FR/WHR questions

Enlarging Garnedd Tunnel wouldn't be much use by itself. Plenty of other parts of the FR are nearly as tight for clearance as Garnedd. With the new 13m coaches that are designed to make maximum use of the FR loading gauge there really is no need to enlarge it.

 

Bill Poacher, grandson of legendary top link driver Bill Hoole, presents Boston Lodge Supervisor Richard Hanlon with the engraved chime whistle from A4 Pacific Silver King, given to his grandfather on his retirement from the East Coast Main Line. The whistle is to be fitted to Prince, the loco driven by Bill Hoole during his retirement on the FR, which celebrates its 150th birthday in 2013. As a teenager, Richard fired for Bill Hoole.

 

Which leads me nicely into a question - what were the original FfR whistles like - and are any still fitted?

 

They were bell whistles similar to ones Taliesin or Palmerston have now. I believe the non chime whistle on EofM is an FR original off Livingston Thomson. It is quite a distinctive shape and can be seen in pictures from the 1930's.

 

Which leads on nicely to a bit of history about the chime whistles which Prince has carried for the past 50 odd years, pretty much identical to the one on EofM (ex LT), these are Vulcan Foundry products fitted when their workers helped out with the rebuilds.

 

Like many tunnels and bridges, the problem is not the width in general but the width above the spring of the arch. I understand that Garnedd tunnel is some 2.6m wide below the arch. A floor lowering would have a minimal impact on the historic fabric, be visually imperceptible and would be much safer than any interference with its width because of the geological fault in the tunnel. Operationally there must be benefit in not having to worry about which rolling stock can be sent to Blaenau Ffestiniog and commercially the possibility of Garratt-hauled specials must be tempting. It is always useful in cases like this to reach clarity between alterations which the company considers are wrong in principle and those for which there is no business case. The latter type could always be open to sponsorship by a fairy godfather.

A lesser obstacle, where there is no heritage conflict, is the restricted headroom at Rhiw Plas bridge. Track lowering here would enable all FR/WHR stock to reach Minffordd yard, which would surely be useful.

 

It's not a case of just dropping the floor level in Rhiw Plas and Garnedd. To get a Garratt to Blaenau you need to:
• Widen the formation (move a mile of dry slate walling) between the Cemetery and Lotties Crossing, including stabilising the trackbed (sand base).
• Increase clearance between running lines at Minffordd.
• Widen formation all the way through Penrhyn (from the top of Gwyndy Bank onwards).
• Widen loop at Rhiw Goch.
• Ease Tylers Curve + Clearances
• Various narrow points between Plas Halt and Tan-Y-Bwlch.
• Width of Rhoslyn Bridge at Dduallt may be an issue.
• Moelwyn Tunnel
• Widen formation at several points through Tan-Y-Grisiau and Blaenau.

All in all too much effort and would destroy a lot of the character of the line.

 

Garnedd tunnel floor has been lowered in the past!

 

Although Garnedd tunnel floor was lowered in early 1968 ( FRM 40 and 41), I have just re read that some scraping and rock removal was done on the sides as well, and even some blasting work ( !).

I think it would be beneficial to the structure gauge if the railhead could be lowered by a further 150mm. With modern cutting equipment it might be possible to remove this more easily than would have been the case 45 years ago. Then the tight fit at shoulder level would be eased, and more constraints on loco cabs and carriages would be eased. I think the rail is already laid on thin sleepers, but we could remove them and fit a slab solution.

However, anything more is pointless, as has been pointed out there is so much more that would need to be done, and for what benefit ?

Regards

Peter

 

Does anyone have a rail to over deck height for Rhiw Plas bridge. I am intrigued to know if GELERT would fit under it, the L&B Bagnall 3023 (the same a GELERT) passed from Minffordd to Boston lodge without it's cab, so width is not a problem, but I am told GELERT is too tall to pass under Rhiw Plas...

 

Looking at a picture of GELERT and GERTRUDE coupled together and seem to be the same (ish) height, I would say that, as GERTRUDE made it under Rhiw Plas bridge when the FR kindly helped with loading GERTRUDE at Minnffordd 12 months ago, GELERT should also fit.
But just to make sure, attain max line speed permitted and close eyes!!!!!

Ian W

 

I believe it helps to breath in deeply while pulling your elbows into the body, and maybe bending the knees a little to make the loco as small as possible.

My impression is that GERTRUDE is probably 6-8" shorter than GELERT.

 

The answer is 9ft 8 1/4 in apparently.

 

Or as I would put it 2.953m. It seems terribly mean for a bridge rebuilt in the preservation era. The road is not on any critical gradient at that point so a bit more could have been provided at that time for no discernable cost. Whatever the situation further up the line I still think that there would be advantageous if all the two railways' stock could reach Minffordd.

 

Bear in mind the current bridge at Rhiw Plas gives more clearance than the original (according to Festipedia the old Rhiw Plas bridge, along with old Moelwyn Tunnel defined the old company's loading gauge), and when it was built the bridge was designed to meet the FR's needs. In 1960 re-opening the WHR was still 50 years away, and even if anyone had thought about it, the idea that they'd be using locos that at the time were just a year or two old would have seemed utterly daft.

I'm not so sure about getting a WHR carriage to Minffordd in terms of width, but it just isn't worth the significant amount of money it would need to make it possible.

 

Based on the known details that GERTRUDE fitted and is 9ft tall and my (conservative) guess that GELERT is 6-8" taller, I would suggest there would be some horrible grinding noises and an impromptu sun roof created in GELERT's cab...

 

The FR structure gauge published in WHR Renaissance gives the FR clear height as 9'6", but remember the curvature of the shoulders due to Garnedd, but Rhiw Plas should be all right, so a possible tight fit ?? Remember the width clearances through cemetery cutting are also very tight.

Regards

Peter

 

They do fit but they are quite close in places. One carriage was gauged as far as Garnedd Tunnel just to give an idea of how much it would cost to make the FR fit WHR rolling stock. The answer was too much in terms of both money and destroying the fabric of the FR. So it unlikely to ever happen and there is no real need for it to happen. The latest FR saloons are perfectly spacious for most people. Who needs extra head room if you're sat down?

Tim

 

I did have in the back of my mind an idea that a WHR carriage had been taken up the FR for gauging trials, but couldn't remember the outcome. Thanks for confirming it. I can't see any real benefit anyway to getting WHR stock cleared to run as far as Minffordd, other than for storage.

 

I would think that the WHR carriages are longer might also add to the equation? Isn't there some kind of restriction on what can go into Minffordd yard anyway, seem to remember that certain FR carriages and double engines were excluded at some point in the past?

Malc