Top Locomotives Never Built

[Wash]

What would be a good electric from history to run North of Boston to VT and on to montreal?

Probably the bog-standard GE boxcab motors that were running both in Massachusetts (on the Hoosac segment of the B&M) and Montreal (on the Deux-Montagne line) and other places in New England (where the New Haven ran them between New York and New Haven). For heavier trains, a variant of the New Haven Railroads' EP-2 locomotives should suffice. Sorry it's boring.

Problem: The New Haven and Boston and Maine operated under 11Kv AC catenary, and at this time the Montreal commuter line was still operating at 2400 volts DC. However, a conversion to AC should be possible, and even in the 1910's everyone knew AC was better for long-distance electrification schemes.

 

[Aghasverov]

Just poking my head in here too!



Like TheMann said, I just can't see how the BSB is remotely workable. The curves required would have made building such a line bloody difficult; it would have been a virtually dead straight line blasting through every hill, across every valley, and through every settlement. Not to mention the axle loading, they would have to be insanely strong to not start bending under the weight of the carriage above.



It's an interesting one; I can't see you getting 7ft nationwide, but maybe there's maybe a chance that all of the GWR network would be allowed to continue with 7ft. The extra expense of the broad gauge means I can't see many others taking it up willingly, especially not where the terrain is more bendy and rugged. You'd need the GWR broad gauge network to be far larger though, to justify it's continued existence against the ease of through passage on a unified gauge network.

Glad a couple ppl finally replied to this one!

Yeah, I agree, the Breitspurbahn was a completely insane idea to begin with - but hey, at least they settled on a 3m gauge instead of a 4m gauge (which was considered - these are the same people that had the Maus variants and the H-class battleships on the drawing boards after all). Would be good fodder for a Nazi-wank, if nothing else...

As to the GWR locos - much more feasible, and man I would love to see some future developments of locomotives and rolling stock on the Brunel gauge. I.K. Brunel was a bit of a crank, but when he did things, he did 'em BIG...

 

[martinroberts]

Probably the bog-standard GE boxcab motors that were running both in Massachusetts (on the Hoosac segment of the B&M) and Montreal (on the Deux-Montagne line) and other places in New England (where the New Haven ran them between New York and New Haven). For heavier trains, a variant of the New Haven Railroads' EP-2 locomotives should suffice. Sorry it's boring.

Problem: The New Haven and Boston and Maine operated under 11Kv AC catenary, and at this time the Montreal commuter line was still operating at 2400 volts DC. However, a conversion to AC should be possible, and even in the 1910's everyone knew AC was better for long-distance electrification schemes.

So NH and B and M had the same locomotives. In the early days?

 

[martinroberts]

@Lucas Standardization will be key for B and W and well I'm thinking GE electrics will work.
@Wash would MILW Electrics work East of the Mississippi and North of DC?

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Thought that I'd have a second go at trying my own locomotive.

Alsthom 6000NA Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo Class

By the late 1960s, virtually all of America's electrified mainline railroads had begun standardizing their systems to use 25 kV. The Pennsylvania Railroad, which at the time had begun to enjoy a renaissance, was no exception, with its profits being expanded through their 1967 acquisition of the Norfolk & Western. However, the PRR's upgrading of these rail lines did not sit well with their older locomotives like the GG1s and the P5s. As such, the PRR's management decided to choose between either rebuilding these engine, or replacing them with newer designs. The PRR ultimately chose to replace these engines with various designs - most notably the GE E60. Come the early 1980s however, it became clear that something more was going to be needed on the flatter areas of the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Richmond and Norfolk.

Enter French railroad construction firm Alsthom - which had for year yearned to enter the American market in earnest. However, this proved to be a very difficult market due to the strong presence of General Electric and the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors. As well as The American Locomotive Company (ALCO)'s return to glory as a subsidiary of Chrysler. For many years, it seemed as though Alsthom entering the locomotive market would be a pipe dream.

Now however, Alsthom saw a chance to enter the market and enter strong. Quickly, the company set to work on constructing an electric locomotive based loosely on the SNCF BB 15000 that they thought could be useful for American railroads. A few years of development lead to a Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo locomotive that was intended mainly for heavy freight services on the Northeast Corridor - including the Richmond, Fredricksburg, & Potomac as well as the PRR's former N&W to Norfolk. Working devotedly, Alstorm delivered, and the first 20 of the 6000NA locomotives were put to service on the Northeast Corridor. However, the PRR quickly found that they liked these locomotives, and ordered another 30 to supplement the GE E44s and E60s on the Keystone Corridor from Jersey City to Pittsburgh and Columbus. Then, 30 more joined the fleet in 1984 when the PRR finished electrifying the former N&W from Norfolk to Columbus.

