Top Locomotives Never Built

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Andrew Boyd, Oct 21, 2018.

  1. sonofpegasus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Pardon please NOMISYRRUC, I misread your 1/80 as you are quite correct I surmising!!
     
    NOMISYRRUC likes this.
  2. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    If you knew the amount of work that went into producing that spreadsheet (e.g. 2 visits to the National Railway Museum) you would be astounded at how few spelling mistakes that there are in it, not how many.
     
  3. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    Not just the NER.

    I suspect that the L&YR's electrification of its Liverpool - Wigan - Manchester line will take traffic away from the LNWR and CLC. Both companies will be forced to electrify their lines between Liverpool and Manchester if the loss of traffic is significant. There is a precedent for this because loss of traffic to tramways is what led to the L&YR and NER electrifying their Liverpool and Tyneside lines respectively.

    The Midland Railway's Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham electrification is often quoted as a trail for a projected electrification of its line from Derby to Manchester. ITTL the Company might have electrified the route on 1,500V DC overhead (instead of 6,600V AC single-phase at 25Hz overhead) by 1914 because the L&YR had done the R&D for them.

    All this extra electrification might enable the suppliers of the electrical equipment to reduce their costs because they would be building it in greater quantities. That might enable other companies to implement their pre-1914 electrification plans which IOTL weren't carried out for reasons of cost and/or because the technology hadn't been proven.
     
    fastmongrel likes this.
  4. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    NOMISYRRUC apologies It's an impressive piece of work and I was just being silly
     
  5. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    No offence was taken.

    I re-read these things umpteen times before I post them and still miss silly mistakes.

    I've corrected Ministry and Ormskirk. While I was at it I increased the font size from the first spreadsheet from 8 to 10 so that it is easier to read.
     
  6. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    Further Electrification by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway 1915-21
    What Happened IOTL


    The L&YR had 41½ route miles electrified at the end of 1914. That is 37 route miles around Liverpool on 600V DC third rail and 4½ route miles from Bury to Holcombe Brook on 3,500V DC overhead. However, the only addition between then and 1st January 1922 (when the Company became part of the London and North Western Railway) was the Manchester to Bury scheme of 9½ route miles on 1,200V DC third rail, which was approved in 1913 and completed in 1916. The Bury to Holcombe Brook line was converted to from 3,500V DC overhead to 1,200V DC third rail in 1917-18, but that didn't increase the number of miles that were electrified.

    However, the L&YR, which after the Grouping became the Central Division of the LMS hadn't given up on electrification completely.

    However, the scheme wasn't carried out.

    Electrification by the Other Main Line Railways 1915-21 IOTL

    Returning to 1913 some other notable electrification schemes that were announced in that year were...

    The London Brighton & South Coast Railway scheme announced in the Railway Gazette on 7th February 1913
    At the time the Company had 24¾ route miles and 70 single track miles (including sidings) electrified on 6,600V AC single-phase at 25Hz overhead. The scheme would have increased the total to 60 route miles and 210½ single track miles (including sidings).

    Unfortunately the scheme was stopped in its tracks (pun intended) by the outbreak of the First World War because the equipment had been ordered from German firms. Peace did not result in an immediate resumption of the scheme due to the chaotic conditions in post-war Germany. A reduced version of the scheme was eventually completed in 1925, but the total was only increased to 40 route miles and 131½ single track miles. Furthermore the Southern Railway decided to standardise on the 600V DC third rail system in 1926 and the lines equipped with the 6,600V AC system were converted to this standard 1928-29.

    The North Eastern Railway scheme announced in the Railway Gazette on 14th February 1913
    This was the Shildon to Newport freight line of 18½ route miles and 48 single track miles (including sidings) which was brought into operation between July 1915 and January 1916.

    The London & South Western Railway's announced in the Railway Gazette on 31st October 1913
    This was the Company's first electrification scheme (not counting the Waterloo & City tube line) and in spite of the late start it and the outbreak of World War One it managed to bring 57.1 route miles and 177 single track miles (including sidings) of electrified railway into operation between October 1915 and November 1916. The company also built a power station at Wimbledon and 9 sub-stations that converted 11,000V AC electricity (phase and frequency not stated by the Railway Gazette article) to 600V DC.

