This was an EMD proposal for Amtrak, which eventually came into reality as the F40.

Curiously, the link I read about it on--and which I can't find now (Grrrrrr)--may have mentioned that the type was to have been called an F125--which is the designation of a design offered by EMD much later and sold, so far, to a line in California.

At least, that's what my memory is telling me--and it's a good chance it's off.

The most notable thing about it was that the body was to be stainless steel, and would have matched the profile of the Amfleet cars it was meant to pull.

Unfortunately--maybe--that option was considered too expensive to build, at least by Amtrak.

And another proposal for what was to be an AMT125:

https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=61D68C2E

Speaking of the F125, it's interesting to compare the initial conceptions of it with the unit that actually rolled out of the erecting shop doors.



https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Cate ... /C10669491



https://www.railjournal.com/regions/nor ... ocomotive/

Was someone considering F125 B units?

Thanks for that information,. Looks an interesting styling and I note that there is another unit at the far end of the train, so perhaps someone was thinking along the lines of our HST/Intercity 125 when they drew that one up!

Erie 2-10-4's.


An Erie 2-10-4 would have been a massive locomotive. A friend of mine has speculated they would have called them, "Mahoning," types. I like that name. I believe they would have been an Erie Berkshire with an extra set of drivers.

We may have a strong hint of what they would have looked like in Chesapeake & Ohio's T-1 2-10-4s (Lima, 1930). The design was inspired by the Erie's 2-8-4s, but was enlarged to handle 140 car coal trains on a new line across Ohio. An important change from the Erie engine was to lengthen the stroke from 32 inches to 34 inches, which gave excellent leverage for starting such heavy trains--in the C&O's opinion, the only real shortcoming of the Erie engine.

This big 2-10-4 would later be the basis of the standard "Van Sweringen" 2-8-4s used by NKP, PM, W&LE, VGN, RF&P, and C&O itself. It would also be copied as the PRR's J1 class.

It's also arguably the basis for the C&O Allegheny, which shared a lot of proportions such as cylinder stroke to driver diameter with both the 2-10-4 and the later 2-8-4. In fact, if you work out certain key dimensions--grate area, heating surface, rated tractive effort, and so on--an Allegheny is an NKP 2-8-4 enlarged to 150%.

And C&O's T-1s were indeed large, the biggest two cylinder engines ever built up to that time. When new, they were too big to run on lines east of Huntington due to clearances--which recalls Erie's generous loading gauge, an inheritance from broad gauge days. The C&O enlarged a lot of tunnels in Virginia and West Virginia after taking delivery of these big machines in anticipation of buying more, but the Depression intervened. The enlarged tunnels easily accommodated the Allegheny's that did come later.

In model form, they are nearly as big as an Allegheny. In styling, compared with the flying pumps look of the late 1920s, and the modern, low headlight, look of the 1940s, the C&O engines looked more like Erie power than anything else on the C&O. Their T classification also followed Erie's S series, when the next logical open letter on the C&O would have been N.

There was that 4-4-6-4 duplex proposal from the Lehigh Valley in 1945 that was pretty much dead on arrival.

Wasn't New York Central also considering a 4-4-4-4 duplex that was more or less a Niagara reconfigured with the eight drivers being driven as two sets of two?

Ahhhhhh.................. polite question?

Isn't this more apt for the "Railfanning" section instead of the Interchange?

(Ditto the speculative RGS and D&RGW threads?)

So going overseas, off the top of my head I'm aware of a proposal to the LNER for a water tube boiler on K3 type running gear (I've seen references to the cylinders being the same as standard K3s, but with liners to bring the diameter way down so that 300psi steam was of practical use). Where the W1 with the Yarrow built boiler was something of a maintenance bear and not terribly reliable, that didn't go anywhere. There were also the variety of initial Gresley designs that were considered but went nowhere, but properties of which showed up in later designs.

Also something that I recall, the Merchant Navy class that Bulleid designed. Originally he wanted longer than a 4-6-2, having put up proposals for a 4-8-2 and two variations of 2-8-2. Thinking back to my text on their design, it came down to the civil engineer. Simply put, he was dead set against any long wheelbases. I've seen speculation that the core of his opposition stemmed from the Sevenoaks disaster (I take it he was around for that black day).

That would be this proposal for the C-1.

Possibly TBH.

I also was wondering if anyone knew of any proposed Southern Railway Locomotive designs. Or for that any for the Milwaukee Road.

Does any specifications or other information exist on the Monon 4-10-4s? I know that UP's proposed 4-10-4 Lincoln was a 3-cylinder, 73" drivered machine that is believed to have been the next step up from the 7000-series Mountains. But it seems unlikely that the little Monon had use for something as extravagant

Les Beckman sent this to me in 2005. He located it in a book (but didn't give the book details). I "built" the 4-10-4 as best I could; my attempt is here: https://www.railarchive.net/fantasysteam/index.html

Here's a preliminary sketch

Richard -

And thanks for giving your rendition a capped stack; so typical of steam power on the Monon.

Les