Best & Worst Locos to Drive

I'll risk his legion of copyright lawyers, on behalf of forum members who may not have a copy just lying about:

"I liked the arrangement for working the steam reversing gear. There was a lever beside the driver working in a notched sector like a miniature hand reversing lever. This had beside it a sector marked with the cut-offs and a pointer to indicate the position, being connected to the reversing shaft. All the driver had to do was set his lever where he wanted it and the steam reverser duly responded automatically and obediently brought the pointer to where the lever had been set."

Holcroft H, Locomotive Adventure Vol II, Ian Allan 1965, p159.

 

Why was The Southern obsessed with power reversers? The other 'Big 4' companies stuck with manual reversers.

While my driving experience is very limited, I have never found manual reversers a problem.

I have used steam-hydraulic reversers on Shieldhall - only a few movements I might add which was fine, and 'over centre' on Freshspring which was horrid.

 

Er! I'm afraid it ain't necessarily so. I well recall being asked by quite "sophisticated" people if a locomotive with a very noisy vacuum ejector was a diesel got up to to look like a steam powered one. Generally you are right but don't bank on it.

PH

P.S. Sorry for my part in the thread drift

 

I don't think they were "obsessed". Wainwright's locos on the SECR had steam reversers, but Maunsell generally used screw reversers on the SR, until the Q class.

Bulleid used steam reversers on his designs. On the Q1s that was presumably because they were an updated Q, which already had them. It's often said that he used a steam reverser on the pacifics because he couldn't fit an adequate screw reverser within the constraints of space. However, I think it is also possible that he was concerned with footplate conditions, and saw a steam reverser as another labour-saving device. Having seen the physical benefits of a well-designed steam reverser on Wainwright engines, I can definitely see the benefits relative to the heavy physical effort of using a screw reverse. I certainly wouldn't want to do a day's shunting on a BR standard.

Tom

 

As you say you do get the odd people who really haven't the foggiest, but they are in the minority.

 

As I have often said, I know almost nothing about Southern engines (except that they kept some very lovely old ladies in service long enough to be preserved, for which I am very grateful). However I know that in Scotland the Drummond steam reverser (Peter and Dugald) was found to be rather temperamental. As was the (possibly entirely unrelated) Aspinall Horwich type. Why did it work much better on the LSWR (and successors)? Why didn't everyone adopt them, at least for shunting/stop&start types? I can see on an express loco it is less of an issue.

 

For what it's worth, I do agree with Paul Hitch's assertion that the standard 2MT tender engines are excellent engines to fire and drive. Although I didn't have much in the way of driving or firing on the GCR when I was at Loughborough (ergo: no driving whatsoever and a couple of times up the line in the cab and the odd shovel in the firebox - I liked being a porter at Quorn and Woodhouse station best) the GCR crews loved 78019 as I recall. She was certainly the most reliable performer we had.

However I am also aware that on the GCR she wasn't the most economical engine we had. You have to remember the GCR is a double track mainline and significantly longer than the vast majority of preserved railways. Larger tenders are almost always better, hence why engines like Sir Lamiel can be preferred to the 2MT and particularly when working - for example - the dining trains.

When the gap is finally plugged - and hopefully they revise their plans and build a double track and not a single track bridge - more than ever the GCR is going to have to look at medium and large tender engines and increasingly the range of the smaller engines is going to be brought into question.

---

If I may put in a vote for a great locomotive to drive - and one I do have experience of, albeit a very long time ago - I love the SKLR's locomotive "Triumph". She was the first steam engine I ever drove, and she had a great set of controls and was very easy to drive. I managed to get her out of Kemsley Down without any wheel slip - the instructor was a bit surprised at that one, said it was the smoothest get away he'd ever had! I only wish I had more time to actually volunteer, because the SKLR remains a special place to me.

