Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Sadly I can't see a VofR loco in Devon as it would cost us a bit to replace the paint work as they would not fit the L&BR loading gauge as being to wide. the plan is for LYD to be in North Devon next year, I think both Taliesin and Russell would both be welcomed if a steam trail was required, I am a great believer of trying out different locos to see what is best and to then incorporate those advances in a new design, I would love to have another Baldwin 4-6-0 at Woody for a week end to see how she would perform, she should be OK as they where design for a 60cm gauge railway and that is what the L&BR is if you convert the imperial dimensions to metric, while we are at it, there are a couple of ex Polish 60cm 0-6-0 tanks which would be good to compare how they do as well.

 

I have no idea who might have started that hare running but the Swindon VoR boilers (Class YL) were miniatures compared with anything fitted to a GWR four coupled tank. At a quick guess I would think the 517 boilers (S Class) were at least 60% heavier.

The YL boilers were of similar, but fractionally smaller, dimensions to the boilers on the original VoR locos but with an improved tube arrangement.

 

I hope no one takes this the wrong way as I am not in anyway an anti Manning Wardle loco, but I do believe in having locos that can do a job, once Lyn is bedded in hopefully we shall start to get some answers to so many questions, One loco I forgot to include was an FR Fairlie, I don't think we shall see that happen until we have about five miles to run, I should also mention that there are some guys who where working on the advanced steam loco 5MT have suggested building a modern 2ft gauge BR standard style 2-6-2T with all the advances that have been made in the last twenty or so years.

 

From what I recall, bridge clearances on any line had to be a minimum of 2'-6" from the side of passenger stock. If that holds true on the L&B, that gives a minimum width of 11'-0" clear through any bridge. The maximum width of the VoR beasties is across the bunkers (nowhere near the upper reaches of the cab) so unless raising the cabs a few years back has taken them too high to clear bridges, they'd fit. No?

 

(Dons tin helmet) Quite liking this thought as well. In view of comments, a few posts back, about four vs six coupled locos on the L&B, it's worth noting that the 3ft gauge T&DLR Hunslet classes of five 2-6-0t's and one 2-6-2t worked perfectly successfully for up to six decades (when keeping to speed restrictions) over their difficult home line which contained fierce curvature and very long gradients, up and down, at 1:29, from 1940 onwards, some were transferred the C&L, working the sharply curved Arigna line which defeated ex-CB&P 2-4-2t's. Both Hunslet six coupled designs featured flangeless central drivers (and pretty fair brakes!)

 

Air braked nowadays though.

Paul H

 

From L&B Measured and Drawn, Collard Bridge which still exists is 12ft wide and 10ft 9 in height from rail, Church Town was 11ft 6in and 12ft wide, Killington Lane was only 9ft 6in from rail level, guess that would have to be built to modern clearances as and when it gets done.

 

Aah.... the sensible braking system! Forgot 'bout that.
Guess who else has a Westinghouse pump:

The FYN bumbled along using both systems. That's penury for you!

 

I see the railway's planning applications aren't on the agenda for October's ENPA committee meeting. Tick tock...

 

No biggie in all probability. Other than smuggling the plans in under AOB, I could imagine any number of reaons for a delay, very few of which could be seen as problematic. Is ENPA's planning meeting a monthly affair?

 

It's been delayed multiple times now with little explanation. I think it was supposed to be considered 6-12 months ago

Keith

 

I have travelled behind Lyd on a service train and she manage 7 quite happily.

 

I'm sure no problem. Its just that there seemed to be a buzz that they would get heard this month, now that the ENPA local plan has been adopted, and I gather, that one final request for further information has also been addressed now. Its just a bit disappointing.

 

Lyd is rated for 9 carriages on the FR (the double fairlies are 12, Mountaineer 8, and Taliesin 7). I've regularly seen it running solo - the double heading might be due to taking a heavier load, or some other operational reason.

Steve B

 

To stoke the old imagination firebox:

http://www.australiansteam.com/sugarframe.them

 

Cheeres Steve. "Lyd" is a good two carriages 'butcher' than I thought it was. Is that more likely to translate into six or seven on the significantly steeper L&B?

About all I recall from it's modifications from original spec (other than functionally irrelevant alterations to cab profile) is that it carries a light superheater. I can't recall, does it have piston or slide valves?

I do remember computer modelling ahead of construction showed the Joy gear produced good valve events (and that whoever wrote the piece where I read it came across as a bit surprised that it did!), but looking at the Festipedia entry, there's a comment that the Joy gear is rather heavy on maintenance due to forces acting on bearing surfaces and that lubrication remains an issue. Perhaps it is this, rather than the (apparently) non-issue of a socking great bearing amidships of the connecting rod, which lies behing historic criticism of Joy gear?

