SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

Other than the Clapham Junction to Waterloo ECS's can you tell me where on British Railways a BR Class 3 tank regularly pulled 8 coach trains? Probably the hardest work they had to do were the Cardiff to Treherbert/Merthyr trains and they were normally load 6.

 

Back in July the boiler shop at Bridgnorth was pretty much full with contract work. The only boilers being worked on for SVR engines were those for Port Talbot Rly 813 which is not a service engine, and 1501, which has a reputation of being a bit "bouncy" at 25mph. After 1501's boiler is done then it is back to the boiler off the 75xxx. Bradley Manor is going to be the subject of a quickie overhaul, with the bottom half going to Tyseley. There is a Pannier awaiting a reconstructed boiler unit for which parts have now arrived from TYS. In the shed at BN is "Taw Valley", with the bottom half progressing, and the heavily rebuilt boiler unit progressing at Buckfastleigh, and the Waterman 66xx progressing, but the boiler repair delayed at Crewe due to a theft of copper sheet.
So what should the SVR do? Abandon the "queue" and go for the most suitable engines for overhaul, the "Hall" and the Standard tank maybe? Or even spend their money--if they have any--on something like the 38xx for sale at the South Devon? Or resolve to get the Black 5 done quickly? Maybe from the discussion here about peak loadings it should be the "Hall" and the Black 5?
As other lines have found, you can buy an "in ticket" engine for an instant fix, but it will still eventually need an overhaul. Personally I dont think the SVR needs to add to the fleet, just concentrate on what they have, either in or out of ticket.

I really dont know, I just throw these into the mix for discussion.

 

What's the likeliness of the 66xx staying at the SVR once completed? Is Mr Waterman letting the SVR run it being as they overhauled it, or is it going elsewhere?

In my opinion, I think 45110 should jump ahead of the queue before 75069 simply down the fact that the Black 5 is in a better, overall condition (or is it?..correct me if I'm wrong).

Henners

 

I would have thought that the bottom end overhaul on most of the SVR locos would be straightforward. The expensive bits are the boilers, as 75069 has shown. There is no guarantee that the boilers on the other locos would be any different.

 

The SVR have it for a number of years as part of the argeement. It was 5 years but this might have changed.

 

Assuming they are correct and as suggested the standard 3 struggles on 6 + its not a long term solution to the problem.
I agree that when Taw valley is back in service it gives the railway the best loco for longer service trains perhaps the effort should be pushed in completing this asap.Then put in place a longer term plan looking at the fleet as a whole and maybe rationalise the locos the only keeping the one that are needed and letting the other smaller locos move on to railways which they are more suited.

 

It was really a tongue in cheek reponse to earlier postings first started by a posting by 1471 who said 'The 6ft wheels of a Cl5 are really at or beyond the sensible maximum size for 25mph running making it LESS than ideal.' and subsequent attempts to justify this by LMS2968 by comparing 45110, 42968 & 48773 to show that the smaller wheeled loco performed the best. It ignored the fundamental that the smaller wheeled locos had the greater tractive effort. At the end of the day it is tractive effort that governs the acceleration and hauling power, not simply wheel size. I'm sure a 6'-8" wheeled A3 would have romped away with the load in the same way as the 4'-7" 8F because they have very similar tractive efforts. As you say, DBHP is the real issue, though and it takes the same DBHP to move a train at 25 mph, whatever the wheel size.

 

In the long term it is fundamentally flawed to overhaul locos that are in the best condition because, eventually, you end up with all locos being in poor condition and all requiring significant work. You're only putting off the evil day. Short term gain will give you long term pain.

 

I don't get why a class 3 would apparently struggle on a railway like the SVR which, lets face facts, although it has gradients doesn't have the most onerous banks in the world.

For example, how many is a standard 4, the next power classification up, allowed on the NYMR with its 1 in 49? I also cast my mind back to the summer when I spent a week firing a class 2 loco up a few miles of 1 in 76 with 6 on, and it was a job in itself to keep it quiet and within line speed.

