Prototype Locomotives

[Strathclyder]

I may or may not being opening a can of worms here...

I've been on something of a prototype locomotive kick these last few weeks and I'd thought I'd turn it into a subject for this sub-section of the forum (in my usual haphazard manner of course lol) and I'll be centering it around these two queries:

1) Which prototype, in your view, had the most potential from the outset that ended up being a one-off for any number of reasons?
2) Which prototype was, in your opinion, the most fascinating concept-wise, regardless of the practical/technical shortcomings it had in practice?

Am not limiting this thread to prototypes that worked on the UK mainland network, so the likes of CIÉ's CC1 are more than welcome.

My picks for #1 would be a tie between Kestrel & 89001 and #2 a three-way tie between CC1, 10100 & GT3.

Over to you all. This should prove to be a interesting discussion to say the least.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'd agree Kestrel for #1.

For #2 I'd go for the gas turbine locomotives.

 

[Taunton]

1) Which prototype, in your view, had the most potential from the outset that ended up being a one-off for any number of reasons?

I'd say D0260 "Lion". BR asked for two comparable demonstrators in 1962, BRCW did a Sulzer 2,750ho medium speed, electric transmission, dual heating loco. Brush meanwhile did a Maybach 1,400hp x2 high speed twin, electric transmission, steam heat only. BR tried both, decided on the Sulzer 2,750hp medium speed engine, dual heat (for many) as the way to go - but built by Brush in considerable quantity. BRCW, having had the cost of building the prototype, then went under.

 

[Helvellyn]

For (1) I will go for DP2. Whilst it led to the Class 50s I think that BR put so many requirements into the design that it led to that Class needing a major refurbishment, and it could be argued that didn't solve all the issues. It would have been fascinating to see what would have happened if they just productionised the prototype, possibly getting it into service sooner and with less 47s ordered.

For (2) I will go with 89001. As a 125mph Co-Co mixed traffic electric it was at one point considered for the ECML. I wonder if a fleet of these would have been better than the Class 90s for the Northern sections of the WCML, especially with lower gearing for freight.

 

[Strathclyder]

For (1) I will go for DP2. Whilst it led to the Class 50s I think that BR put so many requirements into the design that it led to that Class needing a major refurbishment, and it could be argued that didn't solve all the issues. It would have been fascinating to see what would have happened if they just productionised the prototype, possibly getting it into service sooner and with less 47s ordered.

I did consider picking DP2 myself, but I wavered on it given she (eventually) gave rise to the 50s, but you're correct in saying that they were dogged by numerous BR-stipulated requirements to the point of needing a major mid-life refurbishment that didn't completely cure all the issues. Like you, I do sometimes wonder how things would've gone if they just productionised DP2 (wonder how many less 47s would've been ordered if this had happened, certainly less than 500).

Sticking with DP2, I've always found it a tad strange that BR didn't order production DP2s based on concerns with the 'unproven' powerplant when the Ivatt Twins, the Bulleid Trio and the Class 40 all had eariler/less powerful variants of it (unless BR's concerns were to do with the intercooler and increased power output).

 

[xotGD]

A couple of options not mentioned yet...

For 1, 50149. The Freight Hoover concept could have given the class a new lease of life. But didn't.

For 2, 87101. A step change in electric locomotive technology (that I have little understanding of!), later used in the 90s and 91s.

 

[43096]

I did consider picking DP2 myself, but I wavered on it given she (eventually) gave rise to the 50s, but you're correct in saying that they were dogged by numerous BR-stipulated requirements to the point of needing a major mid-life refurbishment that didn't completely cure all the issues. Like you, I do sometimes wonder how things would've gone if they just productionised DP2 (wonder how many less 47s would've been ordered if this had happened, certainly less than 500).

Sticking with DP2, I've always found it a tad strange that BR didn't order production DP2s based on concerns with the 'unproven' powerplant when the Ivatt Twins, the Bulleid Trio and the Class 40 all had eariler/less powerful variants of it (unless BR's concerns were to do with the intercooler and increased power output).

The biggest uncured issue with the 50s was the generator. AIUI the Western wanted to replace the generators with alternators at refurbishment, but were knocked back by the BRB on cost grounds.

The generator was there on DP2, just with a fleet of one maybe they didn't have an issue? Don't forget once the Duffs were de-rated the 50s were the highest horsepower locos with generators. It's a shame they didn't take the leap to alternators when built - General Motors had made that leap on its GP40/SD40 from 1965 and GE did likewise with its U30C around the same time - so it certainly ought to have been an option for the 50s.