    Electrification by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway 1915-21 ITTL

    ITTL @fastmongrel and I have had the Company electrify a total of 240 route miles on 1,500V DC overhead between 1902 and the end of 1914, which is an average rate of 20 route miles per year.

    In my case the 240 route miles consist of the 191¼ route miles that make up Phases 1 to 6 and about 50 miles of Phase 7 in the chart in Post 137.

    The completed sections of Phase 7 were Rochdale - Todmorden - Milner Royd Junction - Dewsbury Junction - Wakefield Kirkgate: Milner Royd Junction - Halifax - Bradford Exchange: and the Dewsbury branch.

    ITTL I think the L&YR would be able to complete the rest of Phase 7 (27½ miles from Wakefield Kirkgate to Goole Docks: 3¾ miles of branches around Goole; and 19½ miles of lines in the Halifax area) by the end of 1917 in spite of the Great War.

    The point of this electrification was to save the Company money because electric traction was cheaper to operate than steam traction. ITTL the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway had electrified 293¼ route miles by the end of 1918 (instead of 51 IOTL) which approached 50% of its network so that the amount of money that the Company was saving by this time aught to be considerable. Therefore, in early 1919, the Company's board of directors authorised the implementation of Phase 8 and preparatory work to be done on Phase 9.

    Phase 8 was completed by the end of 1921, which meant that the Company had electrified 363 route miles since the approval of the Liverpool to Southport scheme in 1902 and that 60% of the Company's 601¼ route miles that were open for traffic were being worked electrically.

    Phase 9 was for the electrification of the lines from Daisy Hill, Hindley and Lostock Junction to Preston, including the branch to Horwich (Phase 9A) and Preston to Blackpool (by all 3 routes) and Fleetwood (Phase 9B). The lines in Phase 9B actually belonged to the Preston & Wyre Railway and Dock Company, a joint line owned by the LNWR and L&YR. According to its Wikipaedia entry the LNYR owned one-third of the firm and the remaining two-thirds. I haven't worked out the distances for this scheme and if approved it wouldn't have been completed until at least 1923 which is after when the Grouping came into effect.

    Going back to the tables in Post 137 the L&YR had 1,650 steam locomotives, 119 electric motor cars carrying passengers and 18 rail motor vehicles at the end of 1921 IOTL.

    However, ITTL there will be many fewer steam locomotives, more electric motor cars carrying passengers and more electric locomotives. The following is a crude calculation and should only be taken as an extremely rough guide.
    1. The OTL L&YR had 1,650 steam locomotives and about 600 route miles = 2.75 locomotives per route mile.
    2. If the 360 route miles electrified IOTL were exclusively worked electrically only 660 steam locomotives would be required to work the remaining 240 route miles.
    3. By 1921 the North Eastern Railway was working on the formula that one electric locomotive could do the work of two steam locomotives due to the electric locomotive's higher availability rates. (In 1921 it had worked out a programme where its current stock of 2,024 locomotives (2,012 steam and 12 electric) would be reduced to 1,547 (1,063 steam and 484 electric) by the end of 1943. But that, as they say is another story).
    4. If the NER's formula was applied the L&YR would have 495 electric locomotives to work the 360 route miles that had been electrified. Or there would be a mix of 495 electric locomotives and electric motor cars for carrying passengers.
    However, this doesn't allow for the: traffic densities on the lines; that there would still be some steam working on the lines that had been electrified because trains that worked the electrified and non-electrified zones would probably be steam worked throughout to avoid the inconvenience of changing engines; and I didn't take the 51 route miles that had already been electrified in OTL.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2018
    fastmongrel likes this.
  7. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    The Southern Railroad "Big Three" Mainline Steam Power

    As the need for stronger power took hold in the 1930s and 40s, the Southern Railroad found themselves in a pickle. Especially when it came to the heavy tonnage they had to shuttle over their line from Washington DC to Atlanta. Today, all three have examples preserved in operation at the NCTM in Spencer, NC.

