What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

Thanks for your thoughts. Johnson himself left the Edinburgh & Glasgow shortly after its merger with the North British, to become Loco Superintendent of the Great Eastern Rly between 1866 & 1873. His locomotives for the GER set the scene for his later Midland Rly engines - they were mostly scrapped before 1914 so are not well-known among enthusiasts, but are documented on the GER Society web-site:

https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/locomotives/sw-johnson

The Wainwright SECR locos can be seen as developments and enlargements of those previously built for the London Chatham & Dover under its loco superintendent William Kirtley. Kirtley had trained on the Midland under his uncle Matthew Kirtley. W Kirtley moved to the LCDR in 1874, the year after Johnson had taken over from M Kirtley on the Midland, and proceeded to introduce quite Johnson-like 4-4-0, 0-6-0 and 0-4-4T classes on the LCDR. So Wainwright's SECR engines had very likely inherited some Midland influence via Kirtley.

 

Thread seems to have drifted, so back to the topic. The book "Locomotives that never were" by Robin Barnes included one that struck me as particularly bizarre - a 4-4-0 + 04-4 Garratt based on two Midland Compound chassis. How the centre cylinders would have been serviced when under water tanks is a mystery to me! Unfortunately, I cannot find an image to post.

 

Don't worry .... it won't last!

 

British build Beyer-Garrat : https://www.flickr.com/photos/124446949@N06/38272091574/in/album-72157653567446432/

Knut

 

The E.A.R. had the class 59 but should this not have proved to be satisfactory Gorton had something better lined up. The class 61 which sadly never left the drawing board since the 59s were very capable. A nominal tractive effort in the order of 115,000 lbf. on metre gauge track. They could have been, but never were. If only ----------.

 

The LNER Class U1 2-8-0+0-8-2 Garratt also had 6 cylinders, albeit with cut-outs in the water tanks that would have facilitated access to the inside motion. The loco also had Gresley conjugated valve gear, which would have reduced the number of inside lubrication points.

There was at least one other example of a 6-cylinder Garratt, namely the New Zealand Class G 4-6-2+2-6-4, again with conjugated valve gear for the middle cylinders. Tasmania had a couple of 8-cylinder "Double Atlantic" 4-4-2+2-4-4 Garratts.

Only a few compound Garratts seem to have been built, and these had 2 high pressure cylinders on on engine unit and 2 low pressure cylinders on the other engine unit, unlike the "Double Midland Compound" that you described.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt

 

There were some choice 'double four coupled' Garratts in S.America (Brazil .... IIRC), unusually designed for passenger services. One came a cropper, due to the driver being unfamiliar with the smooth ride of these beasties and consequently badly underestimating his speed. Originally 2-4-2+2-4-2, this accident prompted a rebuild to 4-4-2+2-4-4, resulting in a very well proportioned machine.

 

Not very much known is the fact that also Andre Chapelon had a proposed Beyer Garrat on his Post-War building scheme. This would have been a 2-8-4+4-8-2 for use on heavily graded secondary routes with maximum 17.5 axle loading.
Constructed as a 6 cylindered compound engine it should be capable of a maximum 6000(!) i.h.p. Tractive effort 35 tons, working pressure 22 atm, great area 6m2 , adhesive weight 140 tons and total weight 245 tons (!)

Along with his other planned masterpieces sadly never realised... (something for the A1 Trust?)

Knut

 

Sounds very impressive 242A1! Do you know about any drawings of this proposed Beyer Garrat?

Knut

 

I know of the design but have no drawings. They might be in the Beyer, Peacock Archive which is in the hands of the Science and Industry Museum. Sorry that I am unable to help further.

 

AFAIK, said beastie never progressed beyond the roughest outline drawing, with the most basic info (max axle load, overall length etc.). The reason Durrant gave was that the 59s cleared the freight backlog (at Mombasa) and handled loads so effectively that the proposed successor simply wasn't needed. In any event, looking at EAR coupling arrangements, you have to wonder how close they'd already come to the practical limit of loads being operated.

