Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

We've cross posted. Lyd has had changes: 0bvously the change from oil to coal firing, others from experience and development work.
It is not exactly the same as when it was first out. I would expect the higher power output founded on higher efficiency to make it less forgiving
- evidently it can be a handful to keep from slipping which might become all too memorable if it leads to priming. And simply it is a
unique engine different to the others on the Ffestiniog/WHR.

 

There's something like a 1.5t difference in adhesive weight between the front and back drivers on Lyd. I wonder what difference the addition of extra weight over the rear drivers would make to balance the adhesive forces across the coupled wheelbase?

 

It's lack of popularity is largely down to it being an awkward engine to work on.

The fireman spends all day bent double as all the things you need such as the bunker, firehole, injector controls are at floor level. It is really quite uncomfortable to fire to be honest. There are other things such as the ashpan, injector position, and ride quality that don't help too. It's a bit easier for the driver, once he has got round the 4 million oiling and greasing points in the morning of course. There is considerable pull through the reverser, attempting to notch up in main valve is a job best left for He-man. But overall it's not a bad engine to drive.

Performance wise 7 or 8 is a comfortable load for it. 9 requires a good crew and good railhead conditions. It steams much better these days than when it first entered traffic, so long as you keep up with its appetite for coal.

Reliability has been the main issue though. This summer would have been the perfect time for it to shine with Linda and Blanche being unavailable. Sadly it missed most of it when it was stopped with leaking tubes after a "triumphant" run up the WHR.

Tim

 

Interesting to hear meeee's comments about LYD, as I got the impression from those that at first disliked her, have taken to her in a big way and would not do without her now, I have also seen some photoshop photos of her in different liveries which are interesting.

The current L&BR management are at pains some times to say that the new L&BR is not a replica of the old railway, but it is being build to do a job for today's tourist market.

I also fully understand those Trust members that love the Manning Wardle's would want to see a fleet of them and if it had been anywhere else I am sure we would still be having the same discussions. With everything that we know about the L&BR today. I am sure that we can crack this problem, maybe a bigger boiler and firebox would help and a newly designed chassis based on the ZB or something like that would help, I can't think of anywhere where you could go and pick up a loco of the size and power the L&BR would need so it will have to be a new build, but lets try not to include any of the pasts mistakes, but lets move forward and come up with something much better.

 

At the risk of being repetitious, and while it's always fun to speculate, the Trust (and it seems ENPA) are committed to new-building all four MWs in due course (no doubt, as with Lyn, with considerable improvements under the skin). Saying they shouldn't is simply a waste of typing!
There will no doubt be visiting locos, but I doubt there will be a need for more than 5 - if there is then Axe can pull off season trains.

 

Felix, what's the ENPA got to do with it? Are they investing in the rly?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

If the Operating Company and Trust are funding things, then obviously it's entirely a matter for them alone to decide what gets built.

I'd actually thought the debate on motive power was shaping up as both constructive and supportive of the L&B revival, with some very practical considerations being aired. If it's to be a straightforward "shut up and just throw money" approach, count me amongst those who'll be meeting it half way.

 

See post earlier up thread where the ENP's plan requires the L&B to be reinstated substantially the same as it was. It has been assumed this means motive power as well as stations and so on.

 

Well, I'm sure the Trust will listen to its members, but they have seldom shown much interest in the thoughts of non-members as expressed online....

 

Hi Felix I think yours and mine interpretation of what is to be reinstated "substantially the same as it was" may very well be different. I don't think it is meant that the L&BR is to be rebuilt as it was 100% as that would be impossible today, things have changed some of it for the better.

Just think of all the new rules and regulations that have been put in place since 1935? We now have a lot better Heath and Safety rules and regulations, we have fixed time working directive for all railway staff either full time or volunteers just to start with and this is with out all the company rules and regulations that both the Trust and the Railway company have to operate under.

Any new railway has to abide by those rules, as it stands we might even have to go through a tender stage to appoint an operator, I know it sound daft but it is possible at the very extreme, I am not saying everything is hunky dorey far from it, but what we have is better than nothing and if we keep going in this vein we shall get the railway that we can all be proud of.

Changes is not always good, but it is up to us to make sure that what we do is for the best in the long term.

 

My last comment on this topic. I'm not a Trustee and may well be misrepresenting their views.
My understanding is that they are committed to 4 MWs in the long run. I don't recall seeing anything about other motive power. By all means keep making suggestions here on NatPres, but you're more likely to get a response if you join the Trust and ask Trustees directly.

