45305

I didnt see the tour, but the Black 5's to Festiniog... did they double head both tender first for part of this trip ?

 

Yes, they went tender first from Bleanau Ffestiniog back to Llandudno Junction.

 

Pretty sure that it had the standard 60mph and 45mph sign in its cab at the Churnet Valley gala when i went on the footplate.

Alex

 

All the above suggstions/reasons fall by the wayside when you consider 825! 45 mph in both directions AND it has a bogie tender. I've said before that a bogie doesn't know whether it is being pushed or pulled so direction and drawar push/pull are irrelevant. I guess, a the end of the day, it is a combination of what you ask for and what the guy signing the bit of paper thinks!

 

As part of the agreement for the NYMR licence for running to Whitby its locos that are mainline registered for the line to Whitby can only travel 45mph as agreed, i believe it is all in the safety case.

Alex

 

Mainly because 45mph is the highest linespeed on the section of the Esk Valley Branch over which the NYMR has a Safety Case! I suspect that, if 825 were approved over a wider part of the network, it too would have a higher speed forward than in reverse, although the differential may be less if the case put forward by Steve were made to RSSB - what is the position with 30777 (only mainline approved loco with a bogie tender )?

 

On my last trip up north, we had to slow for almost every river bridges and there are lots of them between Grosmont and Whitby. I'd be surprised if we got up to 45mph very often.

Richard

 

Yes, of course. But as I explained earlier in the thread, there is a particular policy in force which targets Black Fives against being operated above 60 mph. That policy has been argued against, with some considerable justification, but certain individuals "with influence" have so far prevailed. 45305 did a run to Crewe for an open day and was allowed up to 75 mph as a test, and the inspector on the day submitted a report strongly in favour of making the higher limit permanent, at least for that particular engine. Which incidentally had extensive non-destructive tests done on the moving parts to prove it is a safe locomotive. But that report was rubbished, and so nothing changed, except that in fact other limits were then introduced which affected other classes of engine.

Just to illustrate how absurd it is to use the piston speed of 1600 ft per min as the basis for a speed limit, if turns out that the only class of engine in common use (including 9466) which falls below 60 mph is the Stanier 8F, which reaches that piston speed at 57½ mph. Also when 73096 was operating on the main line - at 75 mph - it actually had smaller wheels than did 45305 due to worn tyres. When all that was pointed out, the response one quarter was "ah, but the Stanier class five doesn't have the steaming capability to sustain up to 75 mph". From another it was "I rode on 45305 on test and the ride was appalling". Another aspect of such a measure is illustrated when classes such as A4 & A1 are considered, because on them that piston speed is reached at less than 90 mph. That was discovered in the 1950's when a similar limit was suggested, after 9F's were found to be doing over 90 on occasions. Which of course would have meant that the faster expresses could not have kept time. Anyway, I think that the A1 people have an uphill battle ahead to gain approval for 90 mph, on that basis alone.

It takes a lot to win over these people with vested interests and prejudices.

 

Regarding suggested speeds for LMS Class Fives, it really is up to the loco owner himself as regards what maximum speed he will permit his property to operate at, particularly in minimising on excessive wear or other potential damage that might be sustained as a consequence of sustained high-speed running.

However, just to put it all back into perspective, might I quote from Alan Castle's "Steam-The Grand Finale" where, in one chapter, mention is made of the final steam working of all of the 20-28 Barrow-Huddersfield parcels on 2nd August 1968, when No 44781, with Carnforth’s legendary Ted Fothergill at the helm is reputed (by some very unofficial passengers in the guard's van) to have touched over 90mph at one point in its dash to Preston on the racing stretch from Lancaster! That was by no means an uncommon event, either, and I am personally acquainted with one Lostock Hall driver who, a few years earlier, had claimed 96mph, again with a parcels working, in the northbound direction along the same route!

Talking of safe running speeds when working tender-first, in the same excellent publication, reference is made to another Lostock Hall driver who, on 29th July 1968, had taken off shed a Black Five instead of the rostered Class 47, for a return passenger trip to Windermere, totally oblivious to the fact that turning and watering facilities had been removed at the destination but 2 days previously!

Although, by this date, much of the trip work for the remaining ‘Black Fives’ inevitably did involve an element of tender-first running at slow speed, the major issue here was that No 45110s return job was at the head of a Class 1 express passenger and, not only that, but with a first booked stop not scheduled until Lancaster! So, 1P27 set out regardless for Preston, but, with little water remaining in the tender, there was no alternative but to halt at the column on the platform-end at Carnforth. In order then to make up time, some exhilarating running ensued, especially on the straight sections between Lancaster and Preston (where some timers said that 74mph was reached!) and with only a minimal delay… all things considered!

Finally, on the footplate of No 45039 returning tender-first back to Preston on an un-fitted trip working from Garstang Town back in 1965, I estimated the speed to have been somewhat in excess of 60mph! Exhiliarating? Yes! Safe? Undoubtedly!

 

I was on that Crewe run and believe me it had no problem in attaining and sustaining 75mph.. 45305 is a very strong locomotive with incredible acceleration and i think is perhaps better than it's class 5 classification would suggest (my personal opinion only with no mechanical backing whatsoever!).

