The B&O Besler: Planned or Never Completed Prototypes

The C&O 4-8-6, perhaps?

I assume that would be one heck of a firebox..I think that one was brought to fruition..I was thinking of those that died on the vine but were planned or in production and cancelled before completion.

Every reference I've seen notes "proposed" so I don't think that is a photograph of a locomotive actually produced.

Lima proposed a 4-8-6 but never built one as no railroad ordered one.  If I remember correctly, they showed a modified photograph of northern with a photo-shopped six wheel trailing truck.

The C&O photo above as well as the many others that come from the same website are nothing more than fake, modified photographs.  I was surprised to see that there is no disclaimer at the bottom stating that most of the website is fake considering that they are all what-ifs and none of them actually existed though the website says that all did indeed exist.  The same website creator also did similar photo modifications to Pennsy steam power.

The disclaimer, such as it is, is over here on the top, along with other aberrations:

http://www.karenparker.net/Pix...ixel_magic_index.htm

Rusty

I have heard that George Rink designed a Jersey Central 4-8-4. I haven't seen any plans, but if he followed the lines of a BLUE COMET 4-6-2, his 4-8-4 would be a handsome locomotive ("Liberty" class, maybe?).

Toss that big firebox and use a smaller one with sufficient induction rings to fire the engine. Who knows?

I did not actually go back to the first page of that website, so I didn't see the "disclaimer."  At least they put something that seems like a disclaimer on the page though it should really be on every page.  Someone could think some of that is real if they were to search for something and get a direct link to one of the sub-pages without the "disclaimer."

Well..it just goes to show we live in an age where you can't trust what you see. That being said, this un-built prototype then does fit into the category started in the original post. I managed to misdirect myself.

Here is a proposed rack and adhesion locomotive by DLM, which has to be one of the strangest side profiles of reciprocation I have ever seen. Outside of LGB ( in G scale) I don't think a rack loco has been modeled here but then again, who knows?

A cab forward (?) steam turbine that was built but failed to "make the grade" in Russia...

You have to be careful with fantasy (said the man who once did a set of HO AHM FM C-liners in CB&Q...)

While some fantasy paint jobs can be made to look credible, some of these off the wall retouched "prototypes" defy engineering logic, and I suspect no model manufacturer would be willing to chance their reputations producing some of these things.

While there may be a handfull of folks willing to buy them, the majoritiy would become doorstops.

Con-Cor way back when painted anything in their N Scale line for almost any railroad.  I don't see too many of their Pennsy Big Boys  and Amtrak U50's around nowadays.

Rusty

Rusty

Three out of four are not fantasies inasmuch as the Russian locomotive was built and ran albeit unsuccessfully and DLM has made rack steam locomotives for the European market. The Besler was in production when it was cancelled. As far as off the wall prototypes are concerned, as I said in the original post I am slightly weary of the same old, same old.. but that's just my observation after decades of this hobby and in search of something more novel than reissues or what have you. To me they have become akin to being generic. There's no wrong or right in it. Interurban s, steeple cabs would be welcome as a change of pace along with box cabs, Whitcombs, etc. As far as marketability, that's not my shot to call. I thought this subject might interest others.

Another one off that you will probably dislike that also sports chrome ripe for a smoke unit that would be prototypical, the UP Steamotive..would look great pulling some art deco cars..seems like a natural for tinplate. Id buy one.

Its already been made in HO..check out the illuminated signage..

The article on the Besler 4-2-2-2-2-4 was very interesting. Makes you wonder how competitive steam would have become if the locomotive had made it into service and had been successful. They even covered maintenance issues with "drop-out" drive units. The streamlined design was also beautiful.

Au contrair...

UP 1&2 were neat looking chooches.  It probably would garner better sales than anything that didn't exist, like the Besler. 

As far as same old-same old, there's still plenty funky prototypes that haven't been done in O. Like the UP1&2, (a proper)IC Green Diamond, New Haven Comet (Con Cor just did this in HO) ACF Talgo Train, Rock Island TA, Santa Fe 1/1A, just to name a few...

And, just to show I'm not beyond flights of fancy, here's two examples from my HO days.

A high hood version of a locomotive that didn't exist, the DD40:

And a semi-streamlined version of a 2-8-4 of certain parentage:

Rusty

Bring on the NH Comet!

Now there's a project for Lou and LCCA.  Particularly appropriate for S.

Looks massive, but would be shorter than the T1 and quite a bit shorter than the S1.  I would say it would make a great Lionmaster model, given that the market would be much better for a loco that could negotiate the tighter curves.  And as far as Fantasy goes, I'm no more likely to ever see a T1 Duplex than I am a T-Rex Dinosaur.

     While B&O's was never built, a 2-8-2 with this drive system was built in Germany
by Henschel.  In the thirties they had acquired a patent license from Besler;  their primary interest was for truck and other commercial vehicle applications, as Germany had a policy at that time -- Forumites will find this concept hard to believe -- of lessening its dependence on imported oil.  From this an experimental steam loco was proposed to the state railway, and ordered.  It did not complete until after the war had started, but it eventually was completed and tested.  There were a number of teething problems, but the biggest single operational problem seems to have been wheel slip; to tackle this Henschel apparently intended to fit individual throttles for each driver [ = engine ].   After the war the loco was brought to the US by the US Army for examination by US steam builders, but by then it was moot;  it was scrapped in '53.   This was a very brief overview;  an oogle search for ' DRB 19.1 ' will provide photos, more details, etc.

