Top Locomotives Never Built

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

  1. TheMann Canuckwanker in Chief

    Aug 4, 2006
    Toronto, Canada
    Sorta, but the CN 9000-series had cab windows like the SP cab forwards, a three-piece windshield that looked over the fuel bunker, the bunker top being lower than the windshield to allow the crew to have excellent visibility. As the water tank on the 9000s was fairly low as well, the locomotive could run in either direction, but in service they almost always ran bunker first so as to give the crew the best possible view. Later 9000s had a windshield that protruded out in the center to give the crew more room and reduce wind resistance, and all of them had those cabs backfitted as they were outshopped during their service lives.
  2. NOMISYRRUC Get Your Trousers On, You're Nicked!

    Nov 7, 2014
    Locomotive: Electric Shunting One (ES1)

    Configuration: Bo-Bo

    Company: North Eastern Railway (NER)

    Number Built: 8

    Years of production: 1904-05

    These locomotives were built in the timeline begun by @fastmongrel in Post 32 and continued by myself in Posts 137, 146 and 151.

    IOTL the NER began studying the electrification of its North Tyneside suburban lines (including the Ponteland branch) and the Quayside goods branch in 1901. The schemes were approved in 1902 and were brought into operation 1904-05. Meanwhile the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway (L&YR) was considering the electrification of its Liverpool Exchange to Southport line, which was also approved in 1902 and completed in 1904.

    AFAIK both companies were "comparing notes" and this might have contributed to both companies decided electrifying their lines on 630V DC third-rail. @fastmongrel had the L&YR use 1,500V DC overhead for his Liverpool to Goole scheme, which was approved in 1906. However, I brought their decision forward to 1902 so that the L&YR was electrified on one system and to give the L&YR the opportunity to test mainline electric locomotives on its Liverpool suburban system before embarking on the Liverpool-Wigan-Manchester Victoria & Bury scheme.

    ITTL the NER also decided to use the 1,500V DC overhead wire system instead of 600V DC third-rail too. Although it was more expensive to install than the third-rail system it was more suitable for mainline electrification and ITTL the scheme was seen as a test of the technology for further schemes as well as a way to win traffic back from the tramways.

    IOTL electrification of the Ponteland branch was begun, but not completed. (There is a file in the Merz & McLellan records at the Tyne & Wear archives that discusses whether electrification should be completed and what the alternatives were.) ITTL electrification of the Ponteland branch was completed.

    Extract from...
    The 6 electric locomotives required to run the local goods service would have been additional examples of the OTL ES1 locomotives built to work the Quayside branch.

    IOTL the 20 miles of sidings weren't electrified and the 6 additional ES1 locomotives weren't built. ITTL the 20 miles of sidings were electrified and the 6 additional ES1 locomotives were built.

    IOTL the ES1 design ran on 600V DC (or 630V DC depending upon which source document is read) which it could collect from an overhead wire via a pantograph or a third rail via a "shoe." ITTL the ES1 locomotive ran on 1,500V DC, which in common with OTL was collected via a pantograph or shoe. Although the suburban lines used overhead wires instead of third rails ITTL most of the Quayside branch still used third-rail because of the clearances in some of the tunnels. However, this was also because the NER and Merz & McLellan wanted practical experience of the third rail and overhead methods electrification to see what the advantages and disadvantages were.