    Ts-3 4-8-2
    First and foremost, the Florida East Coast engines began to see more use all across the Southern. But of special note were its famous 4-8-2s, which were reclassified Ts-3s, with the other two FEC Mountain types being Ts-2 and Ts-4 respectively. These three classes also had their numbers changed with a 2 in front to the numbers, thus for example, 404 became 2404, or 819 was now 2819. The Southern loved the Ts-3, and had ALCO Richmond build several more of the Ms-3. Adorned in the famous Crescent Green which earlier samples would eventually get too. These engines would go on to serve all across the Southern's passenger train portfolio. With several even serving on fast freight later on.

    Today, 2461 is the main star of the Southern Steam Program. Having kicked off the program in 1967 for Cincinnati to Chattanooga.

    Vs-1 4-8-4 "Crescents"
    Likewise, the Southern also ordered several 4-8-4s from Lima. Very similar to the engines build for the Soo Line, though the similarities were obschured by a feedwater heater at front, a different headlight, and different tender. The engines were classified Vs-1 and would be the last steamers to haul such iconic Southern trains as The Crescent from DC to Atlanta. These engines were the second most numerous Southern passenger engine, and were adorned in an even more gorgeous form of the Southern Green, as well as a gold shaped eagle above the smokebox. With them in charge, the Ps-4 did have some degree of continued use. With many being streamlined in the style of the famous 1309, for additional power if the need ever arose.

    Today, 2609 is alive as a major star of the Southern Steam Program, having joined as a major role in 1969. Then operating mainly on the Crescent line from DC to Atlanta.

    Us-1 2-8-4 "Piedmont"
    Next would be a major freight hauling machine. The Southern ordered several 2-8-4 steamers from Lima based on the C&O/NKP designs. These engines were the primary freight hauler on lines in Eastern parts of the system. With then particularly being fit for coal traffic funneled to the Southern from the Norfolk & Western or their own lines in Tennessee. Whereas older mikados and Santa Fes would go on to end their service on freight in western parts of the system like Indiana and Illinois.

    One example, 2716, is still part of the Southern Steam Program. Though it does not see the extent of service 2461 and 2609 do, it still is a very powerful machine capable of hauling the biggest excursions. However, she has also been seen on several revenue freights on the Southern in the present.
     
  8. CarribeanViking fnord

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    British National Rail WS- class

    Power type; high octane petrol
    Builder; BNR, variously Derby, Springburn, Lincoln works
    Build date; 1947-1954
    Number produced; 203

    Configuration; Bo'(A1A)
    Standard gauge, wheel diameter 5'7"
    Wheelbase 60' 2 3/4", length 68', breadth 8'8", height 8'7", shovel- nose streamlining
    Locomotive weight 85 tons,
    Fuel capacity 2,154 imp. gal, 120 gal. oil and coolant
    Prime movers; four Rolls- Royce Merlin, marks XX to XXXVIII, 1420 to 1650 HP, independently driving powered axles
    Hydraulic transmission, electric train heating, hydraulic and pitch- control brakes
    Top speed; on test track, unachievable in metropolitan service, 224mph
    Power output; Mark dependent, 5680 to 6600 HP
    maximum tractive effort 104,000 foot pounds, continuous 64,000 lbf at 45mph
    Route availability nominal 3, curve dependent


    The WS class were an expedient measure, an attempt to replace a great mass of obsolescent and outworn rolling stock for a price a war weary and nearly bankrupt nation could afford; they consisted, in the best British tradition, of something improvised in a shed.

    WS in fact stood for War Surplus, and the shed was the main workshop sheds at Derby, where a great many aero engines, previously attached to aircraft whose day was over, were being returned to the manufacturer for scrapping, ferried on clapped out old puffing billies.

    The true act of genius was not that of realizing that putting the enormously powerful aero engine sets to work on the railways in place of the done- in steam traction was a good idea, arguably it was that of getting the management to go along with it.

