Top Locomotives Never Built

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

  1. TheMann Canuckwanker in Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Location:
    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 Putting a banging donk on it!

    Joined:
    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.
     
  3. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Chicago, Milwaukee, and Dakota 440 Class 4-6-2

    The Chicago, Milwaukee, and Dakota was not a particularly notable railroad in its early days. It's route was not as direct and profitable as those of the Milwaukee Road, Chicago & Northwestern, or the Burlington. However, the railroad did serve Milwaukee, Madison, La Crosse, and Rochester all on one Chicago- Twin Cities line. Which meant that those lines were able to give them just enough profit.

    However, a big game changer for them arrived in 1906. At that time, railroad Baron James J. Hill was looking for a way to get his Great Northern Railroad into Chicago. However, when he considered the Burlington, that was vetoed on the grounds of lack of possible profit. As such, Hill turned to the CM&D instead. This meant that one of the major services for the CM&D would be shuttling the Great Northern and Northern Pacific trains like the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited to Chicago from the Twin Cities.

    To this end, the CM&D immediately ordered several new pacifics to operate the services on their territory. Inspired by the ATSF Class 1337 Pacific, the first were built by Baldwin in 1910, with four more arriving in 1912. The Pacifics served the CM&D's own Chicago-Twin Cities Dairyland service, but also the Chicago portions of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific's passenger trains. Each locomotive was painted jet black, with silver smokeboxes and yellow striping down the cab and tender, matching the 8 green-yellow striped Pullmans that made up the train. In 1940, all four pacifics were repainted into the standard MDRR Drab-and-Decor paint scheme, minus the red wheels, following replacement by larger Pacific types from the Southern Pacific.

    In 1924, the CM&D christened their reach into Omaha by purchasing the Illinois Central's Omaha Division and its branches to Madison, Souix City, and Bloomington. Which lead to the Pacifics being placed on such services as The Land O'Corn to Omaha. But after the Great Northern purchased the CM&D as part of the revised Ripley plan, they found themselves on less and lesser trains. Namely as first 8-coupled steamers then diesel took over passenger services.

    The last engines of the class were retired in 1953 as the Great Northern replaced them with their own 4-8-2s on the Chicago-Omaha Land O'Corn. However a few have managed to survive to this day. The most notable of them being 446, who is now preserved at the Union Pacific's former C&NW roundhouse in Madison, WI. Alongside several other steam engines like the C&NW 4-8-4 3013 for the Milwaukee Road Hudson 102.
     
  4. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Sounds like another engine we could hear some more history about. :p
     
  5. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Anyone have any thoughts on the C&O 4-8-6 types?
     
  6. DougM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    I think a 4-10-6 would be more likely for the C&O. The 2-10-4s were getting worn out at a tremendous rate. At least the frames were. They were not cost as on piece but were assambled and after many years of hard work they were significantly having issues. But the C&O still had need of something like them. The only real use of a 2-6-6-6 on the Ohio route was realy the bridge over the Ohio. So if you could somehow decrease the grade on the southern approach you easily make an engine like a 4-10-6 work. Basically a bit longer boiler to accommodate a bigger combustion chamber and obviously a bigger firebox. To allow a bit of increase in tonnage while sustaining a higher speed and turn that route into a true conveyor belt.
    A 4-8-6 is not going to do much that the J3(a) class 4-8-4s could not do, the only real limitation they had was in tractive effort when they see at high speed in the extreme mountains such as between Hinton and Clifton Forge. So the typical advantage of a 6 trailing night truck is a larger firebox. But with the boiler you typically get on a 4-8-4 you don’t need a larger firebox. So you would end up increasing the boiler and combustion chamber a bit as well. The downside is that a 4-8-6 is going to be a bit slippery, in order to take advantage of the increased size of the boiler/ combustion chamber/firebox combos that would need the extra two shells you will have to dump more power into the cylinders as you will be producing more steam. And with more steam/power but with the same basic weight on the driving wheels you get an engine that is a bit more slippery. And the increased size and the resulting weight will pretty much be absorbed by the additional wheel set.
    That is the problem with the last generation of steam the so called super power locomotives and thier contemporaries. These engines were the end of a long line of advancement and invention and came about at the time that those designing steam engines had gone from an art form and turn it into very advanced science and then in general worked out most of the issues. So there was little room for improvements. We are talking refinement vs innovation or advancement. So it took a lot for relatively little improvement.
    You may have adventualy seen a 4-8-6 but if it was on the C&O it would only have shown up when the 4-8-4 was in need of replacement as it would not have been enough of an improvement over the 4-8-4. Perhaps some other railroads with different coal then the C&O used (or perhaps oil) could use the larger firebox that that 6 would allow. But it is not that useful or at least not enough to replace what we’re some of the best 4-8-4s ever to be built.
     
