45699 Galatea

According to the gradient profiles book there is no such point: the Lickey is 37¾ all the way to Blackwell, where the line then becomes almost level. So the load against gravity begins to reduce only when the loco at the front passes Blackwell. Without some net assistance from the banking engines (i.e. enough force from one or both of them to lift them themselves up the bank with some left over to push the back coach) the TE of the Jubilee alone would not have been able to accelerate the train until that loco and some of the coaches had passed Blackwell. The account seems clear that the acceleration started before that.

The long distance between the train engine and the bankers and the long time since the event both prevent us from knowing the sequence of events for certain, but I can only continue to endorse Tom's arguments from physics (which I think I'm entitled to do, as a physics PhD).

 

I have seen it done. Spotting at Euston in the 60s on p2/3 an express hauled by a new fangled diesel had arrived in p1. The station pilot coupled on the empties. The pilot was often a class 2 or 3 but never more than a 4. The pilot accellerated the empties out of the platform assisted by the diesel. The diesel driver was not really paying attention and the train accelerated away and a gap of 2 coach lengths opened. The diesel driver woke up and buffered up and started assisting. For some seconds the pilot had the train to itself. Trains arrivin in p1 were never less than 12 bogies.

 

Nevertheless....it does appear that Galatea, fresh from a heavy overhaul at Derby or Crewe was in particularly good order. I accept that we will never now the exact sequence of events, but one thing is a fact, the driver on the mail train had utter confidence in his engine, and rather than sit down on the bank, which in the circumstance might not have been the safest thing to do at night, he simply wound Galatea to full foreward gear and let her get on with it.
As Sidmouth mentions above, the rest of the narrative about the onward journey to New Street makes stirring reading, and says much about the character of the driver.

46118

 

Gradients don't come to a sudden point, though. The long lens here emphasises the change in gradient, but it does show that this change occurred over a fair distance. Photo by Nick Harrson, 2968 and 7325, The Lickey Incliner, Blackwell, 22nd November 1997

 

Yes, of course the change of gradient is not abrupt; but it is from steep to almost level. Although the actual summit is a bit further on, the remaining climb is minimal. The account that has been quoted indicates that the train started to accelerate well before the change of gradient.

 

Sounds like this may have been the problem...

 

I suspect getting the draughting right for a Jubillee would intrigue Jos Koopmans as an ideal solution never seems to have been acieved.

They seemed to have settled on a compromise between backpresure and draughring.
It seems the closest they got was the Kylchap fitted to 5684 Jutland apparently was very free running but turned into a volcano if pushed due to the Kylchap fitted was too large?
Not sure I can make sense of this but have scraped this together from what I could find on the subject.
A Jubille could be an interesting case for re-draughting.

Something to discuss though.

Cheers Dave

 

Agreed,
the GWR/LMS/BR School of Draughting continually improved when it came to two or four cylinder Loco's but seemed to rely more on luck than Judgement for three cylinders.
More often than not the re proportioned 'solution' will need a larger and or a double chimney which makes a significant change in appearance and to the 'voice' of the Loco.

 

I never really got to the bottom of this. Certainly the proportions of the 3A boilers (and 3B - Black Five - and 3D - 2-6-0) were wrong, but these were, after much effort, corrected. The draughting of the 5Xs was also very wrong and this is often explained because Stanier's experiences on the GWR did not include three cylinder locos, that railway not possessing any. But (i) I struggle with the idea that the CME of such a huge concern as the LMS got so involved in detail design that he personally specified the chimney and blastpipe dimensions; and (ii) the LMS Drawing Offices had already produced two good steaming three cylinder locos in the Royal Scots and Baby Scots. So what went wrong?

To the end, these engines were 'touchy' as far as their steaming went. If you got an engine in good nick, with decent coal, a driver who knew what he was doing and a good fireman, they were excellent, but it took only one of these four to be below par and you could be in serious trouble. As driver at Liverpool Exchange put it to me in 1968, "Unless it was an express passenger job, I'd rather have a Black 'un than a 5X any day." Which puts it in a nutshell.

 

I recall from discussions many moons ago that the decision to purchase "Bahamas" ( or at least to leave the double chimney arrangement in place)was taken on the basis that the loco reputedly was" more economical on water usage". I never recall "enhanced performance" as being relevant, however Whiteley and Morrison comment that 45742, which ran with a plain double exhaust chimney from 1940 to 1955 " could outperform the other members of the class on the Euston-Birmingham 2hr expresses".

Make of that what you will.

46118

 

As far as I can recall I only said where the coal came from, and never commented on the quality of the coal. That is surely something that should only be touched upon by all the highly experienced commentators that we see on Nat pres.....

 

Yes, it does!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

I think, to be honest, you need to chillax a bit. You're digging yourself a bit of a hole here as I'm afraid your information on the origin of the coal that 70000 used on Saturday was wide of the mark despite your assurance that you apparently,

Perhaps you should speak to the people that you know, get confirmation as to the source of the coal, and let us know where it was from. It's worth remembering that on a forum such as this you probably won't be the only person that knows and talks to people. And, as to the coal, some of us even get to wash the stuff off in the shower afterwards.

If that sounds a bit abrupt, well so be it, but don't take it to heart, I'd still probably buy you a pint.

 

I don't think that I said that you did. Plenty of opinion from other coal quality experts in earlier posts, though.

 

Thanks for this, but I've been in much deeper holes than you could ever get in on this forum! If the information about 70000 coal on Saturday was incorrect then I stand to be corrected, just going off information received from someone on the crew on Sat. Given your assurance that I am wrong, perhaps you might correct me?
I am quite aware that others on here will undoubtedly know and talk to people in the industry, not that stupid.....
As for coal dust, there's a fair few sacks worth gone down my plug hole over the years too!
maybe we'll get to buy each other a pint sometime?

 

Just watched the footage of 45699 going for Shap with my great uncle who has experience of driving / firing jubilees - his words 'that's been over fired and it's cold. They should have shut the door, held back and let her get on with it..!'

I have no idea if he's right or wrong, just his words!

 

PM sent.

 

Powell "Stanier 4-6-0's at work" pg 82 provides the answer from BR Rugby report #R11, the 45722 was tested. It appears that the postwar I 3/8 superheater elements allow for preferential draughting through the tubes. I am not in the mood to perform the calculation, but the tubes have an A/S ratio of 1/390 to 1/392 depending on Powell or Cox and Cox calculates for the 3B boiler 1/383 for the almost identical flues. This is too close to my liking.
Apart from replacing the superheater elements to I 1/4 there is another solution used in Austra by Giesl, NIH will probably prevent its application in the U.K.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

We have industrials preserved with Giesl ejectors, 78022 was fitted with one for a time and of course 34092 continues to carry her post preservation one so NIH may not be so great a problem. Is a licence to use a Giesl ejector still available>

 

Hello Mr SC,

I presume that NIH inherited the patent rights for the Giesl Ejector and if the patent is still applicable, I would imagine a licence would be required. As for the preserved industrials fitted with a Giesl and 34092, the licence has been paid for these applications, however I am not sure about the status of the fitment to 78022. Of course, the Chinese have been known to make a reasonable snide copy of a Giesl Ejector!!

The Stanier 5XP steaming conundrum has been well documented over the years and will no doubt be discussed - particularly on this forum - until the very last contributor draws his final breath. As for the incident that has sparked this particularly discussion - Galatea's performance on Shap - it seems highly likely that BillyReopening's Great Uncle has given the answer in post #1776 above and I think that is what we have all suspected since. Still, the Thread Swerve has been very interesting in the meantime.

Cheers

Alan