    "The engines on the flatbed are in a damned sight better condition than the engine at the front" was the key, and the first of them was rolled out from Rolls Royce's works on 12 April 1947, the class spreading rapidly to be a great aid and comfort to a sadly frayed network.

    They did more than any other factor to wean the British off steam, being enormously powerful for their size, able to go anywhere, requiring skilful rather than intensive maintenance, and performance limited only by the straightness of the line. The rumble of the Merlins helped, and the spotters' nickname for them was inevitably the Lancs. Every engine eventually bore two registries; WS number, and the number of the aircraft the engine set had come from.

    They were not trouble free, however, the inherent hazards of high octane always hung over them and it has to be said they were probably overpowered, the engine could run away from the brakes fairly easily and there was nowhere in Britain they could safely reach full speed.

    Also, the build quality of the chassis varied greatly, some really were shed built. The first large batch of them were retired in the mid sixties, as the engines came to the end of their useful lives, and the rest trickled out of service up to the early nineties with a handful in preservation and occasional rail tours.
     
  9. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Great Central Railway Class 10H 2-10-2
    It was a trip to the United States of America, and especially observing its locomotives, that inspired John G. Robinson to build the first and solitary class in Great Britain of the 2-10-2, or "Santa Fe," wheel arrangement. The GCR needed a very large freight locomotive for the coal fields in the north, and this was the result. Driving 5'3" wheels, fifteen of these four-cylinder monstrosities emerged from Beyer Peacock between 1909 and 1913. The inside cylinders were 19×26", the outside cylinders 20×26".

    Robinson himself planned to build ten more "at the home base," but a delay came due to the outbreak of World War I. He was not distraught by this, however, and these examples emerged from Gorton works between 1919 and 1921. Upon grouping in 1923, they became S3 in the LNER system, and the Gorton batch was superheated at Doncaster for heavy freight trains.

    Although №. 6552 of the Gorton batch was damaged – but not destroyed, as in the case of Sir Ralph Wedgwood – during the Blitz outside Liverpool on the evening of 9 October 1940, all twenty-five made it to Nationalisation and became 8F. Withdrawals occurred between 1953 and 1960, but both №. 1531, the original of the Beyer Peacock batch, and №. 6552, "the engine that survived the Blitz," made it to preservation.
     
  10. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Pennsylvania Railroad U1 2-8-4T

    As the 1930s came, the Pennsylvania Railroad received a much needed wake up call and realized they needed to get some new steam engines if it ever hoped to compete with its rivals. As part of this, they created the 4-8-4 "Keystone" engines to serve as the primary express passenger engine. Furthermore, they planned to work with Lima to create several new freight engines, as well as improvements to the existing I1 Decapods and M1 Mountains.

    With all these changes, there unfortunately came a time where the smaller engines to go. Among these were the H6 series 2-8-0s. As the B series 0-6-0s, H10 Consolidations, and L1 Mikados began to do more and more of the jobs the H6 had been doing, the Pennsy began selling off many to other companies like the Illinois Central. Or even to far off places like China and the Railway of British Africa.

    However, many of the H6s could not be sold due the lack of interested buyers. To this end, the PRR decided to take a more radical approach and recycle them. The end result was the U1, a side-tank that was capable of the key jobs of shunting and banking in the hills of the PRR's Philadelphia- Pittsburgh main line. The U1 tank engine also proved themselves capable suburban train operators, and many were equipped with the push-pull mechanics used on British branch lines. In 1942, several of the U1s were sent down to the PRR's Virginia subsidiary the Norfolk and Western. Here they usually worked the busy yards at Roanoke, Virginia. With some venturing to Norfolk or Bluefield for further shunting.

    Today, several U1s are preserved. But of particular note is 2848. Which worked on the Huckleberry Scenic Railroad in Virginia. Which is a former N&W branch from the mainline at Christiansburg to Blacksburg. Also there is N&W Mastodon 475, which has worn a 19th century style appearance since the 1957 NRHS convention.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018 at 2:41 PM
    isayyo2 likes this.
  11. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    I should also have added that the L&YR had "running powers" over the lines of some other railways and would have had to keep some steam locomotives so that it could continue to work those lines.

