The GSR that could have been

[GSR 800]

Recently I've been reading through the big green book, and have been considering what might have been. The GSR built few locomotives in its time, and aside from 850 and the 800s, these designs were quite conservative and of questionable use. The GSR was of course, quite a cash strapped company, but nonetheless when pushed could produce powerful, modern, even innovative engines, similar to the GSWR and their 500s.

The idea for this is what could have been built or done better with the resources available.

The GSR built 5 J15A's and 10 J15B's, the former of extremely conservative design and pretty crap, the latter comparing poorly to the rebuilt J15s they were built to replace. The tank engine version of the 710s were the five 670 tanks, which were considered too slow and outdated.

Also built were five 342 class 4-4-0s. Pretty good locos with a light axle load, but again a strangely conservative design with their outside axle frames on the bogie.

850 was a good, powerful locomotive that I think could make a good template for a standard GSR tank locomotive. One of the main issues with it is that she apparently rolled side to side at speed. Presumably this is a topweight issue? Perhaps having the tanks with a section deepened after the motion (akin to LMS practice) could go some way to addressing this? Interestingly, the 820 pacific tank design has deepened tanks, indicating a lesson learned from 850?

The 800s, fast, powerful engines, though with quite limited range.

I'm thinking the 670s, 700s, 710s and 342s all get thrown out. Whats needed then is a mid-sized, decently powerful tender loco with a light enough axle load (16/17 tons), along with a tank engine for suburban and general working also.

If we sort out 850's rolling issue and drop the lightweight motion, we have a template for both the tank locomotives, along with a 2-6-0 mogul version of them. Replacing on a like for like basis, we could end up with 10 moguls and 10 tank locomotives of a modern, useful design for the GSR that can go almost anywhere on the network. My one concern regarding the use of moguls on services is that the Woolwich were apparently overloaded and thus needed to be thrashed on the heavy expresses. A mix of utilising Milne's proposals of shorter trains, and putting some of the 400s out on the heavier Midland trains, at least before they are split at Mullingar/Athlone could go some way to alleviating this, and thus gives more room for the 800s on the Cork line.

Clements and McMahon consider the ideal standard loco for Irish railways to have been something along the lines of an Ivatt class 2, designed to exploit the more generous Irish loading gauge. 850 has a very similar tractive effort, adhesion weight, etc, but with bigger cylinders and driving wheels.

Thoughts and criticism appreciated.

 

 

Edited April 26 by GSR 800

[Horsetan]

In terms of £££, what budget was available to the GSR during that period for building new locomotives?

What were the building costs of 800-802, and 850? How much money was left after that?

Note 850 was made possible partly because it made use of some existing Woolwich Mogul parts.

The impression I get is that, money being somewhat scarce, the GSR stuck to the conventional principles that it saw as being cost-effective, or cheap. If the 25 engines of the 342/670/700/710 had not been built, what could the GSR have created for the money not spent?

Innovation tends to cost, so developing a new mixed-traffic design, with Walschaerts outside motion, may not have resulted in as many as 20 engines. There would have had to have been some sort of testing of the initial tank and tender designs to see if they really were of universal use, before asking for approval to build more.

In the case of the 2-6-0, would all-new tenders have been built for them, or salvaged from older withdrawn engines? We don't know.

I'm also looking at the W class moguls in the North which were introduced in 1933:

- As a contemporary design, what did they cost the LMS(NCC) to build?

- Would they have been suitable for use on the GSR network and, if so, on which routes?

- Would it have been realistic for the GSR to ask permission to test a W or two? If such permission was forthcoming and the engine found suitable, would the LMS have then agreed to build them for the GSR? What would that have cost?

[minister_for_hardship]

No offence, but (usually said by those who tend to offend) the 800 class were a waste of resources given their limited usefulness and smack of a vanity project. As far as I can see built for just one purpose, to start out of Cork without a pilot.

Perhaps with a bit more thought, the J15 Nua class could have been improved from the disappointments they turned out to be? A Jeep-like loco would have been an ideal, go most anywhere loco, but unlike today there was no shortage of operational turntables for tender engines.

OHLE was tried and trusted by the 20s and 30s, perhaps that could have been adopted for Dublin suburban rather than the Drumm units in a what if scenario?