The success of these locomotives on the PRR soon attracted other majors users of electric locomotives. The PRR's once fierce rival, the New York Central, ordered 20 of these locomotives for use on the Water Level Route from New York to Cleveland via Albany and Buffalo - which they themselves had recently electrified at the time, and the locomotives soon went west to Chicago as soon as the electrification had been extended to there. In Colorado, the Denver & Rio Grande Western ordered a whopping 50 of the design the haul heavy freights from Denver to both Ogden area and Las Vegas. What made the DRGW examples of this design special was that these were the first locomotives to be painted in the Yellow, Silver, and Black "Bumbleebee" livery that eventually became the default livery for the railroad's electrics. Other operators include Burlington Northern (on the Cascade Tunnel) and Southern Pacific, which operates theirs mainly on its lines in the Central Valley.

The China Railways HX-D2 electrics were designed off of the 6000NA locomotives, and were just as capable of heavy coal trains among other services. The 6000NAs are different in that the locomotive fronts are more like those on the Mitsubishi DF200 locomotives.​

 

[TheMann]

OOC: It's Alsthom at the time, and didn't become Alstom until 1999, and was GEC Alsthom from 1989 until 1999. Just for your info. 🙂

As for the design, as a fast-freight hauler you have a very good base here, provided the Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo can provide the speeds and acceleration needed for the NEC. Moving to 25 kV power would be a huge, huge benefit to the locomotives on the NEC, but it wouldn't be possible until there were locomotives there for the system to be used - such an upgrade would force the retirement of the GG1, as its electrical components would be blown up by sudden application of 25 kV power, unless you rebuilt their power systems, which for 25+ year old locomotives which were starting to have issues with frame cracks is a waste of time and money. The E33/E44/E60 trio developed for the Virginian, PRR and Amtrak would get the freight jobs job done, but none of the above are capable of fast passenger train service, and the E60s had serious issues trying. The New Haven EP-5s could do the passenger jobs but had appalling reliability, so for 25 kV power you would need either to slow down passenger trains along the route (not advisable) or develop a new passenger unit.

Assuming you did that, a fleet of 6000NAs, E60s, E44s and perhaps E33s (older at the time, but certainly usable until at least the 1980s) would give you a formidable freight engine fleet. Since this locomotive is made in the 1960s its probably a silicon diode rectifier locomotive (Alsthom was good at this), and remember that the E33/E44 fleet was pretty much bombproof, so the 6000NA would be expected to maintain such reliability and would need to be designed and built accordingly. If you're operating these on the ex-N&W you'd probably want to assign the E44s and E60s there first, for their immense power and heavy weight is ideal for heavy freight trains such as the coal loads the N&W made such profits on, while the 6000NAs, owing to their design, would probably quickly take over the NEC's freight operations with the 25 kV power upgrade.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Assuming you did that, a fleet of 6000NAs, E60s, E44s and perhaps E33s (older at the time, but certainly usable until at least the 1980s) would give you a formidable freight engine fleet. Since this locomotive is made in the 1960s its probably a silicon diode rectifier locomotive (Alsthom was good at this), and remember that the E33/E44 fleet was pretty much bombproof, so the 6000NA would be expected to maintain such reliability and would need to be designed and built accordingly. If you're operating these on the ex-N&W you'd probably want to assign the E44s and E60s there first, for their immense power and heavy weight is ideal for heavy freight trains such as the coal loads the N&W made such profits on, while the 6000NAs, owing to their design, would probably quickly take over the NEC's freight operations with the 25 kV power upgrade.

Good points.

Even so, I did also think of a Co+Co version of the locomotive being at least tested too.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

The New Haven EP-5s could do the passenger jobs but had appalling reliability, so for 25 kV power you would need either to slow down passenger trains along the route (not advisable) or develop a new passenger unit.

