One thing that's always perplexed me was the idea of certain locomotives that were proposed, but never built. Some examples of proposed locomotives I think would have been great include:

- The Baltimore & Ohio "Besler" Engine: An engine which had each of its 4 driving axles driven by its own pistons. Therefore potentially improving torque.
- Lima 4-8-6 locomotives.
- Santa Fe 6-4-4-4 Cab Forward Duplex: Admittedly this idea was rather puzzling.
- Louisville & Nashville 4-8-4s
- Union Pacific 4-10-4s

I'm sure there are plenty of other interesting proposals that became obscured by the mists of time.

In the mysterious location of the world where absolutely amazing Brass locomotive models come from called Japan I have heard of builders creating one off models based on proposed locomotives. One i can think of is a supposed proposed C&O 4-8-6 that was bought by a guy who was stationed In Japan and brought it back to the US. It sold on BrassTrains.com for a couple thousand and i'd say was definately worth the money.

https://brasstrains.com/Classic/Product ... l-box-Rare

Too many. I’ll just list some of the fun ones.

-Erie 2-10-4’s
-Atlantic Coast Line 4-4-4-4 Duplexes
-PRR 2-6-6-4’s.
-Monon 4-10-4’s

Just to name a few.

We gotta have 4-10-6 or 2-12-6, or 2-14-2 types, at least...

There has been a small series of H0 gauge models of the ACE 3000 locomotive that comes to my mind first.... The young BR had a 2-8-2 project but then decided to go 2-10-0 (class 9F), the Germans had lots of projects especially in WWII, when being in the drawing office for, say, the 3 meter broad gauge phantasm meant not having to fight.

One could fill loads of books with proposed locomotives. You might look for a closer definition of "proposed designs": Designs by whom? Modelers, internet armchair experts decades after the decline of steam? Loco builders who want to sell their product?

Mike

Cool idea, but there are some major inaccuracies in the running gear on the model.

I had forgotten about this on my own page. Here’s a list of “recent” (since 1970) proposed steam locomotives:

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/almost.html

Interesting loco designs were not confined to steam. During the several times that PRR was considering extending the electrification west to Conway Yard, Westinghouse Electric proposed a number of configurations of freight and passenger electrics. Some of the later designs used "Shark" styled carbodies atop many two axle motor trucks, a concept eventually used in the E3b locos of 1951. But the one I found most interesting was a GG1 carbody expanded to a 2-D+D-2 wheel arrangement. That was proposed around 1940-42 and was obviously a victim of WWII. Post-war designs were then more oriented toward the use of standard 4 or 6 wheel diesel truck designs using rectifiers to provide the DC for tracttion motor no different than those under current BLW/WH diesels.

CLASSIC TRAINS, Fall 2003, published an article by Neal R. Fink about a potential Wabash 2-10-4. As far as I can see from a quick scan, it wasn't an actual proposal by the railroad or a builder but only the writer's speculation.

On the other hand, I understand Baldwin proposed a 4-10-4 for the Monon, but I have no further details.

Among the proposed but never built electric locomotives were 2-C-C-2 units for the New York Central with a double ended carbody with cabs that looked like they came from an Alco PA.

This was for a proposed upgrading of the railroad in WW II, which would have had catenary from New York City to Buffalo.

And west of Buffalo, a fleet of over 100 Niagaras, half of them assigned to freight service, the other half to passenger service. That explains the testing of No. 6000 with two sets of drivers of different diameters.

But of course postwar economics and the diesel intervened.

An artists concept of the electric, and of course a builder's photo of a Niagara, both appear in Paul Kiefer's "A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power," the summation of the postwar tests that pitted the big 4-8-4s against EMD E7s.

You can read Mr. Kiefer's book in several places, among them the one linked below. The electric unit mentioned is on page 35 of the digitized copy, which has two images per page; in the actual book, it is on page 54.

https://milwaukeeroadarchives.com/Steam ... er1948.pdf

In the 1940s, Minneapolis & St Louis had planned to buy a batch of Baldwin 2-6-6-4s, based on the Seaboard engines of that type. Some M&StL company publicity materials showed photos of the SAL version, with lettering touched out. They bought EMD FT diesels instead.

Howard P.

Some of these WWII-era proposals stem from the War Production Board limiting diesel production.

The USN had designed their LST (Landing Ship Tank) to have two EMD 12-567's for power. The Navy needed these ships for landings in Europe and the Pacific Islands and were planning on around 1000 ships. That's 2000 12-567's. [GM Cleveland/Winton diesels were going into submarines, destroyer escorts and other combatants]

Santa Fe's cab-forward 6-4-4-4 Duplexes may have been nixed when WPB authorised FT's for the territory between Winslow AZ and Barstow CA where water for steam engines had to be brought in.

EMD completed the Navy contract, although the USN did not build all 1000 LST's. In 1945, EMD started filling previous orders for E-7's and FT's.

As to the electrics, the replacement of steam-type frames with swivel trucks was after WWII. Note the USSR/MILW/CSS&SB/Paulista "Little Joes" were 2-D+D-2 while VGN's EL2B's were B+B-B+B, both from GE. The experimental Westinghouse rectifier motors from 1952 (E2c and E3b) did have shark-type carbodies (by Baldwin) but the nose was vertical.

http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiag ... &sz=sm&fr=

Phil Mulligan

.

4 cylinder compound Heisler. As far as I know one was never built, and I don't know if any plans were even drawn up, but the patent drawings are there and a guy has built a model of one. I am considering building a model of just the engine because of how unique it is.

A now deceased friend once told me about seeing a Southern Pacific concept drawing of a 4-6-4 with a cab-ahead configuration for use on the San Francisco -San Jose commuter operation.

(Yes, a cab-ahead Hudson. I wonder if this was proposed to improve visibility of the the track ahead.)