Christmas Coronation-1000+ miles with 60163 in 3 days

Excellent Vid - Thanks - GA

 

I'm going to take a little offense at that.

I am sure I can speak for everyone on here when I say our thoughts and prayers go out to the miners and their families. When they call for support, either physical or financial, I will be the first in line.

However, for a select few of us on here, this is not a game. We actually make a living running mainline steam. We employ just short of 20 full- time staff and countless part-time. I'm not saying I don't enjoy it or that I just do this for money, but for me and many others, it isn't just a hobby or big boys toys.

Do Top Gear go off the air every time there is an accident on a rig?
Does Sainsburys stop selling fish every time a trawler is lots with all hands?

Until someone says otherwise...the miners are still alive and well.....we just need to dig them out. A similar ending to the accident in Chili please.

 

I don't claim to be an expert on coal and I don't sit looking at my library of books. What I know has been gleaned through 25 years involvement with the coal mining industry, including coal preparation, and 45 years of shovelling the stuff into fireboxes. Still a lot to learn, though, and each day brings new knowledge, even from reading the postings on here.
As for speculation, there's nothing wrong in that. It's no different from discussing it over a pint in the pub. Or do you kill any such conversation by saying 'let's not discuss it and wait for the official announcement'?

 

The comment from the footplate on saturday was "It may look like coal but it dosn't burn like coal" & it didn't smell like coal ether, more like burning plastic. I am reliably informed that the coal came from Russia

 

And that, as has already been said, means nothing in terms of a particular quality. You may as well simply say it was dug out of the ground!

 

Have to say, I did initially wonder why such a big issue is being made over this, it's hardly anything new. The 'Tornado-Super-Wonder-Machine' hype working in reverse maybe? Any engine can go down the pan, even Thomas. It's become a pretty interesting discussion though.

Haha, I like it. Can't speak for other regions, as for the Western, I think it was just a case that from the 19thC, the Ebbw Vale had been the main source for their engines; it didn't directly dictate the design, but because narrow fireboxes etc where quite happy using it, and because that's all they were using, there was never any inclination to change. Sounds familiar! I would say however that use of this coal specifically influenced the retention of low superheat. Of course, using something other than special edition GWR seal of approval coal, does not mean that the engine will go down the pan, or that it will perform any better if you do use it.

As has been mentioned, Swindon implemented a scheme of oil firing after the war; there may, or may not, be something in the fact that H.M. the Gov decided to apply this to all the regions. Whether this was totally down to quality issues, or whether economics played a part I'm not really sure, although apparently it was an economic failure when applied on a large scale. Another case in history is the 1926 miners strike. I think it was following this particular strike that the GWR started stockpiling large emergency supplies of the 'good stuff' at many of the sheds, although again, not sure if this was a quality or supply issue... probably the latter, trying to save a few groats as usual.

 

Despite the problem on Saturday the 3 day tour was extremley enjoyable,by far the best tour i have been on with 60163. The noise on Beattock and then coming away from Mossend and up the 1 in 80-90 was simply unbeatable.

Shame about the problems on the return,but certainly from where i was looking there didn't seem to be really any disgruntled people,it wasn't the locos fault,nor Steam Dream's,just one of those things i suppose.

Anyway,thanks to everyone for a great weekend,some great laughs along the way too,especially on Thursday night.

My shots are now up from the 3 days:

http://mark-walker.fotopic.net/c1918617.html

Cheers,
Mark

 

Thanks, Ralph. Most illuminating. Given what you say, I doubt it can be done much quicker, even with computers. It's the burn that takes the time.

Mark

 

Proximate analysis now takes about 30 minutes.

 

Oh, that's even more interesting. Many thanks. Is the burn done as a small sample in a 'bomb', the same as oil samples?

Mark

(Having mentioned the word 'bomb', should I look out for the black helicopters? )

 

I take exception to your post. Like several others above, I have plenty of relevant experience thank you. 35 years in the chemical industry, with a company who had several large CHP plants here and abroad, for which we did a lot of work on fuel quality and boiler/turbine efficiencies. I've also used plenty of the stuff on the footplate and my father worked for the NCB. Apart from that I haven't got a clue.

And what exactly is trivial about a problem that has brought two major tours to a stand on the main line in just a few weeks? Over to you. Iain

 

Thanks very much, Ralph. Appreciated.

Brgds
Mark

 

I think over the last couple of years that we have heard enough anecdotes of engines being brought to their knees by poor quality coal to believe that it's not all made up, and is not excuses for poor firing. We've seen lots of good locos struggle in the hands of the same crews who've had them flying on other occasions.

We don't have to be coal mining experts or chemical analysts to qualify to say "Pffftt, it's not blinking good enough, come on coal suppliers, get your act together and give us some good stuff consistently! You're spoiling steam travel's reputation, and passengers' enjoyment, by your lack of quality control." Maybe dust and dirt mixed with a bit of combustible stuff is fine for other industries, but it won't do for ours!

PS I am not aware that we get a "statement from the main source" after experiences like this. Aperture, will you be passing such a statement on to us?

 

Coal quality has been an issue for years. Certainly since WW2 the consistancy of fuel quality has been a significant driver with respect to modernisation programs. When you buy fuel for your car it meets a specification and the engine works. You can buy fuel from many sources, its a global thing, and the engine works. Yet when it comes to coal you never can be sure that your locomotive is going to be able to work as required. So reliability goes out of the window, not a way to keep customers (or to avoid fines on todays railway) and hence the wind of change blows. It is in part the supplier's fault but even when the railways took a vast tonnage of fuel, sometimes to a specification, they ended up using what was delivered. Crews complained, little was done. There is quite a bit of work going on on alternative combustion methods, these offer a way forward, check out CCW colloidal suspensions, this work is geared to producing a replacement for fuel oils. But we could perhaps make use of it and it is still coal though not as we know it.

 

That COULD be dangerous ground and in a worst case scenario finish up in court. I recall quite recently when Scots Guardsman had problems, some members got carried away and Mr.Seymour got hung drawn and quartered for doing something he did NOT do.

 

Somebody some way back asked if the Top Gear time had been beaten.I thought there had been a reply but I am now unable to find it.So here are my figures to the original request.
25/04/09 load ten Overall running time excluding stops 391 mins (6 hrs 31 mins) From departing London to arriving Edinburgh 8hrs 1 min
18/11/10 load thirteen Overall running time again excluding stops 410.29 mins (6 hours 50.5 mins) From departing London to arriving at Edinburgh 7hrs 54 mins.
So the train did get to Edinburgh quicker than the Clarkson do partly because of the reduced water stops.Some running time was lost on the section from London to Stevenage which took just short of 40mins.At least 10 mins of the difference in the above figures because the way it was routed because of the Stevenage stop.
What was really impressive was the running from Stevenage to Grantham.The average speed start to stop from Stevenage to a stop just before Grantham was 70 mph.This is a first in preservation and was acheaved without excessive speed.
Just trying to put a more positive view on this thread.

 

That'd be me. Many thanks for the figures, interesting to note that the difference in load too.