 

I recently acquired a diagram of a Caprotti-equipped LMS/S&DR 7F 2-8-0 circa 1931. I never knew this was contemplated until I came across it. I also got a drawing of what I think is a Great Central 2-10-2. It is similar to the one in Dow's Great Central Volume 3 but some of the dimensions are different. It really is amazing what you can come across! Does anyone else have any little gems?

 

The Great Central 2-10-2 proposal is illustrated in Robin Barnes' superb Locos That Never Were, along with lots of other fun proposals.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Superb is the word though I think my fav Barnes painting is of a N15x & T14 in Stroudley's gamboge. I think it was in a Backtrack issue (errrr 'ang on.....March 2012). More recently he had a painting of a Werry-inspired oppposed-piston Southern mogul showcased (Backtrack, August this year?).

I'll post some pics of the diagrams once I get something to keep them flat and secure in if there's any interest?

The question I really have for our learned denizens was: were the 7Fs in need of improving? I was under the impression they were well liked.

 

As Robin [Barnes] himself said in his book, Locomotives that Never Were, and I quite agree. Some were a dead loss, yet others stopped you short thinking "Um" yes I could see that one as a good'un. That could/would work.....

 

What about 'Locomotives that never should have been?'

For starters, the Leader.

 

I had not heard of a proposal for a Caprotti version of the SDJR 2-8-0, but the LMS had applied Caprotti gear to some Claughtons, so it is entirely plausible that they considered it for use on other classes.

Book by Haresnape/Rowledge on Robinson locomotives mentions a number of "might have been" proposals for the Great Central, including a Pacific, a 2-6-0, an 0-10-2T banker and a 2-10-2 for heavy freight between South Yorkshire coalfields and Immingham docks. One alternative version of the 2-10-2 came from Baldwins after Robinson had visited USA.

2-10-2 seems an enormous jump from the 8K (O4) 2-8-0 that Robinson had introduced in 1911. Even if the Civil Engineer had accepted such a design, one imagines that some new longer turntables would have been needed. As far as I know, only the USA, Soviet Union and China used 2-10-2s in large numbers, with Mallets and Garretts being the alternatives where freight super-power was needed. Other countries mostly found 2-8-2s and 2-10-0s sufficed for their heavy goods.

A more believable proposal was that of the Lancashire & Yorkshire for a 4-cylinder 2-10-0, reportedly drawn-up after visiting L&Y officers had seen the Belgian 2-10-0 design of 1910. That would have been of similar size to the Gresley P1 2-8-2 of 1925, but even that engine turned out to be more powerful than the LNER could usefully employ.

Happy New Year to all!

 

Did you mean to write 2-6-0? The GCR had some Baldwin 2-6-0s, bought as a stop gap at a time when UK builders couldn’t keep up with demand. They didn’t last long in service.

Is it such a leap from a small fleet of 0-8-4 tank engines, or the initial proposal for what became the U1, though? The GCR built or contemplated some fairly heavyweight machinery in its time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes I did mean to write "2-6-0". See attached. This was an oddball design in that it had GW-type long-stroke horizontal cylinders, whereas inclined cylinders were normal on Robinson's engines. It seems likely to have been influenced by the GW 43XX class.

The 8H/ S1 0-8-4T was indeed very heavy for a tank engine, but that was largely due to its very generous coal and water capacity. Its boiler was the type used on the GC Atlantics and O4 2-8-0s, smaller than the boilers fitted to some of the British 4-6-4T types. The U1 Garrett was truly a massive beast by UK-standards, but was a one-off built for special duties and did not require a turntable.

 

Interesting sketch, rather nice actually.

For what it’s worth here’s one of the Baldwins:

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug...TIVES-OF-THE-GREAT-CENTRAL-RAILWAY/i-5GjJ6XT/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk