46115 Scots Guardsman

Water consumption varies enormously. Apart from the obvious load, gradients and speed factors, there's also the condition of the engine to take into account. Mainly the condition of the valve and piston rings, but also valve timing and superheat temperature can make quite a difference too. An engine working within its capacity and with a tight front end etc will go surprising distances on a tenderful compared with one at the opposite end of the scale. But of course NR have to scale it to the worst case when they set a benchmark, which unduly limits the more efficient locomotives. It would be nice if they applied a bit more intelligence to such things. But as usual main line steam is regulated by catch-all rules which don't always make sense to those that have to operate within them.

 

Sorry Bongo, but this is rubbish. I cannot remember an occasion during the last ten years when we at Vintage Trains have had a discussion with either Railtrack or Network Rail regarding water consumption or capacity. The only proviso contained in the guidelines is that there should normally be a 1000 gals minimum margin, which can be a bit onerous when you are running a Pannier tank that only has 1100 gals to start with. The planning of water stops has far more to do with the loco owner and the operator (TOC) and it is the operator who takes the rap if things go wrong and there is a water shortage, and the stoppages that result do not come cheap. The major consideration in planning railtours nowadays is not to prove how smart you are at raising superheat or coming up with some fancy new theory on resetting valves, but has far more to do with the knowledge of where the most convenient water stops are, flow rates of hydrants, and water quality, as some of it is frankly crap and after seeing what it can do to boilers it makes you wonder how the locals survive on drinking it.

One major item that is missing from your list of influences on consumption is crews, and this is a factor which can undo all/any performance enhancement measures which you may care to develop.

It is rather unfortunate that you seem to wish to insult the intelligence of the people at Network Rail who support our cottage industry. They are generally extremely supportive of what we do, without them the foregoing discussion would be pointless. You do have to remember that Network rail does not exist in any way for the operation of steam trains and such activity is miniscule when compared to the day to day business, and they are having to cope with a form of traction which disappeared at least forty years ago and is now on the point where few of NR's (or indeed most TOC's) staff have any direct experience of the needs and peculiarities of steam. There is therefore a great reliance on teamwork between NR, the operator and the loco owner, because that is where, and only where, such residual experience of operating on Network Rail 2009 ( with all the problems, requirements and knowledge of resources) exists. Sorry if this appears to be boring and not the Gung Ho approach to souped up steam that you seem to advocate, but solid reliable performances that do not cause delay and disruption are the aim of the game, as whilst steam does possess access rights, we do not possess the right to screw up other people's businesses trying to prove points.

Perhaps you would care to specify which "catch all RULES" you are referring to and tell us all what they say, for the benefit of contributors who may not have had the chance to see them.

regards
Bob

 

Well, you do surprise me, because further north, it's not a rare topic. Maybe the easy terrain in your area doesn't demand it. Also "Fred Kerr" above, seemed to be saying that he has encountered some sort of standard allowance. How accurate that is I don't know. But in any case after reading a couple of posts expressing surprise at the variations, I decided to highlight some of the reasons why that should be. For you to respond in that way is somewhat uncalled for. I wasn't referring to your personal experiences of recent years, or anyone elses.

If you can't be bothered to pay attention to setting your locos up properly, that's up to you. But anyway that doesn't make any difference at all to the fact that valve settings etc do have an effect on water, and fuel, consumption.

Since I was focussing on variables of the locomotive, I didn't think I would need to mention such outside influences. It goes without saying that crew technique is likely to have an effect. In any case it doesn't undo the benefits of a well prepared locomotive, it's simply another variable that effects the end result, and there has to be some sort of cut off otherwise one could go on endlessly.

That's not what was intended, and I might be insulting your intelligence if I was to suggest you didn't realise that already, but chose to be confrontational instead. If you want to ingratiate yourself to NR on this forum that's fine. But don't try and do it at the expense of others.

Uh! Whose trying to prove a point?

Well, as you know there are numerous examples, one of which is the speed restrictions imposed based entirely on wheel size in recent years. Dreamed up obviously by someone who has no real handle on the practicalities, but allowed their personal prejudices to come into play, and against which there are emerging specific exceptions to make it workable. The last two paragraphs of yours seem somewhat blustering and dare I say a touch arrogant. Coming from someone who was a prominent supporter of limiting LMS class fives to 60 mph come what may, and then proceeding to run one of his halls of the same wheel size at 75, I find that hard to take.

As for your point about a gung ho approach, I take it you're referring to another thread which explained some of the enhancements that were made in the 1980's to 46229. That was simply mentioned in order to provide a bit of insight for the benefit of those who are interested in such things. If you don't like it then pass over it and read something else. I happen to believe that a well set up and tuned engine will always be a better bet than one that just manages to pass the inspections. Over a 2 year period the water consumption of 46229 was more or less halved by attention to detail, which gave it a lot more margin on railtours. Unlike others that would sometimes just about scrape by.