Edited April 26 by minister_for_hardship

[Horsetan]

19 minutes ago, minister_for_hardship said:

.....OHLE was tried and trusted by the 20s and 30s, perhaps that could have been adopted for Dublin suburban rather than the Drumm units in a what if scenario?

Who's to say that the Drumm battery system itself couldn't be further developed?

[GSR 800]

30 minutes ago, Horsetan said:

In terms of £££, what budget was available to the GSR during that period for building new locomotives?

What were the building costs of 800-802, and 850? How much money was left after that?

Note 850 was made possible partly because it made use of some existing Woolwich Mogul parts.

The impression I get is that, money being somewhat scarce, the GSR stuck to the conventional principles that it saw as being cost-effective, or cheap. If the 25 engines of the 342/670/700/710 had not been built, what could the GSR have created for the money not spent?

Innovation tends to cost, so developing a new mixed-traffic design, with Walschaerts outside motion, may not have resulted in as many as 20 engines. There would have had to have been some sort of testing of the initial tank and tender designs to see if they really were of universal use, before asking for approval to build more.

In the case of the 2-6-0, would all-new tenders have been built for them, or salvaged from older withdrawn engines? We don't know.

I'm also looking at the W class moguls in the North which were introduced in 1933:

- As a contemporary design, what did they cost the LMS(NCC) to build?

- Would they have been suitable for use on the GSR network and, if so, on which routes?

- Would it have been realistic for the GSR to ask permission to test a W or two? If such permission was forthcoming and the engine found suitable, would the LMS have then agreed to build them for the GSR? What would that have cost?

800s were 12k a pop, not a clue for 850, nor the NCC locos. the GNRI V class cost just under 6k a pop sans tender, with the SG3s costing just under 9k a pop with tender.

I'm unsure of the axle load on the moguls, but on the Jeeps it was 17.8 tons, which was too heavy for the Warrenpoint branch (though the UTA stopped caring about that toward the end). Secondary routes in the Republic seemed to have a limit around 16-17 tons.

Innovation does cost money, but modern 'standard' locos with everything being 'get-at-able' as Maunsell would reduce downtime quite a bit, and building locos in bigger numbers brings down cost and maintenance further. Tenders would almost certainly be second-hand on the moguls. If the GSR move toward a policy of shorter, more regular workings they may also bring in more money as they are better able to compete with road traffic.

26 minutes ago, minister_for_hardship said:

Not offence, but (usually said by those who tend to offend) the 800 class were a waste of resources given their limited usefulness and smack of a vanity project. As far as I can see built for just one purpose, to start out of Cork without a pilot.

Perhaps with a bit more thought, the J15 Nua class could have been improved from the disappointments they turned out to be? A Jeep-like loco would have been an ideal, go most anywhere loco, but unlike today there was no shortage of operational turntables for tender engines.

OHLE was tried and trusted by the 20s and 30s, perhaps that could have been adopted for Dublin suburban rather than the Drumm units in a what if scenario?

I'll (shockingly) be keeping the 800s for my own alternate timeline. They are built toward the tail end of the GSR at any rate.

The problem with electrification, especially OHLE, would be money. It is extremely expensive to build. However I do wonder, considering the Southern (in Britain) was electrifying with third rail, if it could make its way over here?

If the 850 can be refined somewhat to iron out the kinks, I think it has the potential to be the Southern Jeep counterpart. Clements and McMahon consider a 2-6-4 based off the Woolwich design as was done in Britain, but rule it out as a go anywhere due to axle load. 850 has an axle load of 16 tons. Even if modifications bring that up to 16.5 or 17 it'd still be quite good. 

[Galteemore]

Moguls cost £5000-£6000 dependent on build year. They were trialled against an S on the GN main line in the 30s so not unfeasible that GSR could have arranged similar. Probably a bit small for Cork trains but could have done pretty much anything else - they did a lot of GN-region mileage at the end of their lives and could handle most things. The Jeeps interestingly did not do well on the Derry Road due to their limited braking capacity as opposed to tender locos. Mogul axle weight was slightly below that of a Jeep - 17 tons. 

 

Edited April 26 by Galteemore

[Mayner]

The GSR in the 1930s in a way was a bit like the UTA wanting to replace loss making rail services with buses with no real long term need for a fleet of 'modern' steam locos for branch and secondary duties. The GSR proposed a series of closures in the mid-late 1930s that would have closed most branch and secondary lines such as the West Cork.