 

For example, how many is a standard 4, the next power classification up, allowed on the NYMR with its 1 in 49? I also cast my mind back to the summer when I spent a week firing a class 2 loco up a few miles of 1 in 76 with 6 on, and it was a job in itself to keep it quiet and within line speed.[/QUOTE]

I think it is 7 on the north yorkshire moors but remember the the class 4 is the smallest loco they use its mostly class and above and all there regualr service trains are mk1 stock.
A good point was made below that you are going to have to tacke some of the difficult jobs such as 75069 at some point or decide that there maybe sme locos that are beyond economical repair and just get a cosmetic restoration and are placed in the engine house i think Gordon may be a case in point.

 

Yes, that is rather the point, but you ignore a lot of issues. The Nominal Tractive Effort given in the Ian Allen ABCs is a purely theoretical value and of little practical use. The Actual Tractive Effort, the force delivered to the track to move the train, varies with speed. A small wheeled engine will deliver more tractive effort at preserved line speeds that a large wheeled one, which will deliver a higher tractive effort at main line speeds.

Incidentally, I didn't say that the Black 'un was unsuitable for SVR use, merely that SVR speeds a little below the optimum for that engine.

 

Just to amplify a bit, the often quoted nominal tractive effort is NOT a totally meaningless figure. It is a measure of the starting tractive effort at zero speed, and gives an idea of the ability of an engine to start a train on a gradient (given adequate adhesion). This is often an important criterion for setting the maximum permitted load over a given route. As speed increases the available tractive effort will fall off, slowly for some engines and rapidly for others. The GWR classified its engines on nominal starting tractive effort, while the LMS/BR power classification is based on nominal tractive effort at 25mph for freight engines and 50mph for passenger engines. So a combination of starting tractive effort and BR power classification for freight (and mixed traffic engines) should be quite a reasonable measure of an engine's suitability for heritage line operation between 0 and 25mph. Of course other things matter too, like the ability to generate steam efficiently at the required steaming rate.

 

Not sure comparisons with the NYMR are valid vs the SVR, Correct me if I am wrong, but dont the NYMR tend to run fixed seven coach formations? The SVR tend to try and match the number of coaches, particularly mid-week and at the "shoulders" of the season, to the likely demand, ie shorter trains.
Also thankfully the SVR does not have five miles of 1 in 49 !

The answer for the SVR( in an ideal World...) has to be a mix of engines, small prairie and Panniers for the lighter trains, and class 5 and above for the weekend 8 and 9 coach jobs. In fairness as far as I am aware the 9F was only used at weekends on heavier turns.

What has to be avoided is the small engines having their guts flogged out on the heavier turns. Wears them out quickly.

 

As you say, quoted nominal Te is not meaningless but it is only a guide for comparison. The actual TE varies throughout a wheel revolution and is subject to a multitude of variables including the diameter of the piston rod and the length of the con rod. It is a complex calculation, which is why the standard formula is taken as an accepted base. Raw TE is what pulls trains and this falls off as rotational speed increases for a number of reasons but primarily becasue you can't leave a loco in full gear as speed increases because it will effectively choke itself. You therefore have to reduce the cut off, which reduces the mean effective pressure, which reduces the TE. It stands to reason that the rotational speed of a small wheeled loco will increase faster than a large wheeled loco and thus the TE will fall off faster.
Of more importance with small wheeled locos is the cylinder/valve design. An austerity tank, with 4'-3'" dia wheels will choke itself at speeds much in excess of 25 mph yet an 8F, with wheels only slightly larger, can happily run at twice this speed.
As I said right at the beginning of this little side discussion, size isn't important. At least it isn't with regard to loco driving wheels.