  7. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
  8. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Chesapeake & Ohio T2 4-10-6

    In recent times, the C&O T1 Texas types were getting worn out at a tremendous rate, mainly in the frames. They were not cost as on piece but were assembled and after many years of hard work they were significantly having issues. But the C&O still had need of something like them. The only real use of a 2-6-6-6 on the Ohio route was really the bridge over the Ohio.

    Therefore, the railroad went to Lima again while the J-4 Ohio type 4-8-6 engines were built. Asking them for a locomotive that could take over the majority of duties from the T1. Lima's response was to create longer boiler to accommodate a bigger combustion chamber and obviously a bigger firebox. To accommodate for the size, several elements of the J-4 series were taken into consideration while building the T2.

    The first member of the T2 type was number 3040, which rolled out of Lima on June 23, 1949. Another 30 engines of the type would come out for freight service in the Ohio area, with the final one being 3069 which rolled out in August 1952. The improved nature of the T2 allowed the C&O to relegate many T1s to less tasking lines such as the Nickel Plate Division from Cleveland to Chicago. One advance that the T2 class had was a new more powerful booster engine driving two wheel sets on the trailing truck. Like all boosters it is only of use at low speeds but proved to be very useful in getting a train up and over the Ohio River Bridge thus allowing the T2s to to take a north bound train without the need for a pusher.

    Much like the T1 and Berkshire families, the T2 was among the last steamers retired from the Chessie. Today, number 3041 is on display at Huntington, West Virginia. Whereas another, number 3056, made its way to the Museum of Transport in St Louis.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  9. DougM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    “One advance that the T2 class had was a new more powerful booster engine driving two wheel sets on the trailing truck. Like all boosters it is only of use at low speeds but proved to be very useful in getting a train up and over the Ohio River Bridge thus allowing the T2s to to take a north bound train without the need for a pusher. “
     
  10. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    The U-4-b?
     
  11. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Locomotive: Accord class

    Configuration: Dual voltage DC Co-Co

    Company: Channel Tunnel Railway Company

    Years of production: 1926-38, 58 built nos CC-20000 to CC-20057



    Sir Edward Watkin the manager of the Great Central Railway Company had the foresight to build the Great Central line from the Midlands to London to the European loading gauge as part of his plan to build a line to Paris via a Channel Tunnel. The tunnel was started before the First World War delayed construction, post war the usefulness of a link to Europe that wasnt prone to Mines, weather and Torpedoes was recognised and a consortium of railway companies and construction companies got together with finance from the British Government to finish the tunnel. The tunnel project restarted and was due for completion in 1928.

    The original plan for traction in the tunnel had been for an overhead line at 6,250v 16 2/3ds herz AC but problems were encountered with a test line pre war the overhead line equipment needed too much headroom caused several minor fires and was not compatible with Frances planned 1500v DC network. A dual voltage DC locomotive was planned 1500v overhead and 660v third rail for use on the Southern Railways third rail network.

    The prototype loco was a joint venture between Dick Kerr company of Preston, British Thomson-Houston of Rugby and the French companies La Compagnie Des Lampes of Bilancourt and armaments giant Schneider of Le Creusot who were keen to get in the rail market now that armaments sales were dwindling.

    The Accord class were 102 tons in weight produced 1,900hp with a maximum speed of 65mph. They were capable of taking a 1,000ton train through the tunnel at an average speed of 40mph. All even numbered locos were French owned all odd numbers British owned though in a rare example of international good sense they were all common user locos and a British crew could operate a French loco and vice versa.

    In 1938 an agreement was signed that in the event of Germany invading and threatening the tunnel all the locos would be sent to Britain and the tunnels pumping system turned off to let the tunnel flood. On 22nd of May 1940 3 convoys of locos and some stock travelled through the tunnel the French tunnel entrances were dynamited and the pumps switched off. The Channel tunnel would not re open for business the damage cause by 7 years of flooding caused too much damage to repair economically. It was decided to build a new larger tunnel that would be large enough to use any likely future size locos and to use the new standard 25,000v 50Hz AC power.

    The locos were extensively used by Sothern Rail on its third rail 660 volt system and the joint LMS/LNER overhead network in the North during the war the lack of a fire being very useful during the black out. Tthe French locos were bought in 1946 by the United Nations for use in France the British government accepting the scrap value for the locos. The British locos were nationalised in 1948.

    CC 20003 using the third rail in BR service the pantograph can be seen folded down in the roof.
    [​IMG]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_70_(electric)

    By 1960 the locos were wearing out and spares were no longer available so BR decided to withdraw the locos. One loco no 20001 is preserved at York Railway museum as a non working exhibit, another loco no 20000 is being restored from a rusty wreck by the SNCF and will be placed in the Mulhouse Railway museum.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
  12. NOMISYRRUC Putting a banging donk on it!