In a way the GSR had a surplus of 4-6-0s for the Cork Line and the 27 Woolwich filled the bill in terms of a modern mixed traffic loco for main line work. The GSWR 333 Class supplemented by the 1930s built 342s (both classed as D4) were a useful mixed traffic design which proved themselves capable of working passenger trains on the South Eastern, Rosslare Route and popular locos for working excursion trains.

The superheating of the smaller goods and passenger locos could be justified by reduction in operating costs as a result of reduced fuel consumption without going to the expense of building new locos for passenger services the GSR hoped to replace with busses. Many of the short feeder branches had lost their passenger services by the Mid-30s but traffic from cattle fairs justified retaining the lines for goods traffic. The GSR had already gone for the jugular by closing the Clifden, Achill and Killala Branches by the Mid-30s as the building of the lines were financed by Government grants and closure did not result in a major write off of capital.

The Drumm Battery trains appear to have been forced on the GSR possibly a quid-pro quo for passing of the Transport Act that gave the GSR similar monopoly powers to the Northern Ireland Transport Board and dependent of the supply of electricity from the Shannon scheme at a discounted rate. The system was surely capable of development but the Government  "was not prepared to subsidise inventions" when Drumm and the GSR applied to funding for new batteries during the  late 30? or 40s.

This was at an age when railways were still expected to stand on their own feet fund improvements from their own resources or borrowing and operate without subsidy, after all immediately before WWI the GSR and Midland were efficient and reasonable profitable companies.

The main issue with the Drumm Trains appears to have been the high capital cost compared to steam and short battery life. Two car Drumm Unit similar capital cost to a new steam loco and a 5 coach train. My father at the time subscribed to a conspiratory theory that "the Drumm Trains were driven off the rails" (possibly the mid 30 Sandycove derailment or perhaps 'brown envelopes" from AEC and the oil companies.

Certainly something to be said about a train that 90 years ago was capable of a trial trip from Amiens St to Gorey and back with minimal topping up and a battery life of 5 years before needing refurbishment (not replacement!)

Definitely left a favourable impression on my father though at the time the family lived in Ballinascorney in the Dublin mountains, their transport was a Ford V8 and pony and trap!

[Hawkerhellfire]

850 had a fair bit more wrong with her than a tendency to roll. Poor steaming and and a habit running hot slidebars and bearings from memory. She was a handsome engine though. 

 

I was only thinking of 850 yesterday and her accident running into a turntable pit. Does a picture exist of that event?

[GSR 800]

37 minutes ago, Hawkerhellfire said:

850 had a fair bit more wrong with her than a tendency to roll. Poor steaming and and a habit running hot slidebars and bearings from memory. She was a handsome engine though. 

 

I was only thinking of 850 yesterday and her accident running into a turntable pit. Does a picture exist of that event?

Any sources for the poor steaming? The issue with running hot was solved by replacing the lightweight motion.

[Horsetan]

1 hour ago, Mayner said:

.... immediately before WWI the GSR and Midland were efficient and reasonable profitable companies....

The GSR didn't exist until 1925.

[GSR 800]

8 minutes ago, Horsetan said:

The GSR didn't exist until 1925.

typo for GSWR presumably 

[Ironroad]

3 hours ago, Horsetan said:

 

- Would it have been realistic for the GSR to ask permission to test a W or two? If such permission was forthcoming and the engine found suitable, would the LMS have then agreed to build them for the GSR? What would that have cost?

I think this would have been a non runner considering this was in the middle of the 1930's  Anglo-Irish Economic War.

[minister_for_hardship]

3 hours ago, Horsetan said:

Who's to say that the Drumm battery system itself couldn't be further developed?

WW1 part 2 was always going to mean that materials to expand or at least keep that going were to be in short supply.

[Brack]

4 hours ago, Horsetan said:

would the LMS have then agreed to build them for the GSR? What would that have cost?

I think the old injunction that uk railway companies were not allowed to build for external sale would have prevented it (the LNWR built a batch of locos for the L&Y in the 19th century and upset the loco builders, following which all agreed to stick to their respective spheres).

What they might well have done was provide drawings to one of the established loco manufacturers.