     Would this design have made steam more competitive ?  No.  No matter how well the steam locomotive itself can be made to perform, it still needs the massive support structure for coal / ash and especially water;  the latter can be quite costly, especially in sub-freezing weather.  [ The coal / ash problem can be solved by oil firing, but that removes much of the 'advantages' of steam, and water still remains.] 

With best rgds, SZ

It pretty much boils down to the fact that pretty much all attempts to "reinvent" the reciprocating steam locomotive were failures.

Rusty

Fascinating.  Thanks for posting this.  Has anyone produced a model?

I do not think that is a misleading statement.

Just looking at one attempt the PRR S2.

It performed well when at speed and meet most of the design objectives.

It had several major problems which could have been corrected.

In fact Westinghouse and Baldwin had patents  on design improvement to overcome deficiences of the original S2 prototype. [ use of a single turbine, variable gear ratios to allow running of the turbine in high efficiency range, etc.

Even if the S2 was successful, the simplicity of operation, and economies of the diesel would have precluded the future manufature of S2  turbines or any steam engine design.

My high school German has long since left the building, but here's the site:

http://schneider-mayenfisch.co...omotiven_19_1001.htm

Rusty

I stand by my statement.  

Reciprocating steam locomotives were overthrown by diesels, not by any attempts to reinvent the breed.  Another 5-10 years wouldn't have made much of a difference in steam turbine locomotive population. 

The only turbine locomotives enjoying any measure of success weren't steam powered.

Rusty

Tell not to forget about the I-5 as well.

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/320822

I know MTH planned a model of it but it was can't due to low orders. At least IhavI the Williams J with New Haven colors to admire. 

The first attempt at a duplex drive was the now largely forgotten "George Emerson" out of the Baltimore and Ohio, with some very large drivers, which if my memory serves me right, was completed in 1927 ahead of the PRR experiments. This one looks less exotic compared to the compared to the PRR variants and what strikes me was how willing the B&O was willing to try something new all the way to the Besler..The boiler lines look like a clean D&H example or British steam. The opposed drive would look great reciprocating on a model. The front end reminds me of the T series on the Reading..a true hybrid of styles. No fancy skirting on this one..

Placing the rear cylinder under the firebox was probably not a good idea.

It was dublicated with the PRR Q1 but quickly corrected with the Q2 design.

Models in HO have been produced by at least Brawa [ plastic ] and Lemaco [ brass ].

I don't recall any in 0 scale [ other than perhaps some kitbashes ].

Best, SZ

Another good candidate for "out-of-the-ordinary."  Has anyone made a model?

I wonder why Marklin hasn't made a model.  Do they think the market is too small?  And yet they make all sorts of other quite exotic models.  

A greater "wonder" is why Marklin didn't enter the 0-scale market during the booming 1990s.  MTH knew there was a market and may have underestimated demand.  I happen to prefer the Marklin remote system to Lionel's TMCC or MTH's DCS.  And I think a C-track system for 0 would be just great.

I know that Westside Models imported on in HO scale brass from Samhongsa back in the late 1970's as part of a three locomotive set, which also included the Lady Baltimore 4-4-4 and Lord Baltimore 4-6-4.  I don't believe there's been an O scale version done...yet (Scott Mann hint!).

Would be great to see all three in 0.  Quite elegant designs.  And particularly striking in blue livery.

Just for fun..the atomic engine..Whoa..I don't think even Lionel could have dreamed this extreme fantasy locomotive up. We can all breathe a sign of relief this one never came to fruition..a possible rolling Three Mile Island..get out your Geiger counters. Looks like a modified Milwaukee Road streamlined Atlantic

Lookee, lookee, lookee!  It's got a third rail! 

Now, that's what the Phantom shoulda been!

There were plans from GE for an atomic locomotive, though.   It looked like a UP turbine on steriods.  I tried Googling it but found nothing.  Need a 1960's era encyclopedia to find it.

Rusty

Well, the nuclear reactor is one of my favorite accessories.  We've had subs and carriers for many decades now, and Cunard is considering nuclear power for new liners and cruise ships. Who knows what the Future holds?

And the Russians are working on one now.

Here's a bizarre example from the UK that has to win the prize for the least amount of concern for appearance I have ever seen. It appears to be made from leftovers from the workbench..or left the box the engine came in on the frame. Why bother to streamline the tender? The stack looks like a Weber grill.

Rusty..Omigod, it is a third rail. How did I miss that?

Gilbert ..If the Russians have developed on, it probably uses five foot vacuum tubes and track contactors. Maybe fifty pound track clips.

http://www.lner.info/locos/Exp...al/ReidMacLeod.shtml

You mean, something like this????

Rusty

You must be a psychic model railroader.

The Soviets didn't make great cars or TVs, but I think their rockets & missiles worked OK. In today Global Age, they'll just buy everything from GE and Lockheed.

A great project for Dreyfuss, or Kuhler, or Loewy.