That's indeed something I would most likely do in my TL, since Amtrak exists by the time these locomotives would be built, I was thinking I'd just have the "Swiss Toasters" come about.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@TheMann

BTW, I also was thinking about deriving your GTELs for the Erie Lackawanna, and was considering having that line run them over their former New Haven route to Boston. Likewise, since ATSF still runs passenger trains for a while longer in my TL, I was thinking they could test the Gas Turbines on passenger trains, though my spin on the Grand Junction disaster eventually puts a stop that.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Since they're the kind of fictional locomotives I like best, I thought I'd create another new steam engine:

Great Northern Railroad ED-1 Class 4-6-6-2 Cab Forwards

For many years, the Great Northern's railroad line through Stevens Pass had been an unpleasant obstacle for the railroad, with its wieldy tracks and many tunnels. When Cascade Tunnel was built in the 1920, it also became clear that electrics were not that reliable for power on this stretch of line. As such, the GN turned to other railroads to provide inspiration for a solution. By 1931, a definitive answer came with a visit to the Southern Pacific's route to Donner Pass, and GN quickly set to work with Baldwin, and designed a Cab Forward of their own for use on the Stevens Pass route from Spokane to Seattle.

The finally product could be described as what it'd look like if the SP built a Cab Forward from the boiler of a N Class 2-8-8-0 on the frames of a N&W A Class. While it was nowhere near as powerful as the AC-11 or AC-12s of the SP, the locomotives proved to be just right for the GN. A total of ten were built for use on the Stevens Pass line until 1957, when diesels arrived, then more reliable electrics took over. The ten engines were all retired, but with one being preserved on static display in Spokane.

 

[TheMann]

That's indeed something I would most likely do in my TL, since Amtrak exists by the time these locomotives would be built, I was thinking I'd just have the "Swiss Toasters" come about.

You could do that, perhaps also speeding up the arrival of the AEM-7, as the locomotive it is nearly a complete Americanized copy of, the Swedish SJ Rc4, first arrived for service in Sweden in 1967. As EMD and ASEA had been partners for many projects in the past, it wouldn't be too crazy to say that knowing the PRR was rebuilding its electrification, EMD had been aware of the SJ Rc4 from the start and designed a body and chassis that the Rc4's guts would go into, making it possible for the AEM-7 to be available to Amtrak by 1968.

BTW, I also was thinking about deriving your GTELs for the Erie Lackawanna, and was considering having that line run them over their former New Haven route to Boston. Likewise, since ATSF still runs passenger trains for a while longer in my TL, I was thinking they could test the Gas Turbines on passenger trains, though my spin on the Grand Junction disaster eventually puts a stop that.

The GTELs were very, very loud locomotives, so while their power would be very useful for heavy passenger trains running very fast schedules, I suspect their noise and weight would be a serious problem for passenger service.

 

[TheMann]

Great Northern Railroad ED-1 Class 4-6-6-2 Cab Forwards

One major issue: The GN had by then already built an electrification project that covered the worst of the Stevens Pass line. (This I can tell you from personal experience, as I once worked trains over the Wenatchee to Skykomish section of the route across the Cascades that the GN used.) Even the use of Cab-Forward locomotives would NOT be sufficient to deal with the ventilation issues inside of the Cascade Tunnel, as anyone who has ever ridden through it on an SD40-2 will tell you very quickly.

The tunnel itself is on a 1.5% grade and locomotives hauling any sort of tonnage have to work really hard moving through it, as well as the grades approaching it in either direction - 2.2% for the entire distance eastbound from Skykomish to the tunnel, and there are stretches of 2.2% going westbound from Wenatchee as well. A cab-forward would help crews, sure, but for a tunnel that's nearly eight miles long a cab-forward isn't gonna be enough and even riding on diesels you want to keep your windows and doors shut tight - indeed it was policy on BN trains that if you had a lead unit that didn't have air-conditioning and proper sealing doors and windows, it wasn't your lead unit through the tunnel - period. And if that meant you halted at Wenatchee or Skykomish to fix that, the dispatcher can go pound sand. A cab-forward steam locomotive through that tunnel just isn't practical.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

One major issue: The GN had by then already built an electrification project that covered the worst of the Stevens Pass line. (This I can tell you from personal experience, as I once worked trains over the Wenatchee to Skykomish section of the route across the Cascades that the GN used.) Even the use of Cab-Forward locomotives would NOT be sufficient to deal with the ventilation issues inside of the Cascade Tunnel, as anyone who has ever ridden through it on an SD40-2 will tell you very quickly.