Over a thousand McIntosh designed/inspired locos were built for Belgium. The first of them were direct copies of the Caledonian Dunalistairs, which the caley hadbuilt in house at St Rollox, but the belgian locos were built by Neilson Reid to Caley drawings. Subsequent orders went to continental builders.

If a GSR W mogul was to be built, it'd most probably be supplied by an outside builder.

Crewe building for the DN&G or The various LMS works building for the NCC was fine as they were wholly owned subsidiary companies, and thus building for their own consumption, so to speak.

I imagine the GNR(I) building railcar parts for the donegal was OK as they were part owners, or because it was too obscure and small for anyone to take much notice!

[Branchline121]

3 hours ago, Mayner said:

The GSR in the 1930s in a way was a bit like the UTA wanting to replace loss making rail services with buses with no real long term need for a fleet of 'modern' steam locos for branch and secondary duties. The GSR proposed a series of closures in the mid-late 1930s that would have closed most branch and secondary lines such as the West Cork.

In a way the GSR had a surplus of 4-6-0s for the Cork Line and the 27 Woolwich filled the bill in terms of a modern mixed traffic loco for main line work. The GSWR 333 Class supplemented by the 1930s built 342s (both classed as D4) were a useful mixed traffic design which proved themselves capable of working passenger trains on the South Eastern, Rosslare Route and popular locos for working excursion trains.

The superheating of the smaller goods and passenger locos could be justified by reduction in operating costs as a result of reduced fuel consumption without going to the expense of building new locos for passenger services the GSR hoped to replace with busses. Many of the short feeder branches had lost their passenger services by the Mid-30s but traffic from cattle fairs justified retaining the lines for goods traffic. The GSR had already gone for the jugular by closing the Clifden, Achill and Killala Branches by the Mid-30s as the building of the lines were financed by Government grants and closure did not result in a major write off of capital.

The Drumm Battery trains appear to have been forced on the GSR possibly a quid-pro quo for passing of the Transport Act that gave the GSR similar monopoly powers to the Northern Ireland Transport Board and dependent of the supply of electricity from the Shannon scheme at a discounted rate. The system was surely capable of development but the Government  "was not prepared to subsidise inventions" when Drumm and the GSR applied to funding for new batteries during the  late 30? or 40s.

This was at an age when railways were still expected to stand on their own feet fund improvements from their own resources or borrowing and operate without subsidy, after all immediately before WWI the GSR and Midland were efficient and reasonable profitable companies.

The main issue with the Drumm Trains appears to have been the high capital cost compared to steam and short battery life. Two car Drumm Unit similar capital cost to a new steam loco and a 5 coach train. My father at the time subscribed to a conspiratory theory that "the Drumm Trains were driven off the rails" (possibly the mid 30 Sandycove derailment or perhaps 'brown envelopes" from AEC and the oil companies.

Certainly something to be said about a train that 90 years ago was capable of a trial trip from Amiens St to Gorey and back with minimal topping up and a battery life of 5 years before needing refurbishment (not replacement!)

Definitely left a favourable impression on my father though at the time the family lived in Ballinascorney in the Dublin mountains, their transport was a Ford V8 and pony and trap!

One alternate history scenario I sometimes wonder about would be if the GSR/CIÉ decided to undertake an electrification scheme inspired by the Swiss, instead of the later dieselisation plan. I doubt there would’ve been anything close to the capital for it, but it would have been interesting to see something like that on say the Cork or Belfast route with trains hauled by something like the LNER EM1 or NZR EW classes.

[Hawkerhellfire]

3 hours ago, GSR 800 said:

Any sources for the poor steaming? The issue with running hot was solved by replacing the lightweight motion.

Described in "A Decade of Steam on CIE in the 1950s" Excellent book from the enginemans perspective. The same men write with adoration of the comparatively ancient "F2" 2-4-2 No 433 so they weren't anti steam. 

[Brack]

37 minutes ago, Branchline121 said:

One alternate history scenario I sometimes wonder about would be if the GSR/CIÉ decided to undertake an electrification scheme inspired by the Swiss, instead of the later dieselisation plan.

Presumably linked to the Shannon scheme?

If so, you'd imagine the electric locos would be from Siemens-Schuckert like the rest of the stuff.

Perhaps a look at what they provided in similar times to

Germany

Austria

Japan

UK (admittedly pre war).

