'Lew'

Indeed so. The safety valves are definitely "standard Hunslet" but they could have been taken off something else.

PH.

 

Oddly enough, I always wondered whether those who saw beauty in the L&B Mannings were suffering from astigmatism a la El Greco. Up to now I have been too polite to say so!

One of the stranger episodes in locomotive history is that neighbouring Hunslets were designing the original small boilered Sierra Leone 2-6-2T's at around the time the L&B machines came out. They must have looked over the boundary wall, copied the raised firebox arrangement, dumped Joy valve gear in favour of Walschaerts and improved both aesthetic and mechanical proportions by driving onto the third axle, with beneficial shortening of the tube length. Still a bit strangely proportioned though, albeit an improvement. The "ugly duckling" became a swan when the same chassis gained a bigger boiler. Apart from aesthetic gain this version would steam on a Toc H lamp.

P.H.

 

There are few prettier engines than the ex- Sierra Leone 2-6-2T No. 85, which has graced Welshpool and Llanfair metals. May she return soon.

 

Ahem cough *Wainwright D class* cough *Drummond T9* cough *Stroudley Terrier* cough cough etc etc :smile:

Tom

 

I prefer Chatham livery on the D, but were straying off topic here .

 

Unlikely soon I fear, as the W&LLR has sufficient motive power available for its present needs. She is certainly a fine marriage of looks and capability with the modest adhesion weight of 15 tons being the limiting factor. With the appropriate load the performance was vivid. I once saw her blow off against both injectors when rounding the reverse curves at the top of the 1 in 29 Golfa incline. Not the normal sort of problem for a fireman!

"Russell" has the same sized wheels, same cylinders and a boiler with the same heating surface (albeit with a different firebox) as 85. The L&B Mannings had more adhesive weight but, that apart, "Russell" would leave them for dust, judging by the published load limits for the Devon line and the performance of her half sister in Wales. "Lyd" is a different matter. She has 40lbs/sq.in. more pressure, a superheater and has the benefit of rectification of dimensional errors in the valve gear and truck design. Nevertheless "Russell" may come closer than might be thought given her smaller size. It will be interesting to find out!

 

That sounds just right. Do you have any info on their railcar? Many thanks for the info.

 

Be interesting to compare Russell to Lyd once the former is outshopped, obviously Lyd is an improvement on the original Manning Wardle design in performance terms, but are there any sort of figures about that suggest how much better Lyd is ?, Lyd seemed very sure footed to me, but considering most FR motive power is 4 coupled, perhaps it's misleading.

 

If we're talking looks, problem with both Russell, the SLGRs and the MWs IMHO are the tanks extending alongside the smokebox. Far too boxy.

Now, Leeds No. 1, that was a beautiful machine.

Back under my bridge, to my drswings of NG 0415s...

 

..."Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Of course not all like the MWs

Exhaustive research shows that those who do not:

1. Tuck their shirts inside their underpants
2. Have plaster gnomes in their garden
3. Have at least one flying duck on a wall indoors

 

to my jaundiced eyes she looked like the avonside tank at Chattenden & Upnor Railway, what gauge is it?

 

Sorry to disappoint but none of these characteristics apply to me! I don't drive a VW or Toyota either.

PH

 

I still find it strange why Manning Wardle designed them like that at all. The long thin boiler isn't exactly ideal for a railway with lots of steep ups and downs nor is it particularly good for making steam. Then it is pitched so low and with a virtually inaccessible ashpan. The fire hole door is practically below the floor which makes them back breaking to fire, typical of a southern engine as well the brick arch is perfectly designed to make it hard to get coal down the front. The whole thing is so long it really lurches into corners especially if the alignment isn't perfect. The only benefit seems to be good all round visibility but did they care about that in the 1890's?

Then you have those really short connecting rods which must really put some stress on the crossheads. Not to mention the joy valve gear to add an extra maintenance headache as well as 9 million oiling points every morning.

Lyd certainly has plenty of guts on a dry day, but a handful in the wet. I expect the originals with lower bp and no steam drying were a bit more of a rice pudding class.

 

Sounds like the "old trouble" with this wheel arrangement. With sprung control sideplay on the leading and trailing trucks, the temptation to increase the loading on the driving wheels has to be resisted for fear of de-railment. Conversely too much weight on the carrying wheels means a severe lack of adhesion. Double 2-6-2 Garrets must be a nightmare with those long steampipes and only one regulator. In Sierra Leone they went as far as to rebuild theirs to double 2-8-0 because of this.

As for the original Manning Wardle locos being in the rice pudding class, the load limits for the L&B suggest suggest this was indeed the case.

