Imaginary Locomotives

[The Johnster]

Midland designs did well in Scotland, but couldn't cope with the demands of WCML.  Neither would they have been much use on the ECML, or the GW particularly for the West Country and very heavy South Wales traffic.  They were capable little engines within their limitations, well designed and built, robust, easy to maintain and manage at depot level, and pretty quick if not overloaded.  The problem is that they would have been hopelessly overloaded on railways not built to deal with the Midland policy of light, fast, regular interval trains on, in general, shorter haul start to stop runs; Leicester is closer to London than Leeds, York, Crewe, Exeter, or Newport.  

 

And simply upsizing was not a viable option given the limitations of the Kirtley axlebox on the Royal Scots and Austin 7s.

 

But I'd forgotten about ARLE and the Woolwich engines; perhaps things might have gone in a more Maunsell sort of direction, with something like a Lord Nelson as the standard passenger loco and a Lord Nelsonesque pacific for the top jobs.

 

Britain in the 1920s was not IMHO a natural breeding ground for heavy electric traction, as coal was still cheap and plentiful and a nationalised railway subject to government influence would have been managed with an eye to keeping the miners employed.  There would, I suspect, have been a lot more suburban electrification, probably with some form of overhead system; the concept was well proven and popular worldwide for this application, but for heavy traction tended to be a feature of areas with mountains, hydro-electric potential and no coal, with Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and the Pacific Northwest of the USA being the actual breeding grounds for electric heavy haulage traction.  A New York type steam ban did not occur to the authorities in London until the killer smogs of the 50s, but it is likely that suburban networks would have developed north of the river, as well as around Birmingham, Leeds and possibly Cardiff.

 

As for coaching stock, the Midland probably had the best and that might have been the standard, but in the early 20s nobody had any really good modern stock; only ECJS had gone in for buckeyes and everything was still wooden body framed and panelled as it had been 20 years before.

 

Freight stock would of course have continued to be the mess it was for the next half century whatever happened.  No amount of persuasion ever shook the coal trade or other private siding operators away from the short wheelbase 4 wheel wagon with 3-link couplings and a buffer at each corner, and many of the big railway warehouses and handling depots were firmly wedded to it as well, with an entrenched resistance to vacuum fitted, never mind air braked, stock.

 

The one application that might have seen electric locos would have been the London transfer freights, as pretty much the entire city would have been juiced up and a good bit of the cross London traffic runs in tunnels.  No great power or speed would have been needed; except for Maunsell's Woolwich 2-6-4s for the Feltham transfers most of it remained capably dealt with by 0-6-0s for many years, and an 800hp Bo-Bo or small crocodile would have sufficed; tractive effort is the name of the game here!

[The Johnster]

It goes back earlier than that. Winston Churchill spoke in favour of nationalising the railways in 1918. The Ways and Communications Bill of 1919 actually included powers of State purchase, but Andrew Bonar Law opposed it and it was dropped from the Bill. Some historians have theorised that the Conservatives were spooked by Red Clydeside, fearing a Communist revolution in Scotland as this was only ~15 months after the Russian Revolution. The Big Four was a compromise.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

Lloyd George was another supporter of the concept IIRC, a couple of years or so before Winston mentioned it, though it may have been more to do with his handling of the war economy than any idealist principle of his or his concept of how things should be managed in peacetime.  But the Red Peril was a serious consideration in the minds of the politicians and those in positions of business influence with whom they dealt in those days, with the rabidly anti-communist Churchill being one of the more rational thinkers on the subject!

Edited September 6, 2017 by The Johnster

[£1.38]

Creating the Big Four was surely a far, far cheaper option for the Government than nationalisation, which would have involved buying up all the shares in the railway companies. Many were still relatively prosperous at that time. There was some optimism that the good times were about to return.

 

Nationalisation only became a sensible option after WW2 when the railways really were tired and very run down - and buying the shares was cheaper then than settling the large amount of money the Government owed the railway companies for the war.