    Electrification by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway 1921-25 ITTL

    The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway (L&YR) became part of the London & North Western Railway (LNWR) on 1st January 1922 and exactly one year later (i.e. 1st January 1923) the LNWR became part of the London Midland and Scottish Railway (abbreviated as LMS not LMSR). Most of the LNWR became the Western Division of the new company and the former L&YR became its Central Division.

    The completion of the L&YR's Phase 8 electrification scheme was completed the year before the Company was absorbed by the LNWR and I think Phase 9 would have been approved before the takeover took place. Phase 9 would be a joint scheme with the LNWR because most of the lines that were electrified were jointly owned by the two companies.

    In Post 146 I wrote that Phase 9 would be divided into two parts as follows:
    • Daisy Hill, Hindley and Lostock Junction to Preston, including the branch to Horwich (Phase 9A) and;
    • Preston to Blackpool (by all 3 routes) and Fleetwood (Phase 9B).
    I have since calculated that the entire scheme would require the electrification of 82 route miles of which 35 route miles were Phase 9A and the remaining 47 route miles were in Phase 9B. Assuming that the L&YR's new owners maintained the established rate of conversion (20 route miles per year) the scheme would be completed by the end of 1925. However, I now think that Phase 9B would be implemented before Phase 9A. This is because it would allow early electric working from Blackpool to the following destinations:
    • Blackpool to Liverpool and Soutport (via Burscough Bridge - the Crossens to Preston line was not electrified);
    • Blackpool to Blackburn, Accrington, Burnley, Todmorden, Wakefield & Goole plus the Halifax-Bradford branch and the Dewsbury branch;
    • Blackpool to Manchester, via Blackburn and Bolton;
    • Blackpool to Manchester, via Blackburn, Accrington and Bury.
    The LMS Central Division had 445 route miles electrified at the end of 1925, but that did not mean that 75% of the former L&YR had been electrified. This is because the 601¼ route miles that the Company owned at the end of 1921 included its share of joint lines and over half of Phase 9 included lines that were jointly owned with the LNWR. That is the 5½ route miles between Euxton Junction and Preston which was part of Phase 9A belonged to the Northern Union Railway and all but about half a mile of the lines in Phase 9B belonged to the Preston & Wyre Railway & Dock Company, both of which were jointly owned by the L&YR and LNWR.

    Further Electrification by the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway

    After the completion of Phase 9 the only former L&YR lines on the Lancashire side of Todmorden that were worth electrifying were the lines from Miles Platting to Stalybridge (which forms part of the LNWR route from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield) and Miles Platting to the Junction with the LNWR line into Manchester London Road.

    Further electrification of the former L&YR lines west of Todmorden depends upon how much extra electrification the companies that made up the LNER had done ITTL and in particular the North Eastern Railway, which had done the most electrification IOTL and was likely to have done even more ITTL.

    Towards the end of its existence IOTL the NER had long term plans to electrify its line from York to Leeds and Normanton via Church Fenton. This was of interest to the L&YR because it had running powers over the NER from Normanton to York so if the NER had electrified this line or the LNER had the line near the top of its "to do list" it would make sense to electrify the L&YR line from Wakefield to Normanton.

    The NER also had long term plans to electrify line from Micklefield Junction to Selby and Hull, which would have allowed electric working from Leeds to Hull. The L&YR had powers to work the NER's line from Goole to Hull so if the LNER/NER electrified the line from Goole to Staddlethorpe the L&YR would have been able to work Goole to Hull electrically. If the NER/LNER did electrify that line it would probably have been part of a larger Staddlethorpe-Goole-Thorne-Doncaster scheme.

    The final realistic candidate for electrification would be the line from Knottingley to Askern Junction north of Doncaster. However, that would only be electrified if the GNR/LNER electrified the section from Doncaster to Askern Junction.