 

All we need to do is put hands in our pockets... Money is the only thing stopping RUSSELL now! Russell rebuild | Welsh Highland Heritage Railway or Printable PDF

 

Think you might find the L&B Manning Wardles were better than all that. The steam plant (smokebox-boiler-firebox) dimensions are almost exactly the same as
the Darjeeling B class, and they experienced plenty of ups and downs! With 8 square feet of grate they were hardly difficult to fire, and though Joy valve gear wasn't the best, it was far more common than Walschaerts in 1897.
The L&B were, I think, about the first domestic narrow-gauge non-articulated six-coupled locos - which thereafter became the norm, so they must have been doing something right. Interestingly, despite the track stresses from the longer wheelbase, the Manning Wardles had a maximum axle weight of just over 7 tons, which compared favourably with the 10.5 tons of the Darjeeling B class. By comparison, Lyn as built, only had 11.6 tons total adhesion weight, which really must have put it in the rice-pudding class.
Best guess is the MWs were modelled on the Kitsons for the Barsi Light Rly. As for improving the design, 2' 4" drivers, a bigger boiler and Walschaerts would just about do the trick, methinks!

 

The load limits for the L&B are more to do with the road and the rolling stock, rather than the locos themselves. The Manning Wardles were capable of hauling five of the over-engineered carriages between Blackmoor and Lynton which "only" had a maximum of three miles unbroken 1 in 50. On the southern stretch from Skew Bridge up to Blackmoor, there was seven miles of 1 in 50 immediately preceded by a short section approaching 1 in 35 where the line crossed the Bratton road. Weighing around 9 tons empty, it is little wonder the locos could only manage four, or nine if double-headed. Screw couplings which would increase inertia, wouldn't help, either.

 

A lot to deal with so here we go

There were a number of earlier six coupled narrow gauge machines in Ireland, which was then "domestic". The Beyer 2-6-0ST on the Ballymena and Larne and the Hunslet 2-6-0T's on the Tralee and Dingle (with Walschaerts gear) come to mind. The Kitson products for Barsi were a trifle later than the L&B machines I think. The dimensions for a suggested "Improved" MW correspond very closely with those of the big boilered Sierra Leone type.

This is a very difficult comparison to make but let us start with the tare weights. 36 tons was the limit on the L&B with a loco having a 7 ton axle load. On the W&L SLR 85, with a 5 ton axle load, hauled 5 "units", a tad under 30 tons up 1 in 29. The climb on the latter is shorter but very much steeper and is topped off with multiple check railed reverse curves. Adhesion was the limiting factor on 85 rather than steaming capacity which was exceptional. Meeee does not consider the MW boiler to be particularly good for making steam. Comparison of these figures does not favour the MW design despite its larger size.

I am not quite sure how screw couplings would affect the issue once the train was underway unless there was a feature in their design which led to binding on the curves.

Paul H

 

Just a quick bit of explanation on W&L trailing loads classification mentioned by Paul: -

1x Zillertalbahn 4 wheeler is 6 tons - 1 Unit
1x Sierra Leone Coach is 12 tons - 2 Units
1x MAV coach is 15 tons - 2.5 units
1x W&L Pickering is 9 tons - 1.5 units

The situation for SLR 85 is actually harsher than Paul suggests. The SLR85 5-unit limit Paul quotes strictly applies to five Zillertalbahn coaches whose long wheelbases and limited side play from the parabolic springs gives significantly more resistance on the 3 chain reverse curves than bogie stock.
I understand that in pre-preservation days the Beyers' (more powerfull than SLR 85) 9 wagon limit for working up the Golfa was set by rolling resistance on the curves rather than Gross Laden Weight. E.R. Calthrop did warn the original W&L company that they should have bought bogie stock but they choose those miniturised 4-wheel wagons instead!

SLR 85 was allowed to haul 6 units (36 tons) if it was formed of two or more bogie vehicles (2 x MAVs + 1x Ziller or 2x SLRs + 2x Zillers).

822 "The Earl", 823 "Countess", 699.01 "Sir Drefaldwyn" and 764-425 Resita have all hauled 8 units trains (49tons tare or probably about 62 tons laden) on their own on occassions but 7 units is the prefered maximum for all weather conditions.
Joan is really a 4 or 5 unit loco to be able to run at line speed however dispite 12" being removed from her firebox the Kerr Stuart is still a impressive steam raiser and a faithfull plodder. Her performance last Gala when she dragged a temporarily incapacitated 822 (clinkered fire) plus 5 units up the Golfa with both feeds on (no boiler morgaging) and the safety valves feathering will be remembered for a while.

All W&L locos have been fitted with Ing L.D. Porta's lempor exhausts which has improved their steaming capabilities and efficiency although 85 and the Beyers have been a compromise solution due to the need to fit liners within restricted chimney diameters. I understand Joan and the Resita have Lempors to the optimum geometry.

Kind regards,
Gareth Houghton