Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Yes. All of Lynton and Lynmouth - right down to the shoreline - are within the ENPA area, which stretches several miles to the West, and East into Somerset.

 

Charles Wytock (and likewise, Isaac) is privately owned, and its sale or otherwise is entirely a matter for the owner.

 

Some redesign is likely, to take advantage of the lessons learned from both LYD and LYN.
Why stop at 4?

 

Hi Mark I think the idea is to get all the castings and bits done for the 4 locos, but to only get 2 assembled for now, the big problem the Trust has is storage space, don't be to surprise if the emphasis changes to Blackmoor at some point soon, the railway needs the workshops at Blackmoor to be the next big thing, but that can't happen until the planning has been given the green light and before that we need to have the road rail bridge build and installed at Blackmoor as well as taking ownership of the Pub/Restaurant, if you want to be a part owner of a pub/restaurant now the time to sign up for it.

I don't think that "as close to the original as possible" is part of the ENPA planning, it is however meant to cover the trackbed and the route. the cynic would say that if you where designing the L&BR today you wouldn't start with locos which where not up to the design spec, the only loco which meet this was in fact 'LYN' the problem with the Manning Wardles where that there where four of them if LEW had been built by some one else and to the same spec as LYN who knows what we would have ended up with, this is part of the on going investigation in to who else may have submitted a proposal to build the locos for the L&BR in the first place.

 

AIUI, much of the original route in places was scarcely first choice for the promotors. Working with the backing of a statuatory body with the clout of ENPA and (I'd imagine) the bulk of folk with businesses dependant on attracting tourism to Exmoor should make life a hell of a lot easier than facing same united in opposition.

Interesting comments on the MW locos. Would it be mischeivous to wonder whether County Gate's 009 solutions might get the odd glance?

 

The same thoughts had crossed my mind, too.

 

Am interesting idea 30854 I should add that many years ago now I did let the then management committee know about the locos in Java before Statfold was set up and I had selected a few which I felt where worth going after. But that came to nothing so I suspect the answer will be a no

 

Sure, thats understandable. What sort of tweaking on the LYD prototype are we looking at?

 

I think to slavishly adhere to the original Manning Wardle designs would be a seriously retrograde step.

The original MW locos were not masters of their job. There is ample evidence for this. Lyd has superheaters and an amended valve gear but with hindsight could do with a better boiler.

It is quite amazing that the SR ordered a new loco to the original design when the faults of the originals must have been well known at the time.

Cheers,
Julian

 

What were the main shortcomings of the MWs? Hadn't heard about that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes they where, The only evidence we can find at the moment is that it was the cheapest option and it made sense to keep to a standard design and spare parts, it is sure that the SR were never going to throw money at the railway for what turned out to be seven or eight years at the most, we had just had the wall street crash in 1929 so all major company's where looking to reduce any outgoings around that time, on hind sight if the tourist traffic had been better during the last five or six years I am sure the line would have made it during the war, but the railway was losing money so it is no surprise what happen in 1935.

In an ironic twist of fate the new L&BR is doing much better year on year since the 2008 bank crash than it did before hand.

 

I don't think anyone's considering slavish copies. At the very least, superheating should be a given. I cannot find what Lyd's working pressure is, but I'm guessing its somewhere up around 250psi. Does anyone know, would a gas-producer combustion system be workable?

 

Ho-hum! In any event, the County Gate Mallet idea looks a wee bit short of boiler capacity to my mind..... pity, as a loco carrying number 666 quite appeals to the wierder side of my nature. Their silver Art-Deco articulated railcars are quite striking though (a bit reminiscent of a few of the early GNRI examples) and a full sized 2ft gauge version along those lines would certainly be something very different for off-peak and winter use.

If NGG15/16 are to be ruled out and a new L&B loco were to be developed from the rails up, it'd be fascinating to see what operational requirements actually translated to in any proposed design. Even the VoR's bruisers only take seven bogies comfortably, if extraodinarily reliably, up their comparably sinuous 1:50 route. (And who actually did design those? Somehow, I can't imagine Charles Collett spending too much time on two atypical NG 2-6-2t's plus a loco's worth of spares!). I'd imagine the five car trains of the old L&B won't suffice for the reinstated line..... unless a 30min headway were introduced. (No? Nor me!)

 

Lets just start with couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding the front of the boiler was almost always cold and that effected the amount of steam it could produce, it is suspected they where designed for a flat easy railway somewhere in the British Empire and the order was cancelled half way through so MW had three locos almost finished and no one to sell them to, also don't forget the sole reason that the L&BR got LYN was MW could not produce a forth loco in time for the railways opening.

I am told that they where slow compared to LYN and difficult to fire as well, fireman drafted in from either the LSWR* or later the Southern used to find they had used up a lot more coal than they where used to by the time they got to Chelfham and it was back breaking work all the way to Blackmoor on a 7 mile continuous 1 in 50.

The time table had to have more stops to allow for the locos to build up steam pressure again, where as with LYN she was supposed to be a good steamer, one of the so called reason why LYN was not liked was to do with the time it took to do a round trip on her she could do the trip with easy and on time, but the MW's took there time and so the crews got extra money if they had to work over time for doing so.

The current research suggests that the L&BR locos should have been 4 wheel drive and not six as per MW's but as this is still on going, I can't confirm that point at the moment.

