lms 2500 to steam?

...isn't that more or less what the SVR do each year for their autumn gala?

Although I have a funny feeling some of the sets get split to produce a couple of shorter 'local' services, therefore effectively increasing the amount of services to path for.

Oh well, I suppose ultimately you're not too far off the mark, the maximum anyone can manage to get is about 16 miles, and for the vast majority they'll spend all day/weekend getting nowhere, as their ultimate destination is back where they started from!

 

Gav106: No problem mate, no-one is trying to score points!

Getting back on topic and away from theoretical future galas, I guess we are all agreed that this will be a welcome return to steam of a very useful engine both for shortish-distance mainline trips and heritage line work.

Lets hope it is in reasonable order, bearing in mind this was one of those "first of class" preservations, which I assume were done without any particular thought as to condition, given that I dont think BTC (?) envisaged any future return to steam.

 

On a normal service, The SVR can run 5 full line trains, which was timetable D for previous years. If retimed, a kiddy-bewdley shuttle can be added without too much difficult. More than that requires major retiming and the use of double crossing of trains at stations.

 

Sorry chaps only natural I'm a little biased toward my own railway

The SVR is very lucky in having the paths and sets available to put on a stonking show where every loco gets reasonable use, but there's no such thing as a 'best' preserved railway, for galas or otherwise. For an LMS gala, one of the ex-LMS lines would, in my opinion be most appropriate - ELR, CVR, KWVR (especially if the LMS set could be low-loadered in from the SVR!)

I'll get back in my box and stop dreaming...

 

The SVR has a relativley large number of passing loops, which helps create plenty of paths. The NYMR can get up to five passenger sets in operation on a gala by using two on the Esk Valley line and three on the NYMR itself, plus a shuttle or freights at either end to bring the number up to seven, and on Sunday lunchtimes it replaces one set by the dining train, necessitating six full length passenger sets. The only other line that might be able to come anywhere near to either the SVR or NYMR in this respect is perhaps the WSR, which again has several passing loops, but I don't think they normally have sufficient coaching stock to be able to do it without reducing trainn lengths

 

That's pretty much it, as far as the NYMR is concerned. With an hourly service then you are sensibly limited to nine trains each way over the NYMR and you can
squeeze in two train sets on Whitby-Battersby on a Sunday. Even with layovers, you are looking at seven locos to cover this. Add in Pickering-Levisham and Grosmont-Goathland shuttles will give another two turns, whether freight or passenger, so there is a sensible limit of nine locos on any one day, unless you just want them to stand around and look pretty.

 

Shall we change this discussion about the SVR and NYMR coach rakes.

If 2500 is to be overhauled, who would like to see it storming through Eardington station with say 6 LMS liveried staniers and the Stove R?
No where else in the world can this be achieved.

 

Me. Without reservation.

 

Would take 8 up Eardington no probs but what would it sound like, a small Jubilee?

Cheers Dave

 

Regarding the engine - why wasn't the 3 cylinder 2-6-4 tank design successful? Could there have been any modification/re-design to have made it better (I'm not suggesting that the NRM do this with 2500 by the way)?

 

It was successful for what it was built for, Neil - the London Tilbury and Southend Railway. The extra cylinder gave it the acceleration needed for this outer suburban service. Reasonably enough, and typical of the man, Stanier built two-cylinder, easier to maintain versions for everywhere else where that need for speed was not so great. That's why only 35 were built - but they lasted into the 60s, so cannot have been too unsuccessful!

 

But if the 3 cylinder tank was that good then why didn't it become the LMS' standard 2-6-4 design? Fairburn continued with the 2 cylinder design as did Riddles on BR. There must have been other routes that would have benefited from a fast, powerful tank engine for suburban services. It seems unlike the LMS and Stanier to build a specific batch of engines for one particular route - that's more akin to Gresley and the LNER.

 

I imagine they were not chosen as a standard because the third cylinder does make for a significantly more complicated difficult to maintain machine. The 3-cyls came before the 2, so it may have been that Stanier built one then the other, and realised that the difference was more negligible in acceleration than he had imagined, but by then the 3-cyls were built - that's borne out by the fact that the Standard 4 tanks went onto the LT&SR, I suppose. Alternatively the extra complexity and maintenance just wasn't worth it anywhere other than the LT&SR.
They may have been no better than the 2-cyl variant, but I think it would be unfair to call them unsuccessful - just a little over-engineered?

 

I may have used the wrong word. I had thought I had read somewhere (a long time ago) that they weren't very good steamers hence why so few were built for such a big railway company. But perhaps I'm wrong with my interpretation.

 

It was policy on the LMS during the Fowler era that passenger engines would have three cylinders and the 25XX series of engines were intended for passenger rather than mixed traffic duties as were the Fowler 2-6-4T design. It gave the expected acceleration but there was the increase in maintenance charges too. Later 2-6-4T designs were intended for mixed traffic use but also the increased acceleration of the 25XX was found the be not such an advantage for a Class 4 engine.

Later concepts of engine design included the idea that a design should have the minimum number of cylinders to do the job, but that was after Stanier's retirement.

HTH

Regards

 

The Fowler design was two cylinder though?

 

As has been stated previously, the 3 cylinder tanks were designed and built specifically for use on the LT&S. They did their job, hauling heavy (for a tank loco) trains out of Fenchurch St Station to Southend and back. The Std 4 2-6-4 tanks that were allocated to the LT&S could not perform as well as the 3 cylinder locos. Doncaster Works drawing office designed a double blastpipe and chimney arrangement for them to give the locos a bit more oomph, but none were ever fitted.
The 3 cylinder Stanier locos actually had a lower tractive effort than their 2 cylinder sisters, because the cylinders were smaller bore.

 

As has been hinted, Stanier chose three cylinders as it was thought that the more even torque would allow wider regulator andlonger cut offs at starting but without slipping, so improving acceleration from the frequent station stops on the LT&SR. The theory wasn't proved in practice, while the complication of the middle cylinder and gear remained, so reversion to the simpicity two cylinders was made.

This didn't mean that the engines were unsuccessful; they did everything they were designed to do. I once read that these engines, Class 4, regularly did work that elsewhere was given to Class 5 engines.

 

Thanks for that post along with Orion and Standard Tank's contributions - very interesting and informative.

 

Not read that they were bad steamers but then again I've not read everything written about the class. One Stanier class that have have heard said were bad steamers were his 2-6-2Ts.