Flying Scotsman

A friend in the industry reminded me of this document, which he passed onto me.

It's Network Rail's loadings for the different classes of steam locomotives, classes 8 downwards.


The single chimney A3 is considered to be one coach less than the double chimney A3 unassisted.

Interesting to note there is no such difference identified for the Jubilees of single and double chimney format.

The double chimney A3 is not considered an 8P but is a 7P, as it was in BR days.

The result we have here is the observation that the single chimney/double chimney difference is exactly one Mk1 coach.

The GWR King has only been on the mainline with a double chimney as far as I know in preservation - 6023 did not get out on the mainline with its single chimney I think.

This leaves the GWR Castle with a double chimney, for which there's a clear difference of again, one coach.

In the 8P category I note that the Stanier Princess and 8F are the outliers with their single chimney blastpipes. All the others have double or double kylchaps and the MN has a lemaitre.

Look, I am repeatedly told on here that the last coach is where all of the profit is. I can tell you from experience more money is lost through only partially selling out coaches.

The future may be shorter form trains that can do more to keep up with modern trains, and higher tickets, in any event. That certainly seems to be the case when you look at the railtours being run of late.

I think when you look at this in the round and take in all of the information, you can undoubtedly make the case that the double kylchap A3 is allowed that extra coach and that extra coach could provide more profit on the train. No doubts there.

However if the trend in future is shorter form trains including a diesel, and higher ticket prices, I would argue that the premium you could get from an apple green liveried A3 might provide a product that still works on the mainline, timings and all. Because part of the appeal of Scotsman is its history and look, which I think is the biggest draw.

 

Simon it doesn’t matter what livery 60103 is in she pulls in the crowds. Paint her purple and people will still head out to see her. Personally I really like the condition she is currently running in. To put her back into LNER for me doesn’t make much sense at present. It’s out earning money as the face of preserved steam. Maybe when the next overhaul is due and the NRM decides they want to put another ticket on her, maybe then they should consider the apple green, but for now she looks perfectly fine and is still a huge draw. Personally if you want an apple green loco, Green Arrow might be worth an appeal.

But if you’re still wanting her apple green, why not approach the NRM and see what they say? Worst they can see is no not at the moment

all the best
Matt

 

I believe that was compiled some years ago when there was a double chimney Jubilee working on the main line

 

Your post has encouraged me to read AJP’s comments ( he travelled on the Thames Forth, apparently
losing10 minutes from Edinburgh to Carlisle behind an A3 and then better running behind a Jubilee
afterwards.

I wondered if his conclusion re “A3’s hopelessness” was based on this run or generally over the
Waverley route.

The Railway Performance archive has 12 logs of A3 running twixt Edinburgh and Carlisle
over the period 1930-60 on either the “Thames Forth” or the night sleeper. I have specifically
looked at the start fromHawick up to Whitrope. On all occasions the train was given a push
from Hawick to the platform end. Schedule to pass Whitrope siding was 24 to 26 minutes.
Unchecked times varied from 23mins 11secs ( 1960 with 340 tons ) to 26-51 (1953 305 tons )
Speeds entering the tunnel after the final 2.5 miles at 1/70 varied between 22.5 and 30mph.

Three of the logs were timed from the footplate by Messrs, R.A.H Weight, O.S.Nock and
R.I.Nelson respectively. The Nelson Log ( as one would anticipate ) has by far the most detail.
60067 with 315 tons gross was holding 30mph with BP 210psi, RFO and 40% cut off
The EDHP was c.1240HP ( there was a Senior Inspector on the footplate. 1948 )
On the Nock occasion with a similar load BP fell to 180psi and with RFO and 43%
speed was only 22.5 % ( 1953 )
R.A.H.Weight noted RFO and 35% with 2745 and 385 tons. The time to Whitrope
was 26 minutes and speed c. 23 mph. ( 1930 )
The best of the 12 appears to have been in 1930 when 2748 with 385 tons
reached the summit in 23-47 with 395 tons and entered the tunnel at 30mph.
c.1550 EDHP.
The next highest HP was the last in the series when 60060 reached the summit in
23-11 with 340 tons. (1960 )
Overall the running appears to have been adequate to maintain schedule and
with the exception of 2748 in 1930 was within the capabilities of a Jubilee.

Performances over the Waverley in latter years were at times quire exciting.
Mr. H.G.Ellison regularly timed the 17.52 Edinburgh to Carlisle.
The best was timed in 1957. 60093 with 275 tons passed the summit with 275 tons
in 19-13 with 42 mph attained on the 1/70. c. 1710 EDHP.
( Was 60093 benefiting from modified exhaust. Loco working RFO 50/55 % cut-off)
Other runs on this train included BR 7 MT 4-6-2 70016 235 tons 18-21 to summit,
39 mph entering tunnel (1961)
A4 4-6-2 60027 17-52 with 242 tons and 40 at the summit.(1961 )

Mr Powell may have been correct that the performance of A3s on steep gradients
was poor but on the Waverley route the Timetable demanded no more.

Michael Rowe

ps Did the propensity of A3s to ‘slip’ inhibit drivers from using longer cut-offs ?
There are regular references to ‘slipping’ throughout the RPS Waverley route
collection of logs.

 

Watch this space.

 

I don't think there's a cat in Hell's chance of seeing the V2 ever run again.

(And just to be contentious, I preferred it when it ran as 60800 rather than 4771)

 

Perhaps there is no reference to the Jubilee with double chimney because there was only
one, fitted very late on during BR and there is no performance data from that period ?

Or perhaps it has scant effect ?

