Smoke

Posting this as a new thread, because an interesting point came up in the GCR thread, but it is a point not specifically restricted just there:

Taking point 3:

(3)The owner of any railway locomotive engine shall use any practicable means there may be for minimising the emission of smoke from the chimney on the engine and, if he fails to do so, he shall, if smoke is emitted from that chimney, be guilty of an offence
​

This seems to quite clearly say the responsibility is with the owner of the locomotive, not the operator.

Now, presumably one (of perhaps many) “practicable means” of reducing smoke is to ensure crews are properly trained in good firing technique.

So assume I owned a locomotive, which I placed on hire to a railway, but didn’t directly supervise the operation on a daily basis. Would that suggest that when agreeing the terms of the hire agreement, it would be prudent to closely study the host railway’s training and inspection processes, so you could satisfy yourself on that point?

I’m sure you’d want to do that anyway, for all sorts of reasons. But the responsibility being on the owner rather than the operator I found interesting. You could imagine a railway owning a loco, hiring it to someone else and then cringing at a photo illustrating poor technique.

Tom

 

I would also be interested, looking at that, to know what ability there is to transfer liability in a hire contract. Otherwise, I suspect the law is unenforceable.

 

Is it ever enforced in any way bar commercial and industrial premises. I know much of Lancaster is a clean air area (cannot remember the precise legal term) yet there are coal fires all over the town and nothing ever gets/got done, we used to get our coal delivered and it came in bags specifically annotated with not to be used in a clean air zone, yet hundreds of bags were being delivered on each delivery.

 

I suggest that whoever wrote that piece of legislation had no real knowledge of how the vast majority of steam locomotives are operated. Firemen would also seem to be outside the law in terms of responsibility. It would almost certainly have to be tested in a court of law. I think that I am right in saying there have been no actual prosecutions for this under the Act. Another anomaly is that it looks like traction engines, etc would escape this legislation as there is no specific reference or catch-all that I can see.

 

Do you mean that MP's and those drafting Parliamentary Bills are out of touch. Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs!
Pat

 

What do you do with something like an EE Power unit? When one hasn’t been started for a while they’re known to be heavy smokers.

 

Regrettably, that comment fits me to a tee.

 

not so much a transfer of responsibility but rather the operator would indemnify the owner from any losses or claims so the right to seek redress is contractual from the owner’s point of view if they found themselves on the wrong end of a prosecution. This is a fairly standard clause in a loco hire contract.

regards

Matt

 

"now driver, that was very naughty, don't do it again"

 

It's more changing times re railway engines, plenty of stuff in steam days reminiscences about it (

you take all practicable steps.
and there is a specific exemption on start-up.

 

What is "practicable"? I'm thinking for EE diesels of the role of pre-heaters, which are not a traditional component, but have been shown to reduce startup clag and also engine wear.

 

Most early railway Acts of Parliament specified that' locomotives shall consume their own smoke' or similar wording which was initially accomplished by using coke as a smokeless fuel, later the introduction of the brick arch was regarded as ensuring the more complete combustion of gasses and particulates from burning coal and so complying with the Acts.

I suppose that using a locomotive with a collapsed or missing brick arch might be regarded as failing to minimise the emission of smoke.

 

Look like heavy handed, and bouncing it off the wheel slip control, hence losing power???

And the fueling being way way off!!!!

 

"Practicable" means pretty much doable and not outrageously expensive. Each case would need to be taken on it's facts. If the law was any more specific, then facts would render it unworkable very quickly. It would be up to the defendant to demonstrate what they could do/should do - which would be different for a lightly-used rural preserved line to a heavily-used profitable line in a built-up area.

SR Engineman (I think) makes reference to Guildford shed having special coal to reduce smoke build-up, and one of the books about King's Cross shed has stories about being in fear of the man from the ministry and his smoke test.

 

Peter Townend wrote extensively of his experiences as Shedmaster at King's Cross with his book 'Top Shed' being specifically about the history of the shed and his experiences there. He certainly was not in fear of the men from the ministry but the local council and residents complaining were part of the challenges he faced and he shows how he dealt with them. It is apparent that even in the 1950's things were awkward and needed all his undoubted skills and I suspect neither the authorities nor the general public have got any easier to deal with since. Rules and regulations, or how they should be applied, re emissions and noise from the depot were challenging then.

He also shows how he dealt with the problems of day to day running of one of the biggest main line shed's was carried out from the machinery to the men who ran it. Recruitment was particularly difficult for the dirtiest and most labour intensive ones.

This film ( best viewed with the mute button on! ) which looks to date from late 1956 to 1961 gives an idea how smokey it was.

 

Assuming it has one in the first place of course! I can think of one loco I've fired that doesn't;t have a brick arch or baffle plate; I suspect there are probably others amongst small industrial locos. Makes firing a challenge.

Tom

 

Thanks Matt - it was the apparent liability on the owner I found interesting, given that in many cases, the owner may not be able to directly supervise the way the locomotive was operated.

Tom

 

Or the controller being slammed fully open, then slammed shut as the ammeter hits the red, before the cut out cuts in, then repeat etc?

And in this case, presumably playing to the gallery?

 

A lot of footplate reminiscence books I've read are quite picky about the subject of making smoke, recognising it as generally being bad practice. Which is not to say that from time to time they didn't make "smoke to order" for a favoured photographer - reading Peter Smith's book, he is most apologetic about some of the photos in his book, almost falling over himself to say "that's not my normal practice"!

Firing instruction seems to have stressed good technique so as to minimise production of smoke from very early days; teh sort of thing that might in Victorian days have had you dragged up in front of the boss if caught.

Tom