 

In response to Bongo's query of my "NR's 72 mile limit on a 5000 gallon tender" I was made aware of this fact when 4771 Green Arrow had its problems one December when it worked a Preston - Hellifield - Carlisle charter and ran out of water on the S&C just short of its booked Gardsale water stop. When checking with various sources the point was made that the NRM team had requested a water stop at Hellifield, based on their knowledge that there would be much slipping between Clitheroe and Hellifield ( resulting in excessive water consumption ) but an "NR source" had refused to allow this on the basis that "5000 gallons should suffice for 72 miles and Preston - Garsdale is within that range".

I do not know if this was a specific policy figure or simply a "back of the envelope figure" but the consequences of that day reinforces Bob Meanley's point that experience is the glue that links Network Rail, TOC and locomotive owner - especially when it is recalled that the NRM request ( as loco owners ) was over-ridden by Network Rail in the interests of maintaining a timing schedule that was not sufficiently robust to allow for nature in the form of icy tracks.

As Bob also points out - it is not NR's core business to be responsible for steam locomotive operation but simply to provide a path for the safe operation of same with minimum inconvenience to other operators thereby placing the onus on train operators to make the necessary arrangements.

Perhaps also NR is slowly learning the harsh facts of railway operation that some people may know more about specific areas of railway operation than Network Rail - especially as NR is supposedly restricted to track and infrastructure provision - and responsible steam locomotive owners are responding to that circumstance in the selection of routes over which they seek to operate steam traction.

The Tyseley centre, Ian Riley, the WCRC and SRPS operations know both their routes and their locomotive suitabilities / capabilities and - although each have had their problems ( the SRPS with 673, Tyseley with its recent 5029, Ian with 34067, WCRC with 37706 ) - their collective and shared experiences have maintained a steam presence on the main line.

Hopefully the test of 46115 on Tuesday - prior to the use of the loco on the S&C on Saturday - is further evidence of a willingness to maintain steam locomortive operation once assured that the locomotive is "fit for purpose" - and the willingness of locomotive owners to continue "putting their hand in their pocket" despite poor returns and the critical expertise of many an ill-informed critic.

 

Oh dear Bongo you are showing signs of becoming something of a malcontent just lately. I didn't for a moment think that you were referring to our personal experiences, I was merely trying to illustrate for the benefit of most how the system actually works rather than how you imagine it to be, hence your surprise. As I said the arrangement of water stops is something that is very much the preserve of owners and operators to specify given the NR guidelines.

Now is this a statement or another one of your wild allegations, and what experience do you have to make it?

If it was not intended you should choose your words more carefully. You should try to comprehend that people registering a view which differs from yours may not have any intent of being confrontational per se. I have no need to ingratiate myself with NR, we are effectively NR customers, and I fail to see how my comments are at the expense of others. It is just unfortunate that people such as you take cheap shots at the staff at NR (ie at the expense of others) who are doing their best to support us, safe in the knowledge that their NR contracts preclude them from responding to your comments in any way. They do not even have the safety of hiding behind a nom de plume.

Amidst your allegations of bluster, the discussion was about water and you made a pronouncement about the "rules". You seem to have side stepped into other areas in an attempt to evade the question. Are you able to state what these "rules" are or not. I somehow doubt it as you seem to have chosen to evade the question by bluster tactic.

Now that has to come close to a confession of Gung Ho, I never even mentioned 6229. I would normally smile and pass over such postulations, but you have to say that claims of halving the water consumption of a Coronation by playing around with the superheaters and valve settings are a bit far fetched. If this is so it must have been in a pretty dire state. Their previous owners used to manage to get them to take the Perth sleepers from Mossband to Strawfrank on a tankful and you can hardly claim that 29 was doing anything more energetic than that most of the time that you refer to.

 

Many thanks for that Ralph.

 

Shock horror - a question about 46115! Can anyone confirm if the test run is running tomorrow?

 

Have been advised that test now postponed until Wednesday - when I'm working ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

Ah! Cheers Fred! Luckily I'm off all week.

 

Ohhhhh #-o
That is rather annoying, however i did feel it may be postponed due to the snow... I was just getting myself ready for another day off school, ohh well, may travel over on Wednesday depending how much snow is left.

 

some you win , some you loose
was busy on tuesday, but free wednesday.

wonder if they wil fit a snowplow on the front ?

john ;0

 

I wouldn't think that it was worth all the requisite paperwork of an Engineering Change in order to fit one. Did a Royal Scot ever get fitted with a snow plough?

Regards,

Dan

 

Don't need one for Preston. I think here is the only place in Britain without any snow. Still, was hoping to see it, but if it comes through Preston in the afternoon won't be able to. Grrr. Really want to see her sometime, looks fabulous.

 

Same here, working Wednesday, I dont think a swap at work will go down well...

Neil.

 

And just to rub it in chaps, according to the weather forecast there may be a bit more sun about on Wednesday!!! =P~

 

What are the timings for Wednesday then?

 

Same as for Tuesday.

 

Posts not about 46115 have been removed.

 

Thanks for that Austin....

Look forward to seeing your video if you are out :smt023

Neil.