[whart57]

Britain in the 1920s was not IMHO a natural breeding ground for heavy electric traction, as coal was still cheap and plentiful and a nationalised railway subject to government influence would have been managed with an eye to keeping the miners employed.  There would, I suspect, have been a lot more suburban electrification, probably with some form of overhead system; the concept was well proven and popular worldwide for this application, but for heavy traction tended to be a feature of areas with mountains, hydro-electric potential and no coal, with Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and the Pacific Northwest of the USA being the actual breeding grounds for electric heavy haulage traction.  A New York type steam ban did not occur to the authorities in London until the killer smogs of the 50s, but it is likely that suburban networks would have developed north of the river, as well as around Birmingham, Leeds and possibly Cardiff.

 

..............

 

The one application that might have seen electric locos would have been the London transfer freights, as pretty much the entire city would have been juiced up and a good bit of the cross London traffic runs in tunnels.  No great power or speed would have been needed; except for Maunsell's Woolwich 2-6-4s for the Feltham transfers most of it remained capably dealt with by 0-6-0s for many years, and an 800hp Bo-Bo or small crocodile would have sufficed; tractive effort is the name of the game here!

 

In the absence of a National Grid, electricity generation was still local and thus it's unlikely long distance mainline electrification was even feasible pre-war. However, given that the Southern's definition of "suburban" extended as far as Brighton it would be interesting to speculate how far it might have gone Northwards and Westwards from London under a nationalised set up. Electric trains from Paddington to Oxford perhaps?

 

As for an electric loco for London transfer freights, how about a 1-Do-1 wheel arrangement? That was quite popular in the 30s.

[rockershovel]

Creating the Big Four was surely a far, far cheaper option for the Government than nationalisation, which would have involved buying up all the shares in the railway companies. Many were still relatively prosperous at that time. There was some optimism that the good times were about to return.

 

Nationalisation only became a sensible option after WW2 when the railways really were tired and very run down - and buying the shares was cheaper then than settling the large amount of money the Government owed the railway companies for the war.

What was the actual legal mechanism, used to create the Big Four?

[MPR]

What was the actual legal mechanism, used to create the Big Four?

The Railways Act, 1921

[The Johnster]

There was certainly a great deal of optimism about the future of railways after WW1; there was no practicable alternative national transport system at the time.  The GW, in particular, handed the extremely profitable South Wales rail and ports network on a plate, must have thought xmas had come early, though that turned out to be a poisoned chalice within a decade.

 

But I don't necessarily buy into the concept that industries are only ever nationalised because they are failing and going cheap, though that is the usual method in Britain.  Nationalisation was not in those days the Socialist shibboleth and Capitalist anathema that it was a quarter century later, and a nationalised railway may not have been seen as part of a communist plot in 1923 in the way that some people viewed it in 1948, but simply as something done in the national interest, which is very much the way matters were viewed in the European nations that nationalised their railways at around this time.  The war had driven home the concept that railways were too important, not only to the defence of the realm but to the general weal of the nation, to be left to the vicissitudes of the market.

 

My inner (sometimes not so inner) cynic agrees with you that nationalising in 1948 was a way of saving the government money on the pretext of acting in the national interest and being able to access the greater pool of investment capital that the railway undoubtedly needed at that time (and never really saw any of).

 

The British have had a skewed attitude to investing in railways, either in private or public ownership, since the destruction wrought by the bursting of George Hudson's bubble in the 1840s, for which the middle class investors of the nation have never forgiven them, and this is still true nearly 180 years later.  Railways were heavily involved in the bank collapses of the 1870s as well; these are forgotten nowadays but the cultural revulsion they engendered has passed down along the generations all the same.  Railways in this country are not trusted to spend other people's money, and we'd rather blow it on property developers' profits and bankers' salaries; this is where, and how, our society rewards it's heroes, rightly or wrongly and whatever it says in public (I'll give you a clue, it isn't 'rightly').

Edited September 6, 2017 by The Johnster

[brack]

Thanks for the ARLE link - very interesting. I do wonder why they were bothering to design a new standard 2-8-0 from scratch when they were in the middle of building over 500 of the GCR/ROD design - would we really need more than 500 2-8-0s? The Woolwich mogul was likewise a de facto standard design once selected for government production. What other wheel arrangements/sizes of locos would have been needed in the early 20s? I'd suggest light and heavy 4-6-0 mixed traffic locos and a big passenger 4-6-0 or Pacific.