 

[Grumpy]

Surely the Brush Falcon meets the OP's criteria for most potential from the outset.
It had a higher HP than the 47 and 50 when built, 100mph and a higher top speed than the 47, also higher tractive effort than the 50.
Given the use of 2 engines it had less chance of being a total failure.
BR chose the 47 which was unreliable and had to be de-rated. Similarly the class 50 was "flaky" with engine and generator problems-a totally unnecessary acquisition.

 

[Taunton]

One of the difficulties with twin engine locos, whether hydraulic or electric, is tapping them for ETH. Do you only tap one engine, and if as commonly each drives their own bogie, does that lead to asymmetric power. All sorts of issues with doing it other than off one large engine.

 

[Ashley Hill]

1. Kestrel never reached its full potential in Britain which was a shame. It’s AC transmission followed on from the NBL prototype 10800. This had been converted from DC to AC traction by Brush and renamed Hawk.
2. The Fell loco with its multiple engines was some concept. With its complicated gearbox no doubt it was doomed to failure. GT 3 was an interesting concept of a gas turbine on a steam loco chassis.

 

[bangor-toad]

I'll go back a bit further in time:

1. Leader
2. Leader

These could have been so revolutionary but sadly they never worked out.
Admittedly they more or less cooked the poor fireman but that could have eventually led to automated stoking.
Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[Sun Chariot]

1. LMS high pressure "Fury".
2. The steam-diesel hybrid Kitson-Still.

 

[Helvellyn]

For 1, 50149. The Freight Hoover concept could have given the class a new lease of life. But didn't

I believe one of the issues was lack of sanding equipment, which was removed during refurbishment. It was a cheap conversion I assume to see if a Class deemed surplus could be used for freight. I wonder if replacing the generator with an alternator like with the Class 37 refurbishment would have changed things.

I did consider picking DP2 myself, but I wavered on it given she (eventually) gave rise to the 50s, but you're correct in saying that they were dogged by numerous BR-stipulated requirements to the point of needing a major mid-life refurbishment that didn't completely cure all the issues. Like you, I do sometimes wonder how things would've gone if they just productionised DP2 (wonder how many less 47s would've been ordered if this had happened, certainly less than 500).

Sticking with DP2, I've always found it a tad strange that BR didn't order production DP2s based on concerns with the 'unproven' powerplant when the Ivatt Twins, the Bulleid Trio and the Class 40 all had eariler/less powerful variants of it (unless BR's concerns were to do with the intercooler and increased power output).

I thought one of the things that counted against it was BR didn't want to be too reliant on English Electric - the Class 47s could be built in house, as happened with the preceding Peaks, but I don't think EE would allow that for their designs.

 

[Rescars]

Going back to 1829, I suggest Novelty is a strong contender for category 2.

A little later, and how about Brunel's Hurricane and Thunderer?

 

[Irascible]

Most fascinating for me is the Brush rebuild of 10800 with entirely AC transmission ( motors included ), *way* before we saw anything in production. Kestrel was a case of trying to fit a bit too much in, I think. DP2 ( more so the 50s ) could definitely have benefitted from AC generators, 2700bhp was about the practical limit of DC generation then iirc.

Wish I knew more about the Paxman-engined D800 - it probably didn't cause too much trouble or it'd have some notoriety. If you ignore the BR-meddled-with Class 14 the YJ was a pretty ok engine.

Not sure I'd really bump Leader up too far - in concept it's a giant Sentinel. A lot of steam-era experiments seem to have been tried on existing production designs, like poppet valves & various types of heating & exhaust mechanisms, so do they really count as prototypes?

 

[Strathclyder]

Maintaining the theme of early experimental steam engines, Fowler's Ghost is another standout, at least for me.

2. The Fell loco with its multiple engines was some concept. With its complicated gearbox no doubt it was doomed to failure. GT 3 was an interesting concept of a gas turbine on a steam loco chassis.

From the sources I've consulted, there was a Fell Mk.2 that managed to at least reach the drawing board. This version would've made various changes to the base design, namely eliminating the 2 auxiliary engines. The issues 10100 experienced during her trials caused any interest BR had in going further with the project to evaporate.

GT3 is another fascinating one.

I thought one of the things that counted against it was BR didn't want to be too reliant on English Electric - the Class 47s could be built in house, as happened with the preceding Peaks, but I don't think EE would allow that for their designs.

Ah yes, I remember reading about that somewhere, but I must've dismissed it as a false memory for whatever reason.

2. The steam-diesel hybrid Kitson-Still.

Can't believe I forgot about this one. Such a fascinating concept.

 

[Taunton]

I thought one of the things that counted against it was BR didn't want to be too reliant on English Electric - the Class 47s could be built in house, as happened with the preceding Peaks, but I don't think EE would allow that for their designs.

