Current and Proposed New-Builds

Is set 484 (of which I've loads of photos from 'back in the day' in numerous books btw) operated in full P-P mode? Call me a wierdo (one at a time please!), but I find the LBSC pneumatic system to be fascinating kit. About the only 'Brighton' standard adopted by the Southern.

 

No, hauled only. AFAIK, the only heritage push and pull stock that is operated in genuine p&p fashion are various GWR auto coaches.

Tom

 

T'were the appropriateness to the IOW I was commenting on - and your point about Austerities is understood. But then the last time I visited was New Years Eve 1991 as a callow teenager, where I was spoiled by Calbourne.

 

Last year I met someone who had fired on the Guildford to Horsham line and his comment was that the system "never worked" and the driver relied entirely on the electric bell. leaving the fireman to manage the boiler and actually drive the loco! This was accepted by "authority" and the loco. Inspector would give especial attention as to whether the fireman was up to it.

PH

 

As I've commented before, I can only assume that it worked if properly maintained, because the SR considered it worthwhile replacing all of the ex-LSWR cable systems with it in quite a hurry around 1930, after some near-misses with the latter system. They didn't even wait for the new equipment to be fitted to the Western section locos and stock either, there were Brighton coaches and D1s on the Western section for a while. Somehow I can't imagine H.A. Walker sanctioning a load of spending on a purely symbolic gesture of replacement - one system that doesn't work is every bit as good as another, after all.

I do think that all of the S.R. systems suffered from the fact that the regulator couldn't be instantly closed at either end - either the fireman had control or the driver did - and if the fireman took the pin out the driver only had the brakes to fall back on. The LMS vacuum controlled system, with auxiliary throttles in the main steam pipes, was arguably superior in that respect; the driver could always shut off steam and the fireman could take control in case of slipping, but it required more extensive modifications to the loco.

I would dearly like to see a good explanation of how the SR air system actually worked. I know the basics, three pipes, compressed air, actuating cylinder and linkage to the normal regulator, but I can't help being curious about the details.

 

The instance I quoted was in the latter days of course but I have no reason to disbelieve it.

PH

 

Related question: has anyone got any description of how the SE&CR system worked - I can't remember ever seeing a description, only that it existed. "Bluebell" has a hole in the regulator handle that I believe was part of a linkage, but beyond that I don't know in detail - Bradley says "wire, rod and pulley"; and also that there was an alternative system fitted to an R class tank that used compressed air.



Via: http://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/SECR/GreenwichPark.html

Tom

 

It may not have been the best but would probably be more than good enough for most preserved lines. Bit as I said it is later than I think needs more representation.

 

Might just as well be a cardboard replica as per Goon Show.

PH

 

Here's something that will expand the LNWR preserved fleet: a new Experiment-class 4-6-0.

 

I dunno. Its tricky to get this stuff from the published sources, but the impression I get was that they could probably do the work, but they were unreliable and expensive to maintain - troubles with the boilers, troubles with the crank axles are things I've picked up. I don't think any preserved line wants or can afford that sort of thing. From reading Cox (Chronicles of steam) issues with reliability and maintenance overhead also apply to quite a number of classes from LMS consitituents. Doubtless others too that I haven't happened to read about.

I don't know that a preserved line need be that bothered if a locomotive is a bit of a coal eater - James^2 has highlighted for us that its not a very big item in the books, and it probably doesn't matter much if its a mediocre performer *if* the work you have is within its limited capacity. But I bet if the locomotive is prone to failures, or requires regularly nursing and minor repairs in the workshops and on the road - well, I strongly suspect that would be a very serious matter indeed.

 

They are all issues. Not sensible to pretend otherwise.

PH

 

But if, as I suggested, you were building something to represent 1850-1900 you look at what you want to build, look at the issues and see if they affect what you NEED it to do, so what if an 1870's engine was not happy hauling 700 tons at 70mph, can it do 7 modern-ish coaches at 25mph? If the line you intend to run on mainly is only 5 miles long, water is less of an issue than one that is 30 miles long. Going by some peoples arguments we would not have replicas such as Firefly, Rocket or Locomotion! I am not proposing anyone start a new project, these are just my opinions on what I would consider should be thought about rather than something that people remember running express trains from the 1950s.

 

The requirements for heritage railways are less onerous in terms of speed, water capacity etc than for main line running and anything which might not have been hugely successful would probably be OK trundling 5 coaches at 25mph on a heritage line. Also, a handful of 1870s locos did survive into the early 60s (LBSCR Terriers, Midland 2Fs)

 

Both important, but not equivalent importance. In heritage running, a bit of extra coal is marginal to the bottom line (and there are much greater gains to be made in crew training and intelligent rostering practice), whereas unreliability leads to a lot of extra cost, notably because a loco with low availability may well tip the balance towards needing a larger fleet to maintain the service. (There are at least two heritage railways in the southern half of the country right now that are unable to offer the advertised steam service on account of unplanned non-availability of locos meaning they have too few engines available; and other lines elsewhere have suffered similar issues over the last few years). I would take a reliable miners' friend any day over a loco with superlative thermal efficiency that spent most of its life in the works.

Tom

 

Actually, it has been suggested - there has been discussion in "Atlantic News" about what a suitable next project might be, and an I3 has been suggested, amongst other candidates. (Part of the discussion was more about how you developed a rational thought process to weigh up all the factors of cost, utility, buildability etc). I suspect for various reasons the next loco won't be an I3, but it has been considered, even if only to be rejected.

Interestingly (and just to make someone's blood boil...) the suggestion was to make one of the non-superheated versions. The logic for that is sound: in heritage running, the superheater scarcely comes into its own in terms of extra efficiency (too little sustained running), but adds considerably both to the construction cost and maintenance cost. So a non-superheated Marsh Atlantic tank (either an I2, or the trial non-superheated I3) ends up cheaper to build and maintain while losing very little in daily running cost. But I suspect it won't happen either way, as different choices have a better overall balance of likelihood.

Tom

 

Tourist railways have their share of miners friends and are building more!

PH

 

I have heard these "superheaters never warm up on tourist railways" arguments before. Just not so.

PH

 

It might depend on the line. 5 / 6 coaches on the MHR or the NYMR at 25mph can be slog depending on the loco, in fact the engines would work less hard if the bank could be taken a little faster...a bit of a run up along the 1/100 flat bit approaching the 1/60 so the train was running at 35 to 40mph would be easier on the engine, and a smaller loco could maintain the speed, versus current situation. I am not advocating we apply for the increased speed, just observing that there is another dimension.