[£1.38]

Nationalisation of our neighbouring railways was rather drawn out. French railways were nationalised in 1938, though some lines were state owned before that. Belgium had a kind of creeping nationalisation, most of which was achieved before WW1. Technically, the Dutch have never nationalised in a technical sense though they heavily supported the construction of the network and gave additional financial support to the railways after WW1, including buying shares. Spain nationalised broad gauge lines immediately after the civil war. Portugal was rather drawn out. Italy was essentially 1905, Denmark 1885. Germany was a State and then a National system, effectively government owned for the most part from the beginning. It didn't all happen at once..

[runs as required]

This thread is morphing into imaginary railway management structures.

I can remember in 1947/8 both my grandfather (a very upright Baptist organist and choirmaster) and my "aunty's" dad, a Stratford engine driver, both being jubilant about Nationalisation "We own the railways now" seemed to me, as a 10 year old, to sum up a general euphoria in the NE London suburbs (that are now all safe Tory seats).

 

Also hasn't there always been the principle of paying for Nationalisation by compensating shareholders through receipts being earned after take-over (invariably a disastrous formula for the railway to have to meet)  ?

dh

Edited September 6, 2017 by runs as required

[whart57]

"This thread is morphing into imaginary railway management structures."

 

Possibly, but isn't that just an extension of the "what if" nature of this thread. Here it's what locos might have appeared if Britain had gone straight from 123 private companies to 1 nationalised concern and skipped the Grouping stage. It's natural to ask whether that was a credible option.

[Northmoor]

I think some fictional electric locos could be more interesing than steam locos, some of which are not practical. Plenty of pre WW2 electric locos on mainline Europe. Battery power has never properly been done in this country, even for shunting locos.

 One of my projects awaiting my attention is a Trix DB Cl. 144 electric loco.  A lovely Bo-Bo from the 1930s, survived until the 1970s I believe.

 

Influenced by "Locomotives that Never Were", I intend to make some subtle detail modifications to turn it into an ex-LMS electric.  As the model is HO, fitting the loading gauge in OO isn't too much of a problem.

I like the idea of it under 1500v DC catenary, hauling semi-fasts between Manchester/Liverpool/Crewe/Preston/Blackpool/Carlisle.  

[whart57]

During the 1930s designers weren't sure whether a bogie design (Bo-Bo, Co-Co etc) was better than the rigid frame plus carrying wheels arrangement that steam engines had. So pioneers in electric and diesel traction (e.g. the Swiss or the Danish company Frichs) also built electric and diesel locomotives with large driving wheels. The arrangement 1-Do-1 (a pony truck, then eight large driving wheels and a pony truck) was one arrangement, as was 2-Bo-2 and 2-Co-1. The last is effectively a Pacific with electric traction, which suggests a possible basis of an imaginary diesel or electric loco of the pre-war era.

[Budgie]

Maybe someone could have converted the Fell diesel mechanical to a 2-Bo-2 diesel electric.

[PhilJ W]

Armstrong-Whitworth drew up plans for a 4-4-0 diesel locomotive in the 1930's for the GWR. Drawings show it to have a box like body with a sloping bonnet over the pony truck.

[BernardTPM]

Armstrong Whitworth seemed to have explored all manner of configurations, both rigid framed and bogie and combinations thereof, not forgetting to throw in some articulation for good measure.

[talisman56]

In the absence of a National Grid, electricity generation was still local and thus it's unlikely long distance mainline electrification was even feasible pre-war. However, given that the Southern's definition of "suburban" extended as far as Brighton it would be interesting to speculate how far it might have gone Northwards and Westwards from London under a nationalised set up. Electric trains from Paddington to Oxford perhaps?

 

 

 

The LBSCR were more forward thinking, in that they were going to use their 'suburban' 6600V AC overhead system to electrify their main lines as well. It was somewhat ironic, therefore, that the first main line electrification under the SR was to Brighton using the third rail system...