There was a debate elsewhere about the performance of "Lyd", but criticisms I read seemed nebulous (mostly of the "If it wasn't Mr.X's pet loco" variety), that it wasn't possible to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

It is frequently stated that the VoR's original 2-6-2t's were based on the MW design and that their Swindon built replacements (q.v.) were a 'next phase' progression, which suggests either the design's overall proportions can't have been that unsuitable.... that, or expectations were lower! Maybe taking a VoR loco on holiday is impractical, but Aberystwyth have a 'work round' to allow vacuum braked locos loose on their line and it would certainly be useful to compare "Lyd's" performance with that of it's chunkier cousins over long climbs at 1:50.

My only concern in all this is that the extended L&B doesn't find itself saddled with inadequate (and expensive to maintain) front line motive power for, let's face it, purely sentimental reasons. Passenger numbers thus far suggest the L&B has a bright future in prospect, with Exmoor being a far more accessible place than ever before. To restrict the revived L&B's potential by strict dogmatic adherence, in a vastly changed world, to the practices of it's cash strapped and ultimately unsuccessful progenitor would, quite frankly, be little short of insanity IMO.

Much will come down to the choices on future rolling stock. AIUI, the intention is that all surviving carriage components will be incorporated into carriages finished in original condition and livery, with entirely new build stock to traditional pattern turned out in SR colours. That should give sufficient stock to operate perfectly adequate services over the Blackmoor to Lynton line for a good few years, but as and when the (nearly) complete line comes back into use, I'm certain the L&B will face the same issues as the F&WHR over what sort of accomodation the paying public expect. With inescapably major investment in locomotives being a decision affecting the medium to long term, exercising some foresight, ahead of committing millions of quid, seems prudent. This is a long way short of crystal ball territory!

 

This sort of issue is always bedevilled by prejudice. For those who think of the Mannings as their "favourite", all kinds of mechanical deficiencies will be overlooked. Those, including, I must admit, me who think of them as scrawny and ill proportioned will believe them to be be ill resolved mechanically as well, However, it is surprising how often what looks good in mechanical engineering proves to perform well. S.L.R. 85 is a prime example. Universally approved of by those who handled her.

All I can say about "Lyd" is that opinions about her abilities seem to differ.

PH

 

I recall John Snell's history of the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch mentions that Captain Howey attended the L&B post-closure auction as he was desperately in need of a turntable and describes him as probably the only person present who could have written a cheque to buy the line as it stood - but as he hated the looks of the MWs, he bought the Pilton turntable and nothing else.

 

The valves on Lyd are very interesting indeed, they are balanced slide valves which were quite general about 1900
but not as general here as in the USA. They give a very good direct exhaust through the steam chest but
disappeared when piston valves became general. Boston Lodge have not only made them and Joy's valve gear
but got both to go well - and neither had been made from scratch for a long time - and got the balancing of the valves
to work with the steam around them superheated which the L&B originals did not have.

The performance has been triumphant: an early coal burning test on the Ffestiniog was with 9 empty carriages
and much more recently after some tweeks she managed 6 instead of 4 over the Welsh Highland which has a sustained
ruling gradient of one in forty. To take 6 over the WHR did mean that you had to have the front end thoroughly hot -
not too difficult coming from Portmadoc - and appears to have been on the limit of adhesion, you did need a good dry
rail, but do it it can.

Lyn with 250 psi, superheat and considerable improvements to both the boiler and the steam circuit compared
to the original has obviously yet to run any trials over a serious distance but is intended to manage 6 on the
length of the Lynton and Barnstable. As the ruling gradient is one in fifty the new Lyd should manage the same load
there and be on top of it.
While at least two comparable engines must be appropriate so would a bit of a pause. To get some feed back as
to how Lyn goes, especially the gas producer firebox and what may be learnt from Lyd's ten year overhaul which
is now on the horizon - the engine has been worked much harder than the original Manning Wardles!

 

For what it is worth I do think that any new 2-6-2T needs to incorporate as much new technology and experience since the old design was first put together, as an example it has been suggested by those that know these things that the Indian ZB 2-6-2 chassis would be a good place to start off from, followed by a superheated and modern boiler design. mono block cylinder castings, sealed roller bearings where possible. a large spacious cab and enough coal and water capacity in order to do a full round trip, however art this moment in time it is all purely academic.

I would however agree with the comment about making sure that future locos can do the job that is required, to that end. I would suggest that all new over bridges should be built to allow for future or bigger locos to run on the L&BR, after all the only people who would complain about such things are those that only take photos and do not have a ride.