lms 2500 to steam?

Ian, that may have been what I read - certainly rings a bell.

 

Sorry, badly phrased! The Fowler 2-6-4T was designed for mixed traffic duties and had two cylinders.

Regards

 

That was the reason some of Stanier's 2-6-2's were fitted with larger boilers the Fowler variety of 2-6-2's were also poor steamers.

Cheers Dave

 

When I was a nipper my uncle had some business to do at a farm at Hadleigh, I wandered down to the railway where the overhead masts were up but it was still steam operated so would be about 1961. Well, I had never seen steam hauled trains going to fast! Ever since, I've been keen on all the LMS/BR 2-6-4Ts.

I recall reading in one of the reminiscence books that with the 3-cylinder tanks you could put them in full forward gear, put the regulator up in the roof and no slipping!

Dave

 

I too have read that it was the 3 2-6-2ts, both Fowler and Stanier, that were the black sheep of the LMS.

 

Here's a question; did these tanks ever work trains away from the LTS, especially in later life, and is there any photographic proof?

 

I think that they would have done some kind of running in job after a heavy general overhaul. Not sure which loco works was responsible for these overhauls.
I have had a look at the allocation records for the 1950s.
42530 was allocated to 66D Greenock from 10/51 to 3/52.and 42535 was allocated, first to 67A Corkerhill in 8/51, then to 66D Greenock 9/51 to 6/52.
Both moved back to the LT & S. Looks like there was some kind of trial being done.
Some photos must exist of these two in Scotland.

 

Interesting. The ScR seems to have used either 2-6-4 80xxx tanks or Black 5s for many of the clyde coast services - possibly more types of traction but those two seem to have been the most photographed. Presumably the 2500s were considered a possibility for these services?

 

I was led to believe the trials were to test whether 3-cylinder locos had any advantages over the 2-cylinder variants and the results suggested no benefit hence further orders for tank classes retained 2-cylinder layouts, although the 3-cylinder layout suited the LTSR duties hence their concentration on that line.

 

Dont know if this has been covered earlier in the thread but isn't there a Snag with using 2500 with a Milk Tanker as water carrier (or indeed any tank engine with any carrier) in that the loco can't be gravity fed as the tanks are higher than the carriers supply, they was a reason given why the panniers hauled the GUV but were not connected.

 

A small pump would easily alleviate that problem, David...

 

Has that ever been done before on the move ?.

 

I'm not sure, but I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be done. It's only water, after all

 

Does it need to happen on the move? If it does I'd have thought that the bottom of the locos water tanks is no higher than the bottom of the tank on the wagon and if that is a problem the feed from the tank could always be connected lower down, closer to the injector. The levels in the loco tanks and the tank wagon should then equalise themselves. That's the great thing about water, given the chance it sorts itself out!

 

Well if you can't take water on the run doesn't that largely defeat the point of a carrier ?, i'd love to see it happen but it's not as simple a fix as it is with tender loco's.

 

Adding complexity, guys. It all needs to be kept simple . That's a good point about water finding its own level, but I cannot recall the details of how the GUV was set up with 5043 for the Bristolian runs - it may well have been commoned up with the tender tank. I'm sure that one of the people involved with it will enlighten us

 

Even if you can't take wate from the tanker on the run, it has got to be better than using a road tanker, for example, which can be delayed by circumstances beyond its control. At the very least, when you arrive at a water stop you can be certain there will be water available and that it can have been treated ready for use, instead of having to accept whatever comes out of a hydrant.

 

I think the problem with the panniers is the position of the tanks - on the side of the boiler. Therefore the bottom of the pannier tanks is higher than the floor level of the GUV. On 2500 with its side