Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

By the 1930s the GWR worked on a basis of empty weight, so (for example) 10 Bulldog 4-4-0s = 7 Hall 4-6-0s.

The numbers get even more complicated when you consider maintenance. The GWR upgraded Stars to Castles on the basis that the larger Castle boiler working at a lower evaporation rate would cost less to maintain.

 

Lokomotiven is indeed the German plural.

 

Still looking. SC Townroe mentions (unsourced, but Townroe was well-connected) that Maunsell intended nine standard classes with five types of boiler: they were what became Lord Nelson, King Arthur, H15, S15, Schools, U, N, Z plus an unbuilt 4-8-0 that would have been based on the Lord Nelson (which eventually emerged as a further batch of S15s). Missing from that list, but built, were the W class 2-6-4T (which I suspect were serendipitous based on availability of Woolwich spares) and the Q class (substituted for a 2-6-0 on cost grounds).

Despite that, and in support of my earlier comment about standardisation and replacement rates: in 1923, the SR had 2,281 locos in 125 classes with an average age of 28 years. By time Maunsell retired, they had 1,814 locos, still in more than 70 classes, and the average age had risen to 32 years!

Tom

 

Tom

During the same period 1923 - 1937; the Southern Railway was also busy with electrification and building EMUs, so the overall need for steam locos was reduced.

 

Indeed, that goes without saying: by 1938 they had 3,000 EMU carriages, a ten-fold increase over 1923. The interesting point though is that despite an ~ 20% reduction in steam motive power, and new Maunsell locos making up about 15% off what was left, the average age of the fleet still went up! In other words, they weren't keeping up with replacement of steam locos even against a declining requirement. Obviously the large amount of capital going into electrification was a major driver of that outcome.

Tom

 

Dampfloks is a commonly used plural.
https://www.dampflokomotivarchiv.de/index.php?nav=1000001&lang=1

 

Particularly surprising is a larger specified load for Ilfracombe than for Plymouth. Any loco (other than a small-wheeled freight loco that would be an embarrassment into and out of Waterloo) that could take 325 tons from Ilfracombe could surely manage any of the others with ease.

 

The traffic managers views of actual requirements i.e. heavier pax nos to Ilfracombe than Bude or Plymouth.
( as per the later introduction of the ‘Devon Belle’ ; although in later years the Brighton Plymouth, service with
a WC/BB, loaded to ten ( c. 320-330 tons Tare ) through to Plymouth. )

Also in the fifties and early sixties WC/BB hauled ten coach trains on Summer Saturdays between Okehampton and Padstow.
There is a log in Winkworth’s Bulleid Pacific’s. EDHP approx 1300-1400 for c.30 minutes duration on the grades
east of Wadebridge.

Regarding the outer London ECS into Waterloo: an M7 worked for many years the stock ( 12 coaches) from
Walton on Thames and reached 40-50 mph on the Local Line twixt Surbiton and Clapham Jct.
(The stock for the 10.30 Waterloo Weymouth)

To haul 325 tons from the Ilfracombe start up the 1/36, (commencing at the platform end ) without banking
would require a loco with a high tractive effort aligned to a low adhesion factor e.g. an 0-6-6-0?

One justification for the Leader concept ? ( In the last years of Ilfracombe operation Warship diesels took nine
coaches unaided out of Ilfracombe. )

Michael Rowe

 

The Southern Locomotives latest news has been updated today, with news of all the fleet. https://southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html

 

The overhaul of, 34007 has started at Riley's works in Haywood

https://fb.watch/fzakmpTZM5/
https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...X6MHe_-_Sui00pns7GMsXqWgUIrlZy05A&oe=632871DE

 

Speaking of Riley's and Bulleid's, has there been any updates on 35009's restoration recently or has it been put on the back burner since COVID began?

 

If that’s the one owned by Riley himself, I understand it’s an ongoing project used to keep staff employed between contract work but not sure where it’s at.

 

I don’t want to speak for Mr Riley but for someone you might not know, it’s never a good idea for you just to refer to them by there surname.
Manners cost nothing my friend.

 

Etiquette is a delicate thing and mutates.

But I think to this day that when somebody is up for discipline - "on the carpet"- it is Mr. Mrs. Miss Ms or whatever & surname - possibly neutral but no way friendly. It was deemed friendlier to address a colleague by his bald surname. Certainly, when Collet was first in charge at Swindon when the works was fighting its way out of the World War I
maintenance backlog - not only its own but a lot that came with the Welsh railways - he received from upper management or the directors a complaint that the works was not
doing well enough. To stress the firmness of his reply to someone personally he pointedly called them Mr in the internal letter. A grandfather of mine used Mr or not in the same way.

In the last 15 - 20 years it has become standard among scholars for the short form to reference a publication to be the bald surname and the year it came out e g "payling2022" - not necessarily a capital letter to start with and if you have more than one publication in year they get a serial number.

I don't know the particular Mr Riley personally either but in a colloquial context like this I would take no offence from people referring to me by just my surname.

 

Just read this on the BBC News site.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63742917

Under one of the pictures, they say this: "Sir Winston Churchill's coffin being put on a Battle-of-Britain-Class locomotive named after him"

Put on the locomotive!!!

 

About as accurate reporting as the low usage figures. Really that should say the number who bothered to pay for a ticket from those stations was:-

 

Didn't you know that his remains went into the firebox. Granted such a thing did not happen then as often as it does these days.

Peter

 

Not officially, at any rate.

 

He was quite a Rotund fellow, they did well to get him through the firehole, especially with those steam operated doors

 

Of course, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty, larger, water borne firehole doors would have been less inappropriate anyway. Was Winston's the last State Funeral of a non-royal* ?


*Before any Express readers kick off, I am aware that strictly speaking at the time, she wasn't, but please let's not go there ..... again!