    Electrification by the other LMS Constituents ITTL

    IOTL the London Midland and Scottish Railway inherited 102¾ route miles of electrified railway from its constituents, which was 28½ per cent of the 361 route miles electrified in the whole of Great Britain. (The Southern Railway had 87 route miles (including the East London Railway and Waterloo & City Railway); the Great Western Railway had 7¾ route miles; the London & North Eastern Railway had 56¼ route miles; the would be London Passenger Transport Board had 93¼ route miles; and the other railways (which included the Liverpool Overhead and Mersey Railways) had 18 route miles.)

    51 route miles which was nearly half of the total was provided by the L&YR. The remainder consisted of 37¼ route miles from the LNWR (including its share of the West London Railway) around and 14½ route miles electrified by the Midland Railway.

    ITTL the LMS inherited the 363 route miles from the L&YR which had been electrified 1902-21 plus the 82 route miles of Phase 9 that were in progress and I think that the LNWR and Midland Railway would have electrified more lines ITTL too.

    In an earlier post I suggested that the LNWR would be forced to electrify its line from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria if enough traffic was lost to the L&YR's route. However, I now think that the LNWR Board would authorise the electrification of all 3 of its routes from Liverpool and Manchester even if it did not loose a great deal of traffic to the L&YR. The scheme would be authorised in 1906 and completed by the end of 1914. The L&YR and LNWR were allies so I think they would deliberately buy the electrical equipment from the same suppliers to maximise the cost reductions that might be brought about via economies of scale.

    When the L&YR approved Phase 7 of its electrification programme (Rochdale-Todmorden-Wakefield-Goole Docks and branches) the LNWR decided to follow suit and electrify its line from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield. According to Mile by Mile the former LNWR route from Liverpool Lime Street to Leeds is 75½ route miles long and about 40 per cent of this (31½ route miles) had already been electrified as part of the Company's Liverpool to Manchester scheme. Of the remaining 43 route miles the short stretch of 1½ route miles between Manchester Victoria and Miles Platting had already been electrified by the L&YR and the 2¼ route miles between Heaton East Junction and Thornhill was being electrified by the Y&LR as part of Phase 7, which reduced the length of line the LNWR had to electrify to 39 route miles. I think the scheme would be completed by the end of 1916.

    I wrote earlier that the L&YR's Phase 9 would be a joint scheme with the LNYR because both companies owned the lines from Euxton Junction to Blackpool and Fleetwood. I think the LNWR would electrify the WCML between its junctions with the former Liverpool & Manchester Railway to Euxton Junction so that it could run electric trains from Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Victoria to Blackpool. The LNWR would also be running electric trains from Leeds to Blackpool by using its running powers over the L&YR's line from Thornhill to Preston via Todmorden, Burnley, Accrington and Blackburn.

    IOTL the Midland Railway's Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham electrification scheme which was authorised in 1906 and completed in 1908 used the 6,600V, 25Hz single-phase alternating current, overhead line system. However, ITTL it decided to electrify the line on 1,500V DC overhead because the L&YR and NER had decided to electrify on 1,500V overhead instead of 630V DC third rail in 1902 and had completed their first schemes in 1904.

    The Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham scheme is often quoted as a trial for a projected scheme to electrify the Midland Main Line from Derby to Manchester. ITTL the Midland Railway's board of directors approved the electrification of the Derby to Manchester line in 1909 using 1,500V DC overhead because the L&YR and NER had been using the system successfully since 1904. The scheme might be interrupted by the First World War, but would have been completed by the Grouping.

    The Midland Railway bought the London, Tilbury & Southend Railway in 1912 and in order to obtain Parliament's permission to electrify the line. Merz and McLellan made a feasibility study for the Midland which included the electrification of the Midland Main Line from St Pancras to St Albans and the Tottenham branch. The enabling bill was passing through Parliament when World War One broke out. I think there would be no change ITTL.

    Electrification by the London Midland & Scottish Railway

    IOTL the LMS only electrified 21 route miles between 1923 and the end of 1938. Half of this was the electrification of the Wirral Railway completed in 1938, 3 miles were added to the former LNWR's London suburban lines in 1927 and the rest was East Ham to Upminster completed in 1932. It also conducted another feasibility study for the electrification study for the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway in the 1920s but it wasn't carried out.

