Shap Mountaineer: 27/09/25

The answer is probably quite simple, the drafting of GW engines was designed to burn soft Welsh Steam Coal but Bulleid Pacifics weren’t. The Bulleid boiler is probably the best ever designed in this country and would steam on almost anything I’ve been told by old Southern men. I’m sure Nine Elms was supplied by coal from Bettshanger in the Kent coal field. The thing to remember before anyone comments on underperformance of any loco is that unless they were on the footplate they cannot know what sort of problems the crew were facing.

 

I think it is probably worth a further comment or two about coal, as facts are always better than guesses. We have never really used much South Wales coal on charters in recent years, despite GW locos being designed for that. Why? Of course, it burns well, but its detractor is when we are stationary for three-five hours at a destination, it can glue itself to the firebars. Contrary to expectation perhaps we have always found British hard coal to suit us well (and overcome the stationary issue). Daw Mill was good, as was Kiilick. Actually, now we are burning coal from Kazakstan or sometimes Poland, it largely hasn't been 'too bad.' Smokey, yes. More ash, perhaps. The issue is it is inconsistent and can have bits in it which don't burn, even though they look alright until you put them on the fire. You shouldn't blame Carnforth coal or praise Tyseley coal, for the truth is they both come from the same place and probably even arrive on the same ship. It isn't possible to tell whether the coal will work until you put it on the fire

Actually, I didn't know about the 'coal issue' until I got back to Tyseley and nor did anyone else on the train. That was simply because Alastair and Sam were double heading doing their best up Shap and only had an hour to 'recover' at Carlisle before heading back over the S&C.

Because it isn't possible to walk up into the tender under the wires, the 'Carnforth' coal was put in the front of the tender to fill the gap. By the time 7029 was 'well on the way back' this had largely been used up, and so we were back to the coal delivered to Tyseley, which was better, for no reason known to us

We made the operational decisions we did around all this happening on the footplate and negotiating catch up paths on the return

I would suggest that, rather than grumbling and apportioning blame, you should all delight at what our team can do in adverse circumstances, even in 2025, a quarter of a century after BR would have abandoned main line steam.

Our on board stewards were well occupied working out the possible alternatives for passengers to bale out to catch connections, but in the event there was no need, as we caught up time. Isn't that the best result?

7029 is otherwise well, tubes are in stock for the winter. 5043 is very well but tyres are tired to say the least. One contributor mentioned donations; all welcome of course and thanks. Cheques to VTCT and other offers of help can be made by email to enquiries@vintagetrains.co.uk

 

I am not sure it is quite as black and white as that. All the locos (including the single chimney King) in the 1948 Interchange Trials were given South Kirkby coal whichever region they were operating on and the King was noted as "steaming freely" on it. Has Tyseley hitherto had a stash of Welsh steam coal available?

As a matter of interest, the WR ran some additional trials in November / December 1948 using for the express trials both a single chimney King and a double chimney increased superheat King (6022), using Abergorki [sic] coal. The report included an analysis of this coal compared with South Kirkby and Blidworth as below. Of note is that the 28xx recorded a pretty impressive 2.64lbs coal/DBHP hour using it.


It would be interesting to see the analysis of the coal(s) in use by steam locos on the mainline and heritage railways these days. Are we talking of small % differences in BTU per lb / calories per gram, fixed carbon etc or major differences? (and whether the product matches the analysis).

 

I think much the same. In 1968, I would never have believed it if I had been told, as I chased the last steam around the North West, that in 2025 I would be on a GWR Castle steam hauled train up Shap. I was a little disappointed with the decision to put the 37 on the back, but I didn't have to worry about missing connections to get home.

 

I spoke with the loco crew briefly at Crewe in the evening, the loco crew were Alastair Meanley driving, Sam Perry firing north, Tom Allen firing South, and Martyn Fake TI.
Alastair said the restrictions were Oxenholme 30 mph, Penrith 20 mph, the braking at Kirkby Stephen was due to the distant signal being on, Dent 20mph restriction, Ribblehead viaduct and station platform 20 mph….
No mention of bad coal other than it was very Smokey….

 

I think you mean Killoch Michael (Ayrshire).

 

Not at all, GWR engines often burnt coal other than Welsh Steam coal, that is a matter of record if you choose to look for it rather than listen to long held myths.
There are plenty of videos on You Tube taken over the previous 10-15 years of Scots, Jubilees, Bullied Pacific’s, black 5’s, Princess struggling over shap far slower than 7029 on Saturday!

 

I know that, I did say they were drafted to use Welsh coal not that it was used to the exclusion of anything else, as I said it’s only those on the footplate who know what’s happening on the day. We hear a lot about the quality of coal from various countries that really is invalid, a big country like Kazakhstan will mine a lot of different types of coal just as the UK used to. All we do know is that sourcing decent stuff will get progressively more difficult as time goes on

 

Just picking these two comments out, there seems to be much in this thread that suggests that there is a strong suspicion that the whole story was not being told at Carnforth, so what are people really hinting at and not prepared to say....

 

Can you explain the layout at Carnforth? The loco reached the headshunt 25 mins early but was then 25 mins late reaching platform 2 after which it proceeded straightaway to back on.

 

There was also the ECS for Sunday's Saltburn trip in the headshunt at the same time.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...25-09-27/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Just from going by RTT and what has been said about known signalling problems, perhaps having two workings heading out at the same time wasn't the best idea.

 

I suspect that's it, looking at RTT the Saltburn stock seems to have used the DFG (which I assume, no doubt to be proven wrong, is something like the Down Furness Goods, so the avoiding line behind platform 2 which is normally used) which meant Clun had to come through Platform 2 (which would be not the normal direction of travel through that platform), add into the equation whatever the signalling problem is at the south end, plus possibly the disruption which may still be being caused by the works to install the south end link into 10A, plus there are still a load of HST Trailers with barrier and Class 37 in one of the lines at or around north junction and it may have been something of a perfect storm.

What had caught my eye was more the use of terms like 'alleged' and 'we are told' which hints that the whole truth wasn't being told.

 

No conspiracy: I used the word 'allegedly' as at the time lots of theories and rumours were floating around our coach but no hard facts.
As with Michael's comments about the coal, exact details of the days issues weren't fully known until after the event, as everyone at the sharp end was busy trying to keep things moving.

 

Perhaps words such as "allegedly" were not ideal. Still the causes of the delay at Carnforth seem to have been explained very inadequately at the time, with more details dribbling out later. So we're back to the perennial problem of imperfect communication. Even so, half a loaf is better than no bread. Please continue to pass on helpful information when you can and be tolerant if people sometimes get the wrong end of the stick.

 

In my account, I wrote that the delay at Carnforth was down to “A signalling issue”, we were told. My recollection is that this was via a PA announcement by the guard, but may have been in person by the coach steward - I forget which. @RalphW provided more details and confirmed that this was a known issue #57. Either is more than good enough for me. Not sure what more needs to be said, other than for NR to fix it.

 

Thanks for the information, very much appreciated. I know that on the modern railway the Castle can have clearance issues and the LH curving platforms at Oxenholme and Penrith seemed likely locations, similarly with Dent. The 20mph restrictions at Dent and Ribblehead had less effect on overall progress as the locations have a permanent 30mph restriction.

I must admit that I thought that KS might be a speed restriction but @Shep Woolley called it correctly in his post - how could I ever doubt? But why was it a danger? Someone retrieving a lens cap?