes a Royal Scot look like an A3 in terms of looks


the LNER also had a Metrovick Railcar, seems rather unlike their most famous British rolling stock for looking quite nice. 
They also made decently extensive use of Steam Railcars constructed by Sentinel Waggon Works, they're alright.

Overall, they were decent cost cutting measures for the cash strapped LNER, but they weren't very adaptable, which was ultimately their downfall. Well that and the Unions. The Pre-LNER Companies had a few too, of which 1 is miraculously preserved.

27 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Surely that had more to do with the convenience of oil in the specific circumstances of warships. Coaling a battleship was very labour intensive and coal bulky to shift. Bit of an issue at Scapa Flow never mind the far flung bases around the world 

undoubtedly, especially as passenger ships made the switch en masse after the war. Although it did also come with a reduced crew requirement, easier storage and more efficiency, meaning ships could go for longer or slightly faster. It also stopped coal merchants from sticking empty cages in the barges to sell the displaced coal to the LNER or whatever. From what I can tell the reason British railways didn't switch was the need to import, which drove up the price. Adding to this, British engines never got big enough to need 2 firemen except debatably the LNER U1, negating any crew savings and requiring equipment that was significantly more advanced than "a shovel".

33 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

He became CME of the Southern on the grounds of seniority over Billinton

well that certainly intrigues me, particularly as 2 of Billinton's designs required revisions in my eyes, specifically the E2 and the B4X. Could we have seen improvements to those designs if Billinton became CME?

2 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

It would almost certainly have closed even without the flood damage.

I've heard of more extreme railway survivals, although a token passenger service by 2 surprisingly functional saddle tanks is pretty damning for a railway, although I am now intrigued by the continued independence of the Talyllyn railway. You'd think a passenger carrying railway would be a candidate for nationalisation, even if passengers were the only thing they had left.

31 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

power was increased by gearing at the expense of speed

from what I've seen of Thunderer, this specific form is what I suspect was the case. It appears that the wheels drove a large gear that meshed with a smaller gear directly on the driving axle, which lead to increased tractive effort at the expense of speed, although I doubt an 0-4-0 needs much speed to begin with. It is this form of more complex yet theoretically more efficient gearing that I'm referring to, although more inspired by American geared locomotives than Brunel's Catastrophic Cavalcade.