    Not included in the above was the Manchester, South Junction & Altrincham Railway a joint line with the LNER. Its electrification was approved in 1928 and completed in 1931. 8¾ route miles were electrified on 1,500V DC overhead in 1931. Electrification was considered in the 1900s IOTL and ITTL might have been carried out then because one of its two pre-Grouping owners was the LNWR (the other was the Great Central Railway).

    ITTL the LMS would have completed the schemes it inherited from its constituents (which I have already described) but I'm not sure that it would electrify any additional lines beyond those that were electrified IOTL. The schemes already completed should be saving the Company a considerable sum of money, which would make a strong case for further electrification and provide some of the money. I think its "wish list" would be to electrify:
    • The Midland Main Line from Derby to St Pancras so that its London to Manchester trains could be electrically hauled for the whole journey;
    • Then Derby-Sheffield-Leeds so that the London to Leeds trains could be electrically hauled for the whole journey;
    • Then Manchester to Sheffield by the former Midland Railway route.
    • The London, Tilbury and Southend Railway
    • The Wirral Railway (electrified in 1938 IOTL)
    • The Birkenhead Railway (a joint line with the GWR) from Birkenhead to Chester and Ellesmere Port
    • The Ellesmere Port from Warrington to Widnes
    However, whether they were electrified is another matter.
     
  12. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Fun random fact The Wirral Railway had Parliamentary authority to electrify its system from 1903 onwards and connect to the Mersey Railway which was electrified in 1900 by the Westinghouse corporation. The Wirral never took up the opportunity probably for financial reasons but its interesting to think that with the L&YR Liverpool to Southport, the Liverpool Overhead Railway, the Mersey Railway and the Wirral the region could have been the first fully electrified area.
     
    NOMISYRRUC likes this.
  13. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    Regrettably, that was all too common. The archives of Britain's railway museums are full of electrification plans that weren't implemented - usually for want of money.
     
    fastmongrel likes this.
  14. isayyo2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    SF bay
    This is more of a thought that I've had recently than a complete entry, but has anyone thought of a dual-mode locomotive using an A-B pairing like a road slug?

    The A unit would be a typical diesel unit with a cab, prime movers, fuel tanks and traction motors; and the B unit would contain all of the electrical components, pantograph or third rail, steam generator or HEP and possibly more fuel tanks for added weight and range. In either power mode, all traction motors would receive power much like the slug or cow-calf models; however, there wouldn't be any restricting speed limits for mainline operations. The big benefit would be maintenance simplification because you'd be buying essentially two separate locomotives that could be split up and sent to their respective shops when work was needed instead of a single complex cramped chassis with everything stuffed in it. I think the most logical builder would be GE since they have the most experience with building both diesel's and electric's concurrently and the for the American roads the PRR and MILW would be the obvious buyers; my foreign rail knowledge is pretty limited so perhaps Italy, France, Germany, and the UK would be interested in filling in their electric gaps with this idea too?
     
  15. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Only problem that springs to mind is if one half of the pair has a problem that means shop time, what does the other unit do. Unless the railway has a spare A or B unit sitting around doing nothing.
     
  16. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    @TheMann

    I assume the CN garratt looks something like this.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. TheMann Canuckwanker in Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    No, it looks like a tradition Garratt, with the fuel bunker in front of the cab. From front to back, the CN Garratt goes fuel bunker -> cab -> firebox -> boiler -> smokebox -> water bunker, with the cab windows looking out over the water tank towards the front of the engine. The fuel bunker and water tank are mounted to the portion of the frame where the sets of drivers are, with the cab, firebox, boiler and smokebox (along with a feedwater heater at the end by the water tank) are on the center section of the frame.
     
  18. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    I thought it looked like the SP AC-11.
     
  19. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Possibly like the Algerian express Garrets
    http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/sunday-streamline-67-algerian-garratts
     
  20. Andrew Boyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Sorry if I asked this already, but any thoughts on the C&O J-4a 4-8-6?