Flying Scotsman

Not all locos need FULL cut-off to start hence the question of slipping may not arise. When I was given the chance to drive an Ivatt 2-6-2T in the early 1960s I cannot recall changing the starting cut-off once we left Seaton Junction for Uppingham yet we had no problem climbing the branch line to the terminus. I was given to understand by the LMS crew that usually the starting cut-off is left once movement begins hence the lesser slipping but locomotives with Gresley's conjugated valve gear do not retain the full cut-off once locomotive is moving and the change down to a lower cut-off often gives a clue to the competence of the driver and his driving skills. Not being technically minded I am open to correction but my talks with drivers of locomotives with the Gresley gear in BR days suggests a correlation between conjugated gear change and slipping.

 

Sorry but I can't see any of that holding true. Whether a loco needs full gear to start depends on where in the wheel revolution it has stopped. It is only when you get above 75% cut-off that you guarantee to admit steam to at least one cylinder at any position. We have also discussed elsewhere the fact that three cylinder locos are at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment of starting as the cylinders are relatively smaller in diameter than a two cylinder loco. This applies whether the gear is conjugated or independent drive.

 

On my footplate trip on the NYMR with Black 5 , 44806 the driver had difficulty pulling away from Grosmont due to the engine being on TDC according to the driver . With much winding of the gear backwards and forwards he got it rolling .
Paul .K

 

But would the Civil Engineer approve of the weight on the rear driving axle as it dug into the rails?

 

Seaton to Uppingham closed on the 18/09/1959.I was on the last train.

 

While we are talking engines , something that has puzzled me for a while . Why is that some locos have a steam dome and others don't ? I've observed many older locos with domes , had there been some technological development to make them unnecessary on the later ones or is it something to do with the length of the boiler ? Fred Dibnah was asked that question once , he replied ' well that's where all the dry steam is ' . The questioner didn't really believe him and I'm not too sure that I do . Thanking you footplate men in anticipation .

Paul. K

 

In a boiler, there isn't a clean transition between water and steam. Above the water level, the surface is turbulent and there is a layer of froth and bubbles. So if the steam take-off is too close to the water level, you risk sucking some of that froth through the regulator into the cylinders, a condition known as "priming". To avoid that, you really want the regulator as high as possible above the water level, which most old engines achieved by way of a dome.

As locos got bigger, the available height didn't go up in proportion, so domes got smaller and smaller, until eventually becoming non-existent: large GWR locos, for example, don't have them, instead the steam take off being in the top corner of the firebox (the highest available point). Superheating (which tended to go hand in hand with large locos in any case) helps to a degree, as it heats the steam and would evaporate any froth that was carried over. Before the widespread introduction of modern superheaters, various designers experimented with what were in essence very primitive superheaters, often called "steam driers", to the same effect.

Some old, saturated, locos were built with domeless boilers (the Stirlings, Patrick and James, were rather fond of them). My understanding, at least of those from James Stirling, is that when pushed they were not ideal and were prone to priming, particularly when due a boiler washout; his locos were all subsequently rebuilt with domed boilers.

This is a photo of Billinton E4 "Birch Grove", showing how the regulator is set high up in the dome, as far as possible above the water surface.



B473 Birch Grove by Tom James, on Flickr

Tom

 

Tom's adequately stated why locos had domes. Just to add that the regulator takes up vertical space as can be seen. As boilers got bigger and domes smaller the conventional vertical regulator could not be used. Stanier locos, for example, generally had a horizontal version of the traditional two valve regulator. The GWR and others used smokebox regulators so there was no need for a dome to accommodate them, just take the ste mfrom the highest point and pipe it to the regulator.

 

Many thanks Tom and Steve , my understanding of it is a bit clearer to me now . Unlike most working parts of a steam loco the regulator is hidden from the eye so like electricity it's all " magic ".

 

Ellerman Lines in NRM shows how high in the boiler the regulator sits. The top of the inlet to the regulator sits almost above the top of the barrel shell

 

There is some doubt about this as I recall my first driving experience was on Maundy Thursday 1962 (remembered because D163 was on test from Derby that day) and I recall driving up the branch to Uppingham. I am open to correction but I cannot recall visiting Seaton Junction during 1959 although I do recall seeing 41949 / 75 working the branch service during my early visits.

 

Indeed.



Tom

 

When did the branch close to goods?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ideally the dome should be situated at the equilibrium point of the boiler so that its height above the water is unchanged with the change of gradient.

 

The correct date for closure was 11/06/1960 ,I took the 1959 date from the caption of a photo on a previous visit. Letting a member of the public on the footplate of a loco 'was considered a vey serious matter ,let alone drive a passenger train. If caught it probably would mean dismissal for the driver ,and a warning for the fireman for not reporting it. Never worth the risk.
The non push pull fitted LT@S 4-4-2Ts appeared in 1959 when the Seaton to Stamford /Uppingham lines were handed over to the Eastern region. They ran light from Peterborough' Spital shed each morning.
The lines were soon handed back to the Midland region and push pull fitted Twelvehundreders ,as we used to call them(Ivatt 2-6-2ts) from Rugby were resumed ,and sub shedded at Seaton .
Two photo's attached. The 1959 shot at Seaton ,and the last train at Uppingham in June 1960.

 

Err - taking a Mickey Mouse from south-east Devon to Rutland? Or am I missing something?

Seeing Ellerman in that state does make me angry. No excuse for doing that to any restorable steam loco. Definitely a wrong of the past that the NRM should right.

 

Why, exactly? There are plenty of other MNs about, and as she stands, she still has a "wow" factor that a smaller machine possibly wouldn't give.

But we digress - again...

 

I suggest a little searching on Wikipedia and the other Seaton Junction will make sense.

As for 35029, I think we should agree to disagree - especially on this unrelated thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not sure ,but I think the same day as the passenger service ,one train in each direction was down as a mixed train, it arrived back at Seaton about 1.00PM ,I saw it a few times but only once had it a goods vehicle on ,and that was a brake van.Maybee a few loaded wagons had been taken to Uppingham on the outward mixed.

 

Had to put this on here sorry Roland Kennington RIP . EX CME Flying Scotsman Passed away today.