Welsh Mountaineer, 4th August

But a five coach train--- what would that be? One POB, one and a half firsts, half a pantry, and two standard. Think of the break even fares. This is Blaenau we're talking about, not Venice.

How do those tractive effort sums work for 48151?

 

Rather more favourably. The loco weight is more or less the same as a Black 5, so the resistance on the gradient is broadly similar, but you have about 32,500lbf of TE rather than 25,500lbf.

In fact, the gravitational pull on a Black 5 + 6 coaches on a 1 in 36 gradient was equal to 86% of the nominal TE. If you got up to 86% of the nominal TE of an 8F, you would be up to a load of about 8.5 coaches. So an 8F + 8 should have slightly more in hand than a Black 5 + 6 on the same gradient, at least in TE terms, the boiler capacity is similar. But this doesn't seem to be a situation where the loco was up against its steaming limit. Being prudent, an 8F + seven gives you rather more seats than a Black 5 + five.

Tom

 

On 17-10-1999 The Slate Miner was split at Llandudno Junction, with each Std 4 tank taking (I think) 5* coaches. The first train had several goes but kept stalling when it reached the bit with sharp curvature as well as the steep gradient. Then the second loco worked up light to bank the first train. After watering at Blaenau, both locos ran back down to collect the second train. There's an account at http://www.zen70752.zen.co.uk/bat/out/miner/index.htm (and a second page) from someone who was on the second train.

I was on the first train that day AND on the one that stalled on 5-8-2009; but not on yesterday's, so you can't blame me as a jinxer.

I can only agree that this was a classic case of too many coaches for the loco and line, and a lamentable failure to learn from previous embarrassing (and probably expensive) incidents. But then, as someone said, "The only thing we learn from history is that people don't learn from history".

Edit, only 4 each

 

I note that this is the only one running this year with the other two being cancelled - I suspect this is another itinerary which will vanish as being nonviable in the future.

 

A maroon number possibly a onesie with West Coast badge,

 

Please dont mention the drivers name on here lol

 

I forgot about that run, the one I was referring to was 02/05/1998 when 80079 never got to Blaenau, the following day they left two coaches behind and 80079 took 4 coaches through to Blaenau.

 

It would be viable with a more suitable loco as previously performed well or a dreaded assisting diesel.

 

is 48151 knackered ?, that seems the logical weapon of choice for this itinary, Blaenau is well know as a b*****d of a route so something high powered and sure footed with not a huge load should be a requirement.

 

Last reported under repair, obviously not complete in time for the job its most needed for. Which is a pity.

 

The K4 is an even better choice, especially designed to work passenger trains on difficult routes. That is why it was built, that is what it does. If it had worked either of the two trains that are under the microscope at the present moment no discussion would be taking place.

 

The K4 was hard at work elsewhere yesterday, and, judging by the very pleasant and unfussed way she took 7 up 3 1/2 miles of 1 in 49 on Monday, showing how adept at hill climbing she really is. However, a stronger loco but with lots of L/E mileage to do a one-off job when regular work is available elsewhere doesn't make such trips any more viable, I would suggest!

Steven

 

I understand what you mean. But looking at what occurred on the network and the selection of what was inadequate motive power it is hard to escape the view that some providers of locomotives do not have an adequate pool of resources. Sadly this kind of action will not win the steam movement any friends in the long term. A loaned Black Five would accomplish all that has been asked of the 2-6-0 while it has been at the NYM, and though the regular earnings without light engine mileage may seem attractive having engines out on the mainline carrying out work without a close on 100% certainty that they will be able to succeed in accomplishing what is being required of them is foolish and short sighted.
So, was the decision to allocate inadequate motive power the right one? Think about what happened earlier in the year. Still the right decision? Or should a little bit more forward thinking have taken place?

 

No doubt 61994 is very suitable for the route too, but 48151 is in house with WCRC, and being restricted to 50 means many itinaries it's not suitable for, but this one fits the bill.

How come 61994 rarely features on the Jacobite anyway ?, is it just a case of "if it aint broke, don't fix it" with Riley and the NELPG, or other reasons come into play ?.

 

Aren't the prep facilities at FW a bit primitive, which makes a 3:cyl loco more problematic?
As you say too there is an established roster which seems to work well. Wonder how 5212 will be fitted in when it's ready? OT, sorry.

 

Don't forget Ralph, many of the posters will have spent a lifetime driving steam on the branch so no need to doubt their wisdom.

 

Yes.

 

And those that actually have spent a lifetime driving steam on the branch said she would never get past mp19 with 6 on.