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2014
    I think that you have confused Sir Sam Fay with Sir Edward Watkin. Fay did not become General Manager of the Great Central Railway until 1902. This was 3 years after the London Extension was completed and 5 years after the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway changed its name.

    As it happens I'm thinking about starting an Alternative British Railway Electrification thread because my posts here are really about the extra lines that were electrified rather than the motive power that worked them. It will cover the period from the early 1890s to the Grouping. The POD is going to be 28th March 1893 which IOTL was when the Act of Parliament authorising the London Extension received Royal Assent. In my TL Parliament doesn't authorise the scheme and the MSLR spends the money it used to build the London Extension IOTL on other things including the electrification of the Cheshire Lines Committee's lines around Liverpool.
     
    fastmongrel likes this.
  13. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    Lancashire UK
    Your right I forgot to check the name and went on memory. I will edit my post thanks.
     
  14. TheMann Canuckwanker in Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    The H1 Hudson is more or less the OTL Royal Hudson, though UP versions eventually had elephant ears like the FEFs did. They lived their lives as secondary passenger power on the UP, primarily on the Salt Lake-Portland route and in the Midwest east of Cheyenne, as the articulateds and FEFs made sure they were weren't often used on the Overland Route, though one regular route of theirs in early years was the Denver-Cheyenne runs.
     
  15. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    What were their numbers?
     
  16. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    UP FES Class 4-8-6T

    Seldom did American railroads use tank engine, let alone with three trailing axles; but the Union Pacific did both with a class that they officially called the "Monsters." They were built to manage the hump yards at Cheyenne. Though later they also worked on Denver-Cheyenne Commuter Services.

    Because of their general lack of use, the American Locomotive Company (ALCo) could only build fifteen of them for the UP; but they proved among the strongest and most durable tank engine that ever ran, wether on suburban trains in Los Angeles or shunting in yards. Driving massive 6'6" wheels were four cylinders of 20"×28". Even at the end of the 1950's, they could still be seen running around the UP system. Three have been preserved.
     
  17. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    @TheMann

    Where might if find all your Canadian Steam engine ideas?
     
  18. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    Union Pacific FSF-3 Class 4-6-4

    The Union Pacific had most of its steam-hauled passenger trains operated by the FEF series Northerns. However, that did not stop the railroad from trying other passenger motive power from time to time. The most notable examples were the 44 examples of the Canadian Pacific H1 "Royal" Hudsons built by ALCO between 1937 and 1944 as smaller passenger engines to support the 4-8-4s. However, the FSF-1 weren't often used on the Overland Route, mainly working from Ogden to the Northwest or in the Midwest. Several more Hudsons came from UP's takeover the Chicago & North Western Railroad in 1948. However, these were not widely used either, and mainly stayed on their native trackage in Wisconsin.

    However, things would eventually changed in the 1950s. When in 1953, Union Pacific gave Andre Chapelon and Livio Dante Porta, now working with Lima, FEF-4 857 for them to show off their technological innovations. The end result proved to be massive improvements for the 857, then later the rest of the latter-day Union Pacific steam fleet. As such, the UP commissioned Lima's Chapelon team to create an entirely new engine.

    The end result was 4-6-4 design that fused several elements of the New York Central J-4b (More on those later), and the Chesapeake & Ohio L series Hudsons. They were mostly like the later but with Scullen disk drivers and Belpaire fireboxes, then had the Poppet Valve Gear of the L series Hudsons. These engines were eventually coined "Donners" by the Union Pacific, and mainly worked on the lines out out of Salt Lake City to either the Pacific Northwest or Los Angeles, or the Central Pacific line to San Fransisco. However, these engines were also seen more often than the other Hudsons on the Overland Route. With many even being streamlined in the style of Andre Chapelon's own SNCF Hudsons for use on trains like the Challenger to Los Angeles.

    Eventually, the class was retired one by one beginning in 1964. However, number 706 survives today as part of the UP Heritage Fleet. Often working on the lines from Utah to Los Angeles. Often doubleheading with FEF 844 both from there and on the Overland Route or in the Pacific Northwest.
     
  19. isayyo2 Low Key

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    SF bay
    Would a similar sized simple articulated engine, like a 2-6-6-4, be in the same cost range as a rigid 4-8-6 or 4-10-6? I know the SP could only run their 4-10-2's on the straightest track, so a 4-10-6 might be finicky on the curves. A 4-8-6 would be a darn powerful passenger engine, but I'd personally rather see Lima put their efforts into Chapelon's thermal efficiency ideas than just brute power.
     
  20. Andrew Boyd Autistic, but Artistic

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2018
    I think the track on the Ohio C&O line would fit a 4-10-6 if it could take a 2-10-4.

    Also, I actually have thought of all the roads going to Lima to get Chapelon and Porta's thermal improvements as time goes on. Though I'm not going to remove the 4-8-6 since that was actually proposed.