What Ifs, and Locos that never were.

Love to see a 28xx doing 90...

 

There was the notorious incident when a 28 was rescuing a failed diesel and the diesel was resuscitated and the diesel crew decided to make up time. I don't think the actual speed was recorded though...

 

Well the story is Western Region didn’t want any 9Fs when they came along, they were happy with to construct more 28xx now whether this is true or just an embellished story that’s been repeated often enough that it’s considered to be true I couldn’t say.
Being a bit of a 28xx fan myself I will pull you up one point about the 28xx and that’s how gauge friendly are they?

 

Its all getting a bit top-trumps on this, its very obviously horses for courses, and whilst a 28xx is no doubt very good at what it does best its likely that in that slow and heavy scenario a 9f would do the job, but could also do other things as well that would 'wind' a 28xx... does that not make it a better 'purchase' for any MPD that needs to anything else other than slow and heavy ?

 

Okay, and what exactly is the point of that? When was it ever profitable for heavy goods or mixed traffic trains to be running at 90mph? It's like the people who bring up that the N&W Js could reach 110 mph on 70-inch drivers, which is impressive but which had no practical use in everyday service. It's also not very maintenance-friendly for a locomotive with 60-inch drivers to be running at 90 mph regularly.

I also will say that I think finding the "best locomotive" is a fool's errand myself and that the perfect locomotive never existed, but in my opinion over the years of 20th-century rail service, the 28XX was probably as good as it got for goods work. Of course, a 1950s design should be superior to a design from 1903, but it's staggering how much the 28XXs proved themselves even in BR days. Let's also remember that in 1906 2808 managed a 2000 ton train and reached a speed of 32 mph, which is impressive at any time for British domestic standards. Well within the expectations of a 9F. 9Fs were expected to pull 900-ton trains at 35 mph, which a 28XX would easily manage.

 

Didn't need to, they had the 47xx to do that.

 

As much as I like the 47XXs, they were mostly stumped at 60 mph due to their balancing. This isn't a bad mark on the 47XXs, the New York Central L1s and L2s with 69-inch drivers were also limited to 60 mph for the same reason. There was little reason for either to be traveling above 60 mph in their regular work anyway. Balancing theories just weren't as developed as they would be 10-15 years later.

 

Well why were so many 8F’s built? Ok you could argue it’s a modified version of a 28xx but they certainly seem capable of doing the job, even as late as 1957(?) BR took on 3 more 8Fs. (48773 being one of the 3)

 

I have no qualms about the 8F and know they were high-quality engines. But let's remember the 1948 locomotive exchanges where 2884s were pitted against other goods locomotives and showed themselves to have superior fuel efficiency to the majority of the other engines (on hard Yorkshire coal no less), including the two 8Fs (coming just behind the Austerity 2-10-0) and were said to be extremely free steaming. Both the 2884s and the 8Fs performed relatively well but it seems the former had more consistent results. For a design essentially from 1903, that is extremely impressive.

I think some of you are forgetting that we're talking about a design from 1903 that was performing comparably to superiorly to designs from decades later. The GWR can be said to have become too conservative after Churchward's leave, but only the minor modifications made to the 28XX design over the years showed something for their quality. All the same, I would have loved to have seen a no. 7 boiler fitted to a 28XX as was planned. That would have been a monster of an engine.

 

Indeed it would... enough steam to handle a cylinder increase as well...

 

But to what end? If, as suggested by @Jimc, the locos were already proven capable of accelerating a 2000 ton train up to 32mph, what would you have used the excess power for? That is already a train that is longer than would routinely be handled, and probably quicker as well.

I’m reminded of a design sketched out by the SR for a Lord Nelson- derived 4-8-0 goods engine: the loops, sidings and section lengths in Kent were too short to allow running trains that would have made use of its power, and quite rightly it wasn’t built.

Anyone can design an engine that on paper wins a top trumps competition. The skill of a CME is building the best locomotive for the available and predicted traffic within myriad overlapping, and sometimes contradictory, constraints.

Tom

 

You seem locked into a design philosophy of horses for courses. Given the way that diesel and electric design in this country has broadly settled for Type 5 power as the default, I can’t but wonder whether the evolution of a fast (possibly not 90mph) heavy mixed traffic locomotive might have been desirable, and to the overall advantage of the railway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It was ( 2-8-2 Britannia) but Riddles opted for the 9F instead and to be fair there isn't much that a 9f can not handle ( apart from modern trackwork)...

 

There are those who'd say 'tis the modern trackwork which can't cope with the 9Fs!

 

Yes Tom, that makes perfect sense,although 28xx with a larger boiler and cylinders wouldnt be much different to a wd 2-10-0. To what end would be speed, accelerating and maintaining higher speeds and not blocking up the lines, but where that falls down is the capability to decelerate...

 

Might one suggest that the fact that the Standard 7 28 was considered, sketched out and feasible, yet never found necessary is an argument that 9Fs instead of more 2884s was similarly unnecessary?

 

I would be inclined to agree with you if goods trains at this point weren’t still mostly unfitted and composed of primitive wagons with short wheelbases and chain couplers. Absolutely no chance of moving those safely at mixed-traffic speeds which were normal in most other countries long before the introduction of the 9F.

If things were different, then locomotives like the Gresley P1 probably would have a better use and there would be more reason for powerful mixed locomotives. The 47XX were an excellent design, but there was a reason only 9 were built, they were niche.

The 9F is likely the closest Britain got something analogous to the South African Railways 15F (one of the best locomotive designs of all time), a truly adaptable machine, but in the 9F’s case, it was too little, too late, and held back by conservative practices and infrastructure.

ADDENDUM: This hardly matters, but I was the one who said the 28XXs could move 2000 tons at 30 mph, not Jimc.

 

Thanks - I'd not thought overly about the freight loads, but was focusing on being able to use the same loco for both passenger and goods traffic.

 

Incidentally, if anyone is interested, here’s a video of a 15F in full tilt during the mid-70s. It’s said a few minutes in that it was traveling upwards of 100-110 km/hr, hence the car barely keeping up on the unpaved road. It’s clearly not exactly a lightweight train either. Remember this is on 3’ 6” track as well.

The SAR 15F was a world class design, among the very best. South African designs in general were extremely good and this was the pinnacle of the 4-8-2 development.

 

Hmmm. This seems to be entirely inconsistent with the results as published in the Exchange Trials.

When they tested the GW engines only on welsh coal, they fared better than the other engines - I argue if this had been applied to the whole range of locomotives, and not just the GWR locos, then coal consumption figures would likely have been drastically reduced throughout.

I humbly suggest the round topped boiler locomotives were showing a better rate on fuel consumption.

I can’t help but notice the efficiency of the Thompson O1, which you have excluded entirely from your post.