Now I'll keep quiet on this - much to y'all's relief I'm sure!

 

Just noticed another Grob letter on the ENPA planning pages put up a few days ago. Really do not know what to make of it at all, but "deliberately disingenuous" springs to mind. Here is an extract:

"A Gala weekend is advertised for the unveiling of The LYN a completely new engine. the ENPA draft plan hearing, and at every parish meeting, Ian Cowling representative for
L&BR, has stated that the engines are original, and have heritage value.
This announcement, contradicts his deliberately misleading statements to the authority and to
the community, to justify L&BR club, being classified as having heritage value.
It does not.
Kind Regards
Louise Grob"

 

It'd be odd if they did, though that's no reason not to air matters of relevance. Who knows? Maybe something of substance could pop up from time to time, perhaps even reaching the attention of the odd trust member here and there. We're fortunate to count some very experienced and knowledgable folks on this forum, whose opinions plebs like me learn a fair bit from. It's only discussion after all.

However, if the same applies to the planning consultation process, I certainly wasted more than a few hours in researching of issues and submitting referenced comments in support of the L&B application online.

Is it worthwhile discussing specific cases? On a galactic scale, along with 99.999% of everything else with which we occupy ourselves, probably not.

The discussion here so far has taught me a fair bit about the pros and cons of the MW design. I was unaware of any possibility the locos weren't originally designed for the L&B (and it'd be interesting to know for sure), hadn't seen any specific remarks about a firing position better suited to Tolkein's dwarves (though when considering a 'Terrier's" cab, that wasn't actually too surprising) and didn't know about the weight distribution issue. I've learned "Lyd" is a good deal more powerful than the many photos of double headed workings suggest and I've a handle on the operational and maintenance penalties incurred as a specific result of using Joy valve gear. The bit about four coupled locos being easier on sinuous track than six coupled wasn't too much of a shock, but overall, this thread has clarified quite a few issues surrounding these locos.

Relevant or not, I still harbour doubts that the MW design represents the optimum solution for the future L&B, but that isn't my call and it'll come down to the vision of the Trust and how they see the role of the line into the future. How future visitors to Exmoor feel about a journey of an hour plus in compartments with no lavatory, or other facilities, remains to be seen. There's a balance to be struck between pure heritage and modern day tourism requirements. Let's hope the modern L&B finds that balance. If it fails to do so, the ultimate fate of the old line looms like the Gipsy's warning.

 

Leave the lady to her Dionysius Lardner impressions. At least this isn't like the situation prevailing for years at the next line along the coast to the east, where the most serious problems came from certain folk supposedly inside the tent, pi**ing in!

 

I suppose the one slender positive one could draw from all the wasted time, money and effort caused by this individual's ceaseless pi**ing in the wind, has been the mirth caused by her sheer consistent lack of comprehension of the matters in which she professes certainty and expert knowledge.
At least its nearly at an end now, but yes, its definitely been Lardner at work!

 

Maybe she'll move on to Southwold after the successful conclusion of the L&B planning application. The ranks of the East Suffolk Flat Earth Society seem to be thinning somewhat these days!

 

Yes I agree with you that is the long term plan to have four Manning Wardles, and as I have said I don't have a problem with that, it is just they won't be as original as they will be beefed up to suit today requirements, nothing wrong in that either, I don't want to raise anyone hopes of anything being different either, that said should someone come along with a suitable locomotive well that is a different ball game all together, I think the Welshpool is a good example to follow in this case as they have had a number of visiting locos only to find a number of them lacking in power to do a job on the railway long term, I am sure that if they could have found another suitable 2ft 6ins gauge steam loco as a long term addition they would have had it there by now, on paper the restita's looked a good thing but practically they where the worst they every had so I am told I would love to see either a Chinese C2 or Polish PX48 working on that line.

 

Grob spelt backwards is Borg........ Says it all really.

 

May be the L&BR should run an Enterprise special as our resistance in not futile.

 

The W&L situation fascinates me. However many locos have joined the fleet, or visited the line over the years, nothing seems as suitable as the two original Beyer Peacock locos, though with a distinctly improved boiler, courtesy of Swindon, plus more recent front end work. Even the impressive 'Sir Drefaldwyn' has issues concerned with the effects of forces resulting from it's sheer 'grunt'.

Purely out of interest, did any companies other than MW quote for locos for the old L&B? If so, does anyone know whether any details of proposals survive?