 

Always very entertained by Ivatt/Bulleid comparisons - weren't they in-laws? They both had the same ideas as to what was needed (ease of operation and maintenance) but one succeeded rather better than the other. Interesting to speculate what an Ivatt designed express loco might have been like. He improved the Duchess (and rebuilt some 4-6-0s) but didn't have time or need for a new top link design.
Except, of course, diesel electric 10000!

 

Probably expense, I don't think CMEs in general gave much thought to the welfare of their footplate staff and ergonimics wasn't a known science back in the day. As Jamessquared has said a days shunting with the infamous bacon slicer on a BR standard would be enough to give any driver severe w****rs wrist. I also remember seeing a driver at Reading nearly do himself a nasty working the pole reverser on a 4700.

 

Dare it be said that this sounds suspiciously like "big-chufferitis" aka "foamers disease"! What difference having one, two or four tracks can have on horsepower requirements or water consumption is quite unclear. It will still be a 25m.p.h. tourist railway. The appropriate mantra is "get real".

PH

 

Length of line does of course have an affect on water and coal consumption as does the timetable and where said coaling and watering facilities are...

 

I can't understand what you are getting at its the length of the railway that is the factor in question. I've know idea what foamers disease is but perhaps you can enlighten us on your experience on driving on heritage railways

 

How long is the GCR at present and as envisaged? Any timetable cannot require achievement of speeds in excess of 25m.p.h.

You cite "Sir Lamiel" as an example. This class of locomotive was produced to haul trains of over 400 tons from London to Southampton and Bournemouth at speeds in the region of 70 m.p.h. To do this it has a bogie tender with a coal capacity of around 5 tons and a water capacity of 4,000 gallons. Quite OTT for the purpose under discussion

PH

 

But the point is that it has more in reserve in all areas and therefore won't require the topping up the 2MT would over the same timetable.

Which is going to end up more economical? I rather think the longer trains with more bums on seats will prove more profitable at modest increase in outlay on fuel for the larger engines.

 

A "foamer" is the U.S. equivalent of the British "gricer" or Australian "gunzil". There is an American Facebook site called "I hate Foamers" which is moderately amusing if you can stick the bad language.
My own driving experience is exclusively narrow gauge, over many years (now retired)

PH

 

I am afraid this is merely wishful thinking on your part I suspect because you like big locomotives, hence the "reasons" advanced for their use. By the way you did not answer the question as to the present and projected length of the GCR. It is approximately eight miles long at present which would be roughly doubled. This would give little trouble to a tank locomotive and nothing at all to a tender engine, particularly at nothing more than 25m.p.h.

PH

 

I think you severely underestimate the importance of having "in reserve" an excess of fuel and power, if I'm honest. You're also blatantly ignoring the potential length of trains...

Others have given their own reasons for justifying larger engines on certain lines - I'm simply giving the views shared by a number of people on the GCR over the years who knew their railway. That they'd prefer top ups in fuel less frequently than little and often with smaller engines. Nowt wrong with that.

Perfectly reasonable for timetabling and crew preferences. The length of the GCR plus the intensity in the timetable and the length of trains being what they are.

But equally there's nothing wrong in liking big engines Paul - it's not a crime! Unless there's some all seeing God of railway preservation tutting away in the clouds and scribbling down "wrong answer" to to everyone but the self confessed expert...!

Besides - if you can't use big engines at the only double track preserved main line in the country - then where can you? Afraid you're being a little ridiculous in your anti-big engine cause there! Half the appeal of the GCR is seeing the big stuff run there. There's also the post train drops - done at faster than 25 on occasion- and it's also certified for testing up to 60mph lest you forget, which was incredibly useful for tornado and Cromwell back in 2008.

 

No problem with big locomotives per se. Every problem with their use where un-necessary on grounds of wastage of money. Money wasted on operation is money not available for repair and restoration.

PH

 

We've already been through this a thousand times, yet you do not accept! A small increase in coal consumption has negligible difference on a railway's finances.