[whart57]

There's a story of one of the directors of one of the northern groups (LMS or LNER) meeting a counterpart from the Southern and greeting him with the put down "how interesting to meet a tramway man". What the LBSCR and SECR called a "mainline" barely qualified as a local line further north.

[runs as required]

Seeing the biro sketch above, has anyone else whiled away interminably boring meetings doodling imaginary locos.

I prefer early (or eccentric foreign) locos to Riddles/ Stanier 'good taste' stuff.

I always seem to return to Cramptons or to silly Russian or Hungarian mobile kitchen implement racks.

dh

[PhilJ W]

The LBSCR were more forward thinking, in that they were going to use their 'suburban' 6600V AC overhead system to electrify their main lines as well. It was somewhat ironic, therefore, that the first main line electrification under the SR was to Brighton using the third rail system...

The problem was that the Brighton system was largely of German design (and manufacture?) and during the 20's anti German feelings were high and the idea of developement of the system was not popular.

[asmay2002]

Britain in the 1920s was not IMHO a natural breeding ground for heavy electric traction, as coal was still cheap and plentiful and a nationalised railway subject to government influence would have been managed with an eye to keeping the miners employed. 

The North Eastern Railway was already doing it and was well on the way to electrifying it's bit of the ECML.  In the North East plentiful cheap coal meant plentiful electricity. Despite the NER board approving it in 1919 the grouping put stop to it sadly as the LNER unlike the NER was insolvent almost from the start but the pilot programme worked well

 

  https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/ef1eb1.php

 

 and there were some quite spectacular locomotive proposals for the York-Newcastle main line apart from the prototype passenger loco which was actualy built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_EE1 

 

There is a cracking little book about it called " The Electric Railway that never was" by R A S Hennessey.

Edited September 7, 2017 by asmay2002

[LNWR18901910]

Just to give y'all an update on my LNWR Experimental Mogul - took a bunch of shots at my friend's model railway shop, I did. Let me know what you folks think.

[Budgie]

I prefer early (or eccentric foreign) locos to Riddles/ Stanier 'good taste' stuff.

Like this, perhaps? http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[rockershovel]

The North Eastern Railway was already doing it and was well on the way to electrifying it's bit of the ECML.  In the North East plentiful cheap coal meant plentiful electricity. Despite the NER board approving it in 1919 the grouping put stop to it sadly as the LNER unlike the NER was insolvent almost from the start but the pilot programme worked well

 

  https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/ef1eb1.php

 

 and there were some quite spectacular locomotive proposals for the York-Newcastle main line apart from the prototype passenger loco which was actualy built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_EE1 

 

There is a cracking little book about it called " The Electric Railway that never was" by R A S Hennessey.

It's a great pity that electrification wasn't taken seriously at an early stage, as the Europeans were doing. It was definitely the way forward, as events would prove, and that prototype loco is rather dramatic.

 

On a minor note, it's curious that the Europeans should have moved away from their "mobile kitchen utensil rack" aesthetic for steam locos and produced such striking early electrics, and the timeless "crocodiles".

[cheesysmith]

Thinking about what if locos, and if nationalisation has come earlier. It all depends on who you make the CME. My money would have been on robinson, he was even offered the job at the LNER. You have to think what locos would be required. For the small stuff, the MR designs were good, but for the 4-4-0 I would have used the D11. For the heavy freight you have the 04 2-8-0. And a loco I would have liked to have seen given a try on the heavy LNWR would have been the B3. I do like to think that the coal consumption problems that these 4-6-0s had could have been solved with different valves (long travel) and a bigger ashpan allowing better combustion of the coal. I do imagine Robinson making a 4-6-2 version.

 

As for what if electrics, a lot of ideas were comming not from Europe but from the USA. Try having a look at what the PRR were doing. I could see big 2-8-2 freight electrics and 2-6-2 passinger locos. In fact these 2 designs, with twin motors per axle, could haul everything running in the uk at the time. The railways at the time were just getting into standardisation and would there be any value in smaller designs for lighter trains Vs just using the standards for everything? If you do have smaller electrics, how about a little 4-4-4 passinger loco and a little 2-6-2 freight loco, both with twin motors per axle.