What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

The Belgian 2-10-0s, which inspired the L&Y proposal, were introduced in 1910 to haul heavy freights on the hilly Luxembourg line, to overcome the need for double-heading by 0-6-0s. Incidentally, these 0-6-0s were Belgian derivatives of the Caledonian Rly 812-class (one of which still works on the Strathspey Rly).

The Belgian situation was mirrored on the Midland main-line in the 1920s, where heavy coal trains were routinely double-headed by 0-6-0s. The LMS solution was to introduce the Midland Garratt 2-6-6-2. The L&Y 2-10-0 would have been an alternative option - one 90-ton engine to replace two 45-ton engines.

Thanks for the link. That livery appears to be the colours of the Belgian flag. Other models show the engines in red-brown and green liveries - presumably different liveries at different periods.

 

The first two Port Talbot Railway 0-8-2Ts faced a similar problem, I think it's been suggested that a late change to the design inserted an extra pair of driving wheels. They had brake shoes just above the rails acting on the bottom quarter of the wheels. These American built locos had a lot of problems but I don't recall reading that braking was one of them.

 

The proposed GWR 2-10-2 would have been very intersesting. As the 72xx was deemed to be very curve shy

 

I think many Goliaths were considered then. Gresley's P2 , and the Garratts' seem to have been the only completed, and issues with power/track/signals/wagons ensued. Perhaps it was because so many had died, less crews would be needed?

 

As a game it has been tried if Cox and Riddles favourite wheel configuration 4-8-0
could use 9f and LNER V2 parts.
The Firebox of the boiler needs modification ,but not much.

WP_20200112_001[1] by Hermod posted Jan 12, 2020 at 1:56 PM

 

This was a cool one Hermod!

 

A bit "Henry the Green Engine" before his rebuild. Perhaps an electrically fired version with OHL current collection via pantograph?

 

The restricted height of British locomotives made it difficult to design a 4-8-0 with a wide firebox (although one was squeezed onto the 9F 2-10-0). A number of 4-8-0 designs were drafted but generally with narrow fireboxes, for example the attached LMS proposal from 1931.

Just two 4-8-0 locomotives (with separate tenders) actually operated in the British Isles, built by Hudswell-Clarke in 1905 for the 3-ft (914mm) gauge Londonderry & Lough Swilly Railway. They had 3ft 9in (1.14m) coupled wheels and weighed 37 tons.

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug...S/LONDONDERRY-LOUGH-SWILLY-RAILWAY/i-kqrp3jw/

 

Maunsell has a proposal for a four cylinder 4-8-0 based on the Lord Nelson (so another narrow firebox job). Ultimately it didn’t get built because, in order to fully utilise its capability would have required an unacceptably large infrastructure investment lengthening loops and sidings to cope with the longer trains. Ultimately, when the SR needed more heavy freight locos, it built the last batch of S15s instead.

Tom

 

In his 'Arthurs, Nelson & Schools' Stephen Townroe showed an alleged proposal for a LSWR 4-8-0 based on the H15. At a glance it looks nice, but it would have been impossible to fit brake hangers between the wheels as drawn. Was it a product of his imagination, or was there a basis in fact?
Pat

 

The S160 demonstrated that wide firebox over 4 feet 9 wheels were practical in UK
The brave step to the 5feet of the 9Fs came after that.
If the americans had made their educational exercise WW1 ,
UK locomotives would have looked different and maybe been better investments.
The Britanias showed that 6 feet 2 with two cylinders could do everything needed for revenue trains.
With three cylinders or some kind of counterbalance, five feet wheels could do the same or faster.
In that case a 4-8-0 is smarter than a 4-6-2 or high axle load high wheeled 4-6-0s.
At ca 4% more use of steam or ca 8% less if compound.
The private builders of UK made more 4-8-0 for export than rest of world.
A hole row of standards made with five feet wheels and round top boilers.
Nice phantasy but not much need for preservation.

http://thierry.stora.free.fr/pics/141tc1_1.jpg

 

A big problem in Britain was the near total separation of the Railway's works (building for themselves) and the Contract Builders (building mainly for export). While there was some movement of design staff to / from railway and contractors there was very little exchange of ideas, and when the railways put building out to tender it was to build their own designs. One wonders what the drawing offices in Glasgow and Manchester thought of some of them (the LMS Garratts being an extreme example). For instance, we are always reading that trailing trucks lead to loss of adhesion on rear coupled axles: not if the suspension is equalised it doesn't. Commonly used almost everywhere outside the British Isles.
I have come around to believing that, for all the fascinating variety of the different railway's engines, ultimately this parochialism (Swindon, Doncaster, Eastleigh, Derby / Crewe) was not to the advantage of the railway. Great for enthusiasts, of course.
Pat

 

True.

However this separation seems mainly to have occurred post-Victorian era, as smaller railway companies merged to achieve a size great enough to support their own dedicated works. Witness the numbers and variety of Sharp Stewart, Neilson, Beyer Peacock etc designs prior to the Great War.

 

The GWR managed to fit brake hangers between the 7ft spaced 6'8.5in driving wheels of Saints, Stars and Castles, so are you sure it would have been impossible?

 

Wheel diameter 5' 1". Wheelbases 5' 6". Not much (any) room for flanges and the brake hangers, which seem to be almost at axle-centre height. It looks very much to me as though a desire to fit a 60' table overrode any other consideration. Might have been better to base it on the S15, which had very different brake rigging.
Pat

 

Port Talbot Railway Nos 20 and 21 had 4'4" (flange-less) wheels set 4'5" apart with very low set brake shoes.

 

a 9F only allows 5'5" of a 5ft wheel, not renown for their braking prowess either though

 

Are 4-8-0 tank locos excluded?

 

The Great Bear was built with equalising beams between the trailing coupled and radial axles.

 

We know that a handful of Crabs were fitted with Lentz (later Reidinger) valve gear as opposed to the Walschearts found on the majority of the class. Apparently the NRM's Horwich drawing number 19557 contains "events for front port in outside cylinder with Horwich type Walscheart valve gear compared with Riekie" and is dated 1927. This seems to imply that Horwich made at least some small effort investigating putting Riekie valve gear on a Crab (at least that is how I have interpreted it). Which is interesting as my impression was that interest in Riekie valve gear had waned considerably earlier than 1927.