I have never been sure as to whether Network Rail’s figures reflect operation post
1972 or rely entirely on LMS/BR data ?

Michael Rowe

 

Once Green Arrow's current loan to the Doncaster Museum ends she will be overhauled.

 

Is that written down anywhere? I’d love to see it but usually issues with the cylinder block are held up as a reason overhaul is difficult, expensive or both.

I’d love to see it happen as I’ve only ever encountered tucked up in the NRM.

Simon

 

Oh Yes? Do the NRM know about this? Who is going to fund it? Who has the spare workshop capacity to carry out the overhaul? Will it be for heritage railway use only or are you hoping that it will go mainline? And if the latter do you really want it altered so much that it will loose much of its originality. It will need to be fitted with at least TPWS, OTMR, GSMR, ERTMS and possibly air brakeing all of which adds extra obstrusive clutter to a loco which is still largely in its steam era condition. IMHO your best chance of seing an operational V2 is to build a new one.

Peter

 

Last time I spoke to someone heavily involved with NRM regarding GA, I was told there was no reason why 4771 couldn’t steam again. Just needs someone to come up with a business plan and the financial wherewithal to finance it. One assumes that nobody has come forward yet.

 

Gorton Works is not there any more to cast and machine the new monobloc.

 

I suspect that seeing how much the 'monobloc' has cost for the P2 in terms of time, effort and cash have made people see reason. Unfair on those who've never seen this marvellous machine in action but I'd rather someone got the large-boilered Ivatt Atlantic steaming again.

The nearest hope of seeing a Gresley 2-6-2 running again is the V4 new build - and I think that may be a very long way off.

 

This is such a poor argument, with my apologies.
We have seen entirely new cylinder blocks cast, fabricated, and welded across a range of locomotive classes. We can literally do it all in this country, and we have done it in preservation.

Please stop feeding into the idea that we can’t do something in railway preservation - if there’s one thing I know to be true, Brits are a bloody minded lot who when told they can’t do something end up reconstructing an entire railway that ceased to exist years ago (take your pick: FR, WHR, Corris, GCR, L&BR, and many many more), building entire locomotives from scratch (any narrow gauge loco and everything up the size of the P2) or restoring coaches that looked ready for the bonfire into magnificent rakes of vintage sets (IOSWR, BR, LNERCE, and many many more, take your pick) or - just for laughs and giggles - a 90mph A4 on the east coast mainline.

Green Arrow is no more a basket case than any other of the NRM locos, and probably has a lot more going for it than most. However it will take a plan, some cash, and time: the first one is doable, the second two require the first and volunteers. Not so easy.

But it’s all doable.

 

Probably the former Michael. The list doesn’t seem to fully reflect the power classes in relation to the work (Stanier 8F is given as an 8P which is an interesting interpretation given the speed restrictions).

I would say it probably needs a focus group, some study, experimentation, recording on board train data and a new version of the list off the back of that. It needs further thought and development IMO.

The king single chimney loco conversion - do we know if we ever got results from its trials that showed any improvement over the original fitting?

 

This 2019 NRM policy document doesn’t say it will be overhauled but does list Green Arrow as one of only 3 NRM locos (Flying Scotsman & Oliver Cromwell being the others) which could realistically be considered for main line operation by the NRM in the 2019-2034 period. It points out Green Arrow’s overhaul might be expensive & complex therefore it’s not the current priority but might still take place during this time period. The monobloc isn’t mentioned.

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org....23-11/op-rail-vehicle-strategy-2019_FINAL.pdf

Anthony Coulls (NRM) used to post regularly in NatPres and I recall him pointing out it wasn’t certain that the monobloc was ‘unrepairable’ - the loco’d have to be dismantled to find out. He also said the monobloc was not the be-all and end-all as far as the NRM were concerned.

 

I don't think I'd read much into it - given "F" classifications are essentially meaningless for steam on the modern network, really they are just putting it in amongst the Class 8 locos interns of haulage power - the caveat being it just has to be timetabled at slower speeds.

There are a few interesting oddities in the list. For example, a Jubilee and an A3 (single chimney) are both classified as class 6, and both allowed a 75mph top speed - but the Jubilee is timetabled at 60mph max. From my understanding of how Network Rail timetabling works, that is an indication that the working assumption is that it will accelerate more slowly, and is closer to its limit on that load / speed combination. So even though both types are allowed the same maximum speed, it is assumed that the Jubilee will take longer to cover certain sections than the single chimney A3 will - in other words, the two types aren't seen as equivalent for timetabling purposes. An original condition West Country is also put down as more capable than Jubilee, and equal to a single-chimney A3.

Tom

 

Out of interest - in the examples above (and others) where the regulator / reverser settings are quoted - does that imply that the timer was on the footplate when the log was taken? I'm not sure otherwise how you can know how the controls were manipulated from back in a carriage?

Not a criticism of the numbers, I'm just always curious when I see such details as to how they were determined.

Tom

 

The problem with "the loco’d have to be dismantled to find out" is what happens if what you then find out is unpalatable? You can end up spending quite a lot of money either to find out you just need to put everything back together again; or else have a larger-than-budgeted repair. So I suspect the cautious response for a public body would be to proceed on the basis of the worst case scenario, i.e. new cylinders will be needed (and be pleasantly surprised if that subsequently turns out not to be the case). Heritage Railways seem more prone to the "if we start, the money will be found" school of restoration priorities, which results in more adventurous projects being taken on, but to timescales that can often charitably be described as "flexible" ...

Tom

 

Fair comments Tom. It is an interesting set of groups, to be sure.