 

I'm not sure what you mean. But the way it reads is not correct. Network Rail set the constraints of what speeds are permitted on the network. They do that in consulation with a committee and with the RSSB, and it is expressed in document form as has been discussed several times. Within those constraints, locomotive owners are of course able to set lower limits if they prefer. In the cases where they do though, that can be interpreted as lack of confidence in the durability of the locomotive. An example of this is 45407, of which the owner has stated clearly and publicly that there is no desire to operate it at over 60 mph. That of course is the same as the current limit anyway, and for the turns that it does it makes little difference. But unfortunately it has been used as further justification for refusing 45305 (and 45231) clearance to exceed that speed. It would be better to accept a higher speed limit for the class of locomotive, and impose a lower limit on individual engines if desired.

One of the problems with the case of the class fives is that two people with GE and GW origins and positions of influence, have a mindset that they don't want that particular class of locomotive to be able to undertake proper main line express work at up to 75 mph. For reasons that have more to do with prejudice than real practical engineering and safety.

 

.

It is a surprise to hear of people who have such a dislike of black fives. While there would be a good few people who would not put them at the top of a list of the most charismatic or spectacular engines, I can't see how anyone can question their competence or reliability. They carried on doing their stuff up to the very end of steam, and in preservation have performed well on the main lines - no less than nine examples having worked on the network since 1971. That must be a record.

Looking forward to hearing of both 45305 and 44932 back in action soon, and I hope that if the owners (or Bert Hitchen with 45231) want to go for a higher maximum speed than 60mph that they can find a way forward.

Didn't 44767 get authorisation for 75mph, or am I imagining things? I seem to remember a tour up the MIdland Main line in 1995ish promoted by the now defunct "Days Out" company advertising 44767 as the 75mph black five. (whether the tour actually ran is another matter)

 

That's the third time you have made this allegation on this thread.

Might I ask the Mods to look at this as any such continued allegation, in the way it is being made, might, just might, be construed as libelous, unless of course impala (or bongo) is able to substantiate the remarks he has made with hard evidence. This is how nasty rumours are spread.

 

Re: Suggested speed limits for LMS Class Fives

No, I absolutely concur with what you are saying – and I apologise for any confusion in your interpretation of my sentiments.

The 1960s (pre-preservation era) examples to which I referred were merely included as an indication of the ‘potential’ of this particular class ... when extended. The footplatemen concerned (known personally to me with reputations as 'thrash merchants'), however, may well have cared little for what the potential effects might have been on their locos arising as a consequence of such examples of sustained high-speed running, for, if anything untoward had occurred out on the main line, they would merely have ‘failed’ the loco upon arrival back at shed. And their employers would have merely coughed-up, without question, for repairs … or sent the loco for scrap. (Witness what happened on the Southern in 1967!)

However, although I have always felt that the speed limits set for particular types of locomotive are often more restrictive than desirable, one really has to take notice of what today's loco owners might be insisting upon ... after all, when someone has to pick up the tab, it never ceases to amaze me how most of the usual critics always seem to disappear over the horizon in a cloud of dust ... and with a very tight hand on their wallets! Raise the limits by all means, if this will provide more paths and routes upon which to operate such machines, but common sense should always be the prime consideration.

Notwithstanding all of that, might I also observe that we regularly read the reports from those who witness this or that engine being driven hard, with some or other record being broken (I hesitate to use the term 'hammered'). But, in the longer term, does extremely high performance really matter all that much? Who really cares if a second or two is shaved off a time recorded between two points, if this has to be at the expense of potential boiler damage or overheated bearings?

Furthermore, as a footnote, I sometimes wonder if it is the self-same 'armchair brigade' who are the first to complain when a particular loco appears to be taking too long to return to steam ... as a consequence of the extent of work necessary and the associated astronomical costs incurred!

As regards the 'prejudice' to which you allude, I really could not comment with any degree of qualification, but, as has been revealed so many times within this very forum, it very clearly does occur .... and will continue to occur whilst the misdemeanours of those few concerned continue to be perpetrated. It really is up to our readership to continue to report any such instances and in an honest and unprejudicial manner.

 

That's actually quite an interesting post. Are you trying to say that you don't believe it, but can't quite find the words to express yourself?

This is the situation.

There aren't any nasty rumours. I think it is self evident that something is wrong regarding the 60 mph imposed speed limit for Cl 5's. What I have been explaining is common knowledge amongst those whose business it is to know these things. Bert Hitchin knows it. Senior members of the 5305LA know it, and a lot of others besides. So I don't feel particulaly compelled to substantiate anything, because it is a matter of fact, and those involved at the sharp end know that very well. Those who are trying to correct the situation don't say much publicly, because naturally they don't want to antagonise anyone. But I am not in that situation, nor connected to it. So I can offer readers of this forum the privilage of learning about these ridiculous things going on behind the scenes. Now why would you object to that, unless you are one of those who wants the 60 mph limit of Stanier Fives to be maintained regardless? The only thing that's nasty is having that mindset, and acting upon it.

 

To be honest I dont see any violations of policy here, I will put a post in the moderator forum, but to me everyones entitled to an opinion and it was properly presented.

 

The tender is a double bogie vehicle with centre pivots. Side control doesn't come into the argument. That is only necessary on fixed wheelbase locomotives where the bogie has to be capable of movement to the side to enable the loco to negotiate a curve.
My original post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, though, simply illustrating a case where a tender loco had equal speeds forward and reverse, for whatever reason.