Vintage Trains The Red Rose 16th April 2011

Sorry but there a few points that you have missed. Firstly the loco had covered some 160 miles before it got to Copy Pit, without the fire being cleaned, a great deal of it being covered at or about 75 mph. Secondly it was not being driven flat out and could have done more, the fact that the boiler water level and pressure were maintained throughout gives an indication of that, and there was alway the line speed consideration, particularly as it was gradually accelerating as it progressed up the incline and continued to do so until being eased. There is not a lot of difference between a Castle and a 5 boiler and if you were to study the history of the types a little more closely you would see that the Castle came from the Star which was a 4 cylinder version of the Saint, a close relative of the Halls which we still have, and which of course were Stanier's inspiration for the 5 as he had much to do with the genesis of the Hall. Comparing the Star with the Saint they shared the same boiler and it was noted that the Star is a little over-cylindered, a fact that was taken into consideration when the Castles were designed, again with Stanier undoubtedly involved in their development. It has always been accepted that the Saints/Halls were better at climbing than a Castle (Read OS Nock) and I am sure that a 5 would undoubtedly climb low down equally well, just as I am sure that a Hall would beat it marginally. What a 5 would not do is run as fast or as sweetly as a Castle load for load.

Perhaps you would share the results of your researches with us,and tell us what the 5's load was and how fast it was going, together with how far it had come before it got to Copy Pit.

regards
Bob

 

Bit late but i've finally uploaded my pics from Blackburn & Crewe which can be found at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61102738@N08/5646447503/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61102738@N08/5647010294/in/photostream

 

I quite agree and am aware of all the points u make, what I actually said was the loco did all that was expected of a 4 cylinder engine with quite a light load, with a slight issue, seen on my and other video's, near the summit. I am, and always have been, a 'Castle' admirer. I will post a video on Utube in due course of the class 5 run in question for you to peruse. This is not intended as a 'which is better' debate. More power to your elbow as they say and hope to see many more hill flattening runs in the future.

 

its here.....I like Castles and I like class 5's but which is better......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ggfn-V9H0

 

I don't know the answer but it matters little they are both improved 'Churchward' locos.

 

On those tests with (I think) 6001 and the "garden shed" with the indicator equipment on the loco's front, I think they were aiming for a constant high steaming rate rather than an all out effort. I think they ran with 25 or 27 coaches in the end. Imagine what conditions must have been like for the men taking readings in that indicator shelter (garden shed) on the loco's front? I bet they were deaf for a week!

5043 and the Tyseley experts have left us in no doubt that Sam Ell's double chimney modification to many Castles in the 50's (and right up to 1961, I think) turned an already good machine into a truly dynamic performer, when required.

A couple of ex-Worcester locomen from steam days that I've spoken to felt that the double chimneys didn't make a huge difference to performances on the Worcester-Paddington run. I can only guess the schedules weren't very demanding. Maybe if they'd had to really open the locos out the enhanced performance of the double chimney locos would have been more apparent.

 

Quote Bob Meanley:-

"It has always been accepted that the Saints/Halls were better at climbing than a Castle (Read OS Nock)"

But would a Saint or Hall (or Grange) beat a top class double chimney Castle like 5043 climbing the Northern Hills, or any substantial hills for that matter? I doubt it, also I think O.S.Nock was more experienced with single chimney Castles than the final double chimney evolution.

It seems that 5043 has re-written the history books.

 

Better late than never - 5043 Stalybridge & Copy Pit!

http://youtu.be/nzE8TKPec28

 

Not sure, but theres video's of 5043 on Miles Platting and a video of two black 5's at the same location with only 2 more coaches than the castle, yet they don't appear to be going half as fast as the castle!!!!!

 

If 5043 is to attempt Beattock, please start from Preston to do Shap as well, make sure there are 11 on, fully loaded, and the weather is showery. Then we can compare like for like with 46015 on GB II in 2009. I believe the Guardsman is to do an identical trip in September this year. I wonder if the Carnforth crew will care to or be able to push it as hard again, or if that 2009 run was the loco's prime condition on this ticket. I think 5043 is in that prime condition now, and is a credit to everyone at Tyseley.

 

Or maybe a nice fine day, let's not have it slipping to a stand on the WCML eh? :nono:
I can't understand people desire to push a machine to it's absolute limit...........and then a bit more. Just to see how far it CAN be pushed, until it stops. The thing has shown it's a good bit of kit, it can hold it's head high. It doesn't make sense to me to flog a machine just for the sake of it.

As always, just my opinion.

 

That's not what I'm wanting to see Victor, I actually think 5043 could handle those parameters. What I don't want is to read how 7P loco "X" is as good as or better than 7P "Y", without any truly comparable performance figures. If 46115 was able to go up Shap (in the dry) like a bat out of hell with 11 coaches including a few heavier Pullmans, and take Beattock smoothly (in partly damp conditions, after a change of driver) then all of these factors make up the benchmark.