 

A very good point. The normal load was 5, extended to 6, in the Summer Timetable, by the addition of an all Third (Second) and these were, of course, lighter non corridor stock. The Standard Class 3s were not popular in the Cardiff Valleys Division, and not because they were Standards, but because they weren't really up to the day in, day out thrashing of the stop - start of the work required. They quickly became rough and run down and were sent elsewhere on easier work. They were replaced by the newish and much tougher 41xxs.

It should be remembered that when these services were turned over to DMUs, no acceleration was seen as practical and in some cases the running times were eased by the odd minute.

Having said all that, an 82 would probably be ideal for a line like the Severn Valley. After all it's not going to dashing about at 50mph between stops.

Meic

 

I have to completely disagree with the above quote.

As I read it. Your suggesting that the SVR let the smaller locos leave and use the larger locos which require a higher cost to run? Taw Valley is coming along very nicely. The chassis has been rewheeled and the motion is slowly being reassembled. As with all loco overhauls its dependant on the boiler. It will be finished when its finished.

There is a plan already in place within the MPD to speed up overhauls and refresh the loco owning group agreements.

The SVR has from my count 6 serviceable locos at the moment. 7802 being withdrawn at the beginning of the season left a big hole. 5164 gainfully took up the position of basically doing 2 locos work. Hence why she had 5 beats to bar before she had her VnP.

The SVR need all the locos they have on the railway. 5764, 7714, 4566, 82045, 46443, 5164*, 4150, 1501 all have their uses. Especially on the fringes of the main season. IN the main season locos such as 7812, 42968, 5164, 43106, 34027 come into their own. The ability to be comfortable on 8 coaches day in day out. Letting the smaller locos move on is not something the SVR want or need.

 

The NYMR used to run 7 coaches for most of the time as siding space was at a premium and there was nowhere to put any spare coaches but this hss now been overcome. It's still the standard formation for much of the time but yesterday, they were running two 6 coach and one 5 coach formation! Wartime w/e will see 8 coach rakes, as well, so that will be fun! The 1 in 49 of Goathland bank is only 3 miles although it may seem to be a lot longer one when things aren't going well!

I'm not a regular visitor to the SVR but, over many years, my impression was that they ran 8 coach rakes as standard, even if this isn't the case today. These seem to have been ably handled by the likes of 46443 in the past or are my memory banks failing?

 

The standard for low season is 6 and if trains are shorten it is normally to 6. 8 was used for the summer except where loco limitations prevented this. 46443 has been used on 8 coach trains but it hasn't done it much good

 

The discussion was about comparisons between the GW and BR versions of 2-6-2T and the GW tanks were quite at home with eight as where the BR ones at Waterloo. The gradients on the SVR are not that severe, good enought to be a test yes, but not that severe and, although I don't actually know the gradients on the Cardiff to Treherbert/Merthyr lines, I suspect they were a good deal steeper than anything they will have to face at the SVR.

All this negative talk about this new engine is disturbing, can we wait until the thing actually runs?

Regards

 

I`ll second that Orion. I have a letter from a former engineman and have selected a few quotes from his letter......

"I found them a joy to work on. To start with on preparation, they were very cosy to oil round and the mechanical lubricators did not take much at any time, the cab layout was so simple and straightforward. I never found any problems with stiff injector or water valves etc. never needed a key to assist in turning steam valve on. Never found the reverser or regulator stiff or heavy to work out on the road."

"Coming back to 82029, as I said anyone could get steam with this one, she would steam well against the injector which was needed on Stainmore. Getting these two standards for the Penrith trains, for us was the best thing since sliced bread. They took the work out of work over the top, and run like greyhounds as I mentioned to you on the phone.
Overall a really first class loco. Five or six bogies was no effort to them, I wish we had had them sooner."

"I moved to Scarborough in 1978 and at odd times if spare , talk got round to the old days: we still had a fitter here then,
and he said everyone at Scarborough took to them and were sorry to see them go."

Time will tell and in the meantime the "thing" - 82045 is coming along very well. See www.82045.org.uk for updates.

Regards
82045