'Lew'

I don't believe that is quite right about the ND&CJLR (the Torrington - Halwill section). It was independent, and the SR only operated it - it wasn't technically an SR line. So closure wasn't in their gift. In addition, of the £255,000 construction cost, £125,000 came from the Treasury and £70,000 from Devon County Council and the District Councils - so closure so soon after opening would probably have been politically untenable. The SR took 75% of the gross receipts to operate and maintain the line, with the rest going to the owners to pay the interest on the debentures used to fund it.

I think the clay traffic probably just about paid its direct operational cost, but closed when there wasn't the money to upgrade the rolling stock, which was antiquated by the 1970s.

Passenger traffic was rarely enough to trouble the scorers - there is an (in)famous story about a crash on a level crossing between a passenger train and a bus, in which the train had on board a driver, fireman and guard; and the bus had a driver and conductor, and neither had any passengers ...

Tom

 

I recall reading Russell was 'an enlargement' of the Sierra Leone design, which is evidently something of an oversimplification.

Regarding the W&L's resident SLR loco, given the taxing nature of that line, I'm guessing anything the management there consider worth shelling out for a 10 year ticket, beyond the initial one, has to be considered a pretty decent design. The W&L seems to have a knack for weeding out the weak and feeble!

The more I learn about locos' performance (or otherwise) when faced with Golfa., the more I appreciate just how well suited to the line the original Beyer Peacock design actually is.

 

Well, anything which will blow off against both injectors after a mile of 1 in 30 topped off with multiple uncompensated reverse curves has got to be rather good. The fireman admitted to have overcooked things a bit! The Beyers have more grip but 85 has je ne sais quoi.

I think, Howard, that the "enlargement of the Sierra Leone design" observation comes from the fact that in around 1904 the original 1897 S.L.R. design got a larger boiler and slightly bigger cylinders. The original type looked very much like a cousin of the L&B machines built next door with the very real advantages of Walschaerts gear plus drive to the rear coupled axle. Evidently the S.L.R. found this type eminently satisfactory for, after flirting with a 2-8-2 tank from Hunslet which did not succeed, the went back to the 2-6-2T

 

Don't recall having ever seen a photo of the original batch, but a few years ago, was thoroughly delighted to learn the statement in 'Steam in Africa', by A.E. (Dusty) Durrant, that all else had been shipped to Japan for scrap was incorrect and that there is (amongst other priceless relics) not just another 2-6-2T (No.81) but one of the mightily impressive later Garratts safely ensconced in the Railway Museum in Freetown.

I hope you'll forgive the thread drift:
https://www.sierraleonerailwaymuseum.org

 

You have reduced yourself to the picking of nits.........

Cheerz,

Alan

 

Oh dear! You used the word "identical" relating to the boilers which anyone can tell from photographs they are not.