[GSR 800]

25 minutes ago, Hawkerhellfire said:

Described in "A Decade of Steam on CIE in the 1950s" Excellent book from the enginemans perspective. The same men write with adoration of the comparatively ancient "F2" 2-4-2 No 433 so they weren't anti steam. 

"An absolute tub of an engine" 

Sounds like it could have been a timing issue, combined with being worn out. Milne described her as 'powerful' but in need of excessive repair. My idea would be that she'd be the prototype, and modifications could be made to the production batch to suit. Would need to get to the bottom of this steaming issue. The drawing office at Inchicore studied the work of Chapelons streamlining of steam passages for the 800s, and the result (combined with the massive boiler) was a very free steaming engine.

[GSR 800]

19 hours ago, Mayner said:

The GSR in the 1930s in a way was a bit like the UTA wanting to replace loss making rail services with buses with no real long term need for a fleet of 'modern' steam locos for branch and secondary duties. The GSR proposed a series of closures in the mid-late 1930s that would have closed most branch and secondary lines such as the West Cork.

In a way the GSR had a surplus of 4-6-0s for the Cork Line and the 27 Woolwich filled the bill in terms of a modern mixed traffic loco for main line work. The GSWR 333 Class supplemented by the 1930s built 342s (both classed as D4) were a useful mixed traffic design which proved themselves capable of working passenger trains on the South Eastern, Rosslare Route and popular locos for working excursion trains.

To take a more conservative approach, one could perhaps build larger numbers of something akin to the DSER moguls and the GSWR J4 class 0-6-0s as competent, relatively modern designs.

[Mayner]

2 hours ago, GSR 800 said:

To take a more conservative approach, one could perhaps build larger numbers of something akin to the DSER moguls and the GSWR J4 class 0-6-0s as competent, relatively modern designs.

The purchase cost of the parts for the 26 Moguls averaged out at £2,000 each which would be hard to beat and a better option than more DSER Moguls and J4 0-6-0

In a way the GSR had a surplus of medium and high power locos as a result of the post WW1 builds. The GSR had a surplus of 4-6-0s and large 4-4-0s allowing 3 of the 10 400 Class and 5 large 4-4-0s and large MGWR B Class 0-6-0s to be withdrawn, the really pressing need was to replace Civil War damaged DSER locos. The fact that the GSR could afford to spend 10 years re-building the 400 Class 4-6-0s into useful 2 cylinder locos says a lot about traffic demands.

The arrival of the 22 MGWR Cattle Engines followed by the 26 Woolwich Moguls without a corresponding  large scale withdrawl of smaller locos would have left the GSR with a surplus of small-medium powered locos at a time passenger and cattle traffic was in decline as a result of a combination of the Great Depression and Dev's Economic War.

One of the things I find strange is that no one seems to have thought of re-building the 3 remaining DSER 2-4-0T locos to bring them into line with the F2 2-4-2T most of which were re-builds of the 2-4-0Ts effectively the same class mechanically. Rebuilding the 2-4-0Ts into 2-4-2T  would have increased their range to cover the majority of South Eastern suburban diagrams rather than being restricted to Pier Trains and shunting.  Whatever their perceived shortcomings by Inchacore the Southeastern 2-4-0T and 2-4-2T had an excellent reputation on their own line.

Despite the perceived suburban loco shortage on the South Eastern  2 of the 2-4-0T and 1 2-4-2T ended up in Cork and a 2-4-2T was loaded to the County Down during a War Time loco shortage. I guess the Drumm Battery Trains and 670 Class 0-6-2T filled a gap.

In a way the GSR was not unlike the LNER or SR  with large/modern locos concentrated on long distance main line services, while pre-group locos continued to soldier on the less prestigious work that paid the Dividends.

The LMS was really the only one of the Big-Four to invest heavily in standard classes of modern low maintenance locos for medium and light duties with the Ivatt era locos during the immediate post War era but most had short working lives made redundant by DMUs or as a result of line closures.

In a way the 670s 0-6-2T, 700 & 710 0-6-0s and 342 Class D4s were not unlike the updated pre-group designs introduced by the LNER for similar duties, despite the 'modern standard designs small pre-amalgamation 0-6-0 and 0-4-4T locos continued to soldier on on the London Midland Region and parts of Scotland.