The tunnel itself is on a 1.5% grade and locomotives hauling any sort of tonnage have to work really hard moving through it, as well as the grades approaching it in either direction - 2.2% for the entire distance eastbound from Skykomish to the tunnel, and there are stretches of 2.2% going westbound from Wenatchee as well. A cab-forward would help crews, sure, but for a tunnel that's nearly eight miles long a cab-forward isn't gonna be enough and even riding on diesels you want to keep your windows and doors shut tight - indeed it was policy on BN trains that if you had a lead unit that didn't have air-conditioning and proper sealing doors and windows, it wasn't your lead unit through the tunnel - period. And if that meant you halted at Wenatchee or Skykomish to fix that, the dispatcher can go pound sand. A cab-forward steam locomotive through that tunnel just isn't practical.

That actually was something I had thought of when writing that entry, and even thought of abandoning that idea altogether at first. Indeed, that's why in my TL BN would definitely use electrics on it in the 2000s.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

The GTELs were very, very loud locomotives, so while their power would be very useful for heavy passenger trains running very fast schedules, I suspect their noise and weight would be a serious problem for passenger service.

True. Not to mention how when it comes to the propane-fueled design, passengers won't want to ride them after the Grand Junction disaster. So one can forget about Amtrak getting any GTELs.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

I was looking at @TheMann's ideas for Gas Turbine locomotives, and came up with some ideas for more roads that'd consider the GTEL-4s he made in my TL:

Erie Lackawanna
In my TL, the New York Central began electrifying the Water Level Route between New York and Cleveland in 1962, and finished that part in 1966. Naturally, the Erie Lackawanna was shaking in its boots as the NYC's freight traffic between New York and Chicago began traveling at up to 110 MPH. Naturally, the EL was quick to jump at the idea of an engine that could go about as fast without the expensive infrastructure needed by electric engines. The first of the railroad's GTELs were twelve GTEL-3 engines that the railroad acquired for the grades on the mainline east of Akron, and on the former New Haven lines to Boston. However, the railroad still was annoyed with the maintenance problems, and quickly took up GE's offer to rebuild then into GTEL-4s, of which they ordered another 20.

Chessie System
Like the Erie Lackawanna, the Chessie bought the GTELs to better compete with a larger rival - in this case the Pennsylvania Railroad - for traffic in the coal country of the Virginias, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. By the time the Chessie was officially formed, the GTEL-4 had been on the market for quite a while, and so the railroad purchased several for use across their system. After the Grand Junction Disaster and the backlash against propane-fueled locomotives, they were relegated to the former B&O between Hammond, IN and Stirling, OH due to its largely rural nature - as the Chessie had already begun using the ACE's modern steam designs on the former C&O in the Virginias.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Intercity 250
Consisting of the Class 93 loco, Mark 5 coaches (not the ones of @) and a Mark 5 DVT. The Intercity 250 was part of British Rail's plan to modernise the West Coast Mainline (WCML). As well as a new train, there would have been improvements to to track layout, including and route re-alignment.

On entry into service the trains would have run at up to 125 MPH, with increases in increments to 155 MPH, with in-cab signalling.

However, financial issues connected to the early '90s recession and orders of rolling stock by other BR sectors (e.g. the Networker fleet) saw the project abandoned in July 1992. With the onset of privatisation, the WCML would have to wait another decade for the improvments it sorely needed and still does not have trains running above 125MPH.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Good points.

Even so, I did also think of a Co+Co version of the locomotive being at least tested too.

I forgot to mention this, but my 6000NAs were actually built in my TL's 1980s.

 

[Lucas]

Turbo Shinkansen - 1960

During the built of Tokaido Shinkansen in 1960, at sometime when oil prices are cheap, considered built and use Turbotrains, but this quick are deployed in charge for electric trainsets.

 

[Lucas]

TGV Turbine

Despite the initial prototype TGV 001 built in 1960s are Gas-Turbine, as the oil prices skyrocket in 70s and the new nuclear power energy in France built, the TGV project are change for electric trainsets. But have the TGV remain turbine, maybe they look something different as these concepts

Based on TGV-001

Look´s loose inspired on UAC Turbotrain.

 

[Lucas]

GM Streamliner EMC - Mid 1930s

Proposed styling design for GM EMC diesel-electric boxcab. They streamliner design look´s based on Union Pacific M-10000.