I think this is incorrect, as the Class 08 is an English Electric design, but all the ones for the UK were built by BR. The Netherlands ones were built by EE at Vulcan.

 

[Harvester]

I think ‘The Great Bear’ 4-6-2 warrants a mention. The GWR didn’t really persevere for long with it’s flagship Pacific, and with limited route availability and the Castles coming into service, it’s fate was sealed!

 

[Irascible]

I don't know why they built it in the first place, the GWR had already decided it didn't like trailing wheels anyway!

 

[Taunton]

Great Bear was another Churchward prototype which Collett got rid of shortly after taking over; Collett must have been considerably involved with its design and testing, and as much of it was GWR standard parts, rebuilding it to a Castle was quite feasible. Inside bearings to the trailing truck right next to the firebox caused them to overheat, but the main issue was the big boiler, not only heavy, which restricted its route availability, but also long. Key to GW loco design was the top of Dainton bank, steep climb up, as much as Lickey, but from both sides, up from both Newton Abbot and Totnes to the pinnacle summit. Taken at full power, boiler water fell by the top, tip over to equally steep pointing downhill, if you weren't careful you dropped a fusible plug, which I believe Great Bear did there on at least one trial run. It impacted a number of later non-Swindon types as well. Meanwhile Swindon also found, just like the Saints built initially as 4-4-2s, that the drawbar pull tipped the loco back slightly, moving weight to the unpowered trailing truck and lessening adhesion weight on the driving wheels. Not an issue for a 4-6-0.

 

[Rescars]

Maintaining the theme of early experimental steam engines, Fowler's Ghost is another standout, at least for me.


From the sources I've consulted, there was a Fell Mk.2 that managed to at least reach the drawing board. This version would've made various changes to the base design, namely eliminating the 2 auxiliary engines. The issues 10100 experienced during her trials caused any interest BR had in going further with the project to evaporate.

GT3 is another fascinating one.


Ah yes, I remember reading about that somewhere, but I must've dismissed it as a false memory for whatever reason.


Can't believe I forgot about this one. Such a fascinating concept.

Fowler's Ghost is certainly a standout. Its mysteries only deepened by the details quoted in The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding - a treasure trove of unusual steam.

The Holcroft-Anderson recompression loco and the Midland's Paget loco would also be worthy additions to our list.

Perhaps we should also add the Christiani compressed steam system, trialled on a Hawthorn Leslie 0-6-0T. This loco, long since converted to a conventional layout and now named Stagshaw is still extant and I think currently in store on the Tanfield Railway.

 

[Helvellyn]

I think this is incorrect, as the Class 08 is an English Electric design, but all the ones for the UK were built by BR. The Netherlands ones were built by EE at Vulcan.

But the Class 20s, 37s, 40s, 50s and 55s, which all came later, were either built at The Vulcan Foundry (Newton-le-Willows) or Robert Stephenson & Hawthorn (Darlington), both part of English Electric from 1957. So mainline diesel locomotives were built in house and not by BR as sub-contractors (though 40 of 100 Class 86s were built by BR at Doncaster).

 

[Strathclyder]

Fowler's Ghost is certainly a standout. Its mysteries only deepened by the details quoted in The Chronicles of Boulton's Siding - a treasure trove of unusual steam.

The Holcroft-Anderson recompression loco and the Midland's Paget loco would also be worthy additions to our list.

Perhaps we should also add the Christiani compressed steam system, trialled on a Hawthorn Leslie 0-6-0T. This loco, long since converted to a conventional layout and now named Stagshaw is still extant and I think currently in store on the Tanfield Railway.

For me at least, Fowler's Ghost and the Midland Paget are both so fascinating primarily due to the fact that just one image of each exists, unlike 10100, Kestrel, Falcon etc.

Had to look up the Holfcroft-Anderson recompression loco, never heard of it before.

 

[Rescars]

For me at least, Fowler's Ghost and the Midland Paget are both so fascinating primarily due to the fact that just one image of each exists, unlike 10100, Kestrel, Falcon etc.

Had to look up the Holfcroft-Anderson recompression loco, never heard of it before.

IIRC, the photo of the Paget engine did not appear until after the Midland had been amalgamated into the LMS. The Chronicles contains some drawings of the Ghost, though not hugely detailed.

 

[Richard Scott]

Sticking with DP2, I've always found it a tad strange that BR didn't order production DP2s based on concerns with the 'unproven' powerplant when the Ivatt Twins, the Bulleid Trio and the Class 40 all had eariler/less powerful variants of it (unless BR's concerns were to do with the intercooler and increased power output).