Other than all of that, they would have been great locos for the right railway, it has been suggested that Russell would be a good loco for the L&BR the only problem with Russell is he is a smaller loco than the MW if you could put Russell of steroids now that would have been a loco and a half, I guess that it would have looked a bit like No 14 Sierra Leone Railway No 85 at Welshpool.




I hope this helps

* need to get this confirmed

 

If NGG15/16 are to be ruled out and a new L&B loco were to be developed from the rails up, it'd be fascinating to see what operational requirements actually translated to in any proposed design. Even the VoR's bruisers only take seven bogies comfortably, if extraodinarily reliably, up their comparably sinuous 1:50 route. (And who actually did design those? Somehow, I can't imagine Charles Collett spending too much time on two atypical NG 2-6-2t's plus a loco's worth of spares!). I'd imagine the five car trains of the old L&B won't suffice for the reinstated line..... unless a 30min headway were introduced. (No? Nor me!)[/QUOTE]

I read somewhere that the boilers for the V of R locos where the same size that where on the 14xx 0-4-2T class, sorry I don't follow the GWR so I can't confirm this, but it is a great question to ask if anyone should know for sure I would like to know the truth.

 

The SG loco dates from 1932, fully nine years later than the Rheidol Tanks. There is, however, another suspect, in the form of the 1897 vintage 2021 class 0-6-0pt, which were rebuilt with Belpaire boilers during the early years of Churchward's reign. Irritatingly, I have an outline GA for both 0-4-2t & 0-6-0pt designs, with copious boiler dimensions and no useful photos, but for the Rheidol Tanks, there are the umpteen photos of the naked boilers on VoR Facebook pages and no damned dimensions! The only drawing of the 2-6-2t's in my possession is a scant 4mm/ft outline side & end elevation.

My first reaction (I confess I was thinking of the hideous 3ft gauge LMS/NCC 2-4-4t class S2 monstrosity, which carried a 5'-3" gauge loco boiler) was "No way!", but looking at the little I have to hand, the sizes, so far as I can make out, indeed appear very similiar. The boiler barrel on both the 14/48XX & 2021 classes is the same overall size, but with a few differences in the later Collett design.

Dimensions I have as follows:
Boiler barrel length:
Both: 10'-0", o/s dia. 3'-91/8" & 3'-10"
F/box dims LxW:
14XX: o/side 4'-6" x 4'-0" inside 3'-915/16" x 3'-4"
2021: o/side 5'-0" x 4'-0" inside 4'-315/16" x 3'-4"
Heating Surface:
14XX: Tubes 869.8 sq ft F/box 83.2 sq ft Total 953 sq ft
Firegrate area 12.8 sq ft
2021: Tubes 870.86 sq/ft F/box 90 sq/ft Total 960.86 sq/ft
Firegrate area 14.4 sq ft

Wouldn't it be something to demonstrate that the 14/48XX boiler actually evolved from the VoR design?

Construction of GWS Railmotor 93's power bogie seemed to support long asserted claims that the Walschaert's valve gear arrangement on the Rheidol Tanks was closely related to the Churchward design.

I wonder if, once "Owain Glyndwr" emerges back into service, the VoR and Ffesterbahn could be prevailed upon to permit comparative trials (on Exmoor would be nice!) pitting a Rheidol Tank against "Lyd" ..... and what the hell .... "Lyn" too....! Why not? Now, if "Russell" could come out to play as well.....

Edit: That last paragraph started as a light hearted WIBN, but on reflection, thats basically how the BR "standards" evolved and La'al Ratty did something similar during the genesis of "Northern Rock", with RH&DR "Northern Chief" pitted against their 8-coupled locos. If the L&B does eventually opt for a new design, perhaps the Blodge monobloc cylinder casting, as now being fitted to Fairlie bogies, suggests "Taliesin" could have a useful role to play in any future considerations too.

 

Very interesting, thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Trust is committed, AFAIK, to rebuild all the original locos (but updated and improved 'under the skin'). Whether any more locos would be needed after that is open to question. Five locos for 20 miles would be more than the WHR currently has....! As the L&B Trust now owns the Manning Wardle name, it can build more MWs and sell to other NG lines, perhaps? Or totally new MW designs can be built for the branch down to the actual Wooda bay, or the extension to Minehead.

 

"85" is very much the same size as "Russell but with detail differences, largely occasioned by the difference in track gauge. If "Russell" is as good as 85 she will be one hell of a performer, limited only by adhesion.

There is some Youtube footage of 85 scampering bunker first up the 1 in 33 to Coppice Lane with the W&LLR replica carriages. Somehow I don't see much "scamper" about the L&B Mannings.

PH

 

Given up on the Combe Martin & Ilfracombe line for the time being then?

But, rather more to the point, could even a breathed-on version of the MW design handle sufficient loads? The originals were rated for 5 carriages and even on the more gently graded route to Blaenau Ffestiniog, the MKII version "Lyd" seems to run double headed on service trains as a matter of routine. If that were required on Exmoor, it would have a seriously detrimental effect on the economics and manpower resources of the resuscitated L&B.

I completely 'get' having an MW (or two) on hand, but in the longer term, to rely for principal motive power on a design which, from all accounts, had (let's just say) certain shortcomings seems more like an extension to Dagenham East than Lynton to my mind. Maybe that's just me though.