The irony here being that the EE engine was unproven at 2700hp so BR went for the Sulzer, which then had to be derated as it wasn't able to deal with a 2750hp rating, leading to an order for the 50s. The EE unit then was developed further up to over 3000hp and used in 56s (believe it could be rated up to around 3500hp in other applications).

I believe one of the issues was lack of sanding equipment, which was removed during refurbishment. It was a cheap conversion I assume to see if a Class deemed surplus could be used for freight. I wonder if replacing the generator with an alternator like with the Class 37 refurbishment would have changed things.

The generator was the 50's weak point so an alternator would have improved them no end. Would probably have been pretty untouchable as a type 4 with an alternator (I believe EE wanted to build them with alternators, and warned BR that the generator was right at its limit, but BR wanted to stick with the generator, an extremely poor decision).

 

[India Four Two]

I think ‘The Great Bear’ 4-6-2 warrants a mention.

Harvester, you beat me to it!

 

[Rescars]

Another candidate worthy of inclusion is Holden's Decapod. An interesting way of demonstrating no need to upgrade technology which holds parallels with the current debates about moving away from fossil fuels perhaps?

The OP allows us to stray from mainland UK. How far can we go? Two stand-out additions from overseas are the friction-drive Fontaine loco from the USA and, closer to home, the Heilmann steam-electric locos from France.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I liike the Erie triplex (2-8-8-8-2 Compound) but I don't think it meets either criteria, It suffered from poor draughting and a boiler too small to produce the steam needed. It couldn't run efficiently at more than 10mph and was consigned to be a rear-end pusher.

 

[Irascible]

Another candidate worthy of inclusion is Holden's Decapod. An interesting way of demonstrating no need to upgrade technology which holds parallels with the current debates about moving away from fossil fuels perhaps?

The OP allows us to stray from mainland UK. How far can we go? Two stand-out additions from overseas are the friction-drive Fontaine loco from the USA and, closer to home, the Heilmann steam-electric locos from France.

Well, yes, and if the OP hasn't seen http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm he really should have.

The LMS Turbomotive! now there was something that seemed like it could have a future with a bit more development. Sadly appeared a bit later than it could have done.

 

[Strathclyder]

IIRC, the photo of the Paget engine did not appear until after the Midland had been amalgamated into the LMS.

Yeah, that in itself is intruging. Further to this, the Midland waited until Paget himself was in France fighting in World War I before breaking it up in 1918.

The Chronicles contains some drawings of the Ghost, though not hugely detailed.

Still, they give one some idea as to the layout of this thing. The lack of provision for dumping the firebricks, despite it creating the possibilty for leaks, was a major oversight to say the least.

Another candidate worthy of inclusion is Holden's Decapod. An interesting way of demonstrating no need to upgrade technology which holds parallels with the current debates about moving away from fossil fuels perhaps?

Oh most certainly. The Decapod was a equal case of that and just being a straight-up unit lol

The OP allows us to stray from mainland UK. How far can we go? Two stand-out additions from overseas are the friction-drive Fontaine loco from the USA and, closer to home, the Heilmann steam-electric locos from France.

Sweden also had small 0-6-0 steam-electric shunters during World War II. As barmy as it sounds on paper, the reasoning for them (the Swedish ones anyway) is actually sound (war-time coal shortages and Sweden's extensive electified network). One of them survives in preservation, minus it's 'leccy' equipment.

Other overseas examples are the 2 GE steam-turbine locos trialed/ran by the Union Pacific, New York Central and Great Northern Railway in 1938-39, 1941 and 1943 respectively and, much closer to home, the Belgian Quadruplex of 1932.

Well, yes, and if the OP hasn't seen http://douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htm he really should have.

Actually, I actually had unwittingly stumbled across this site when looking up the Holcroft-Anderson recompression loco. A treasure trove of info and rare images.

A turn-up for me in there was the flexible-boilered (bellows and later ball joints) 2-6-6-2 Mallets built by Baldwin for the Santa Fe in the early 1910s. No, I'm not making that up on the spot:

The irony here being that the EE engine was unproven at 2700hp so BR went for the Sulzer, which then had to be derated as it wasn't able to deal with a 2750hp rating, leading to an order for the 50s. The EE unit then was developed further up to over 3000hp and used in 56s (believe it could be rated up to around 3500hp in other applications).

Can't make it up, can you? And then as you say, BR went and shot themselves in the foot again by insisting on generators be fitted to the 50s despite EE's warnings that with the amount of power the prime mover was putting out, the generator would be right up at it's limit. The Doncaster refurb really should've have had the generator replaced with a alternator (perhaps one similar to the one the 56s had), as that would've eliminated many of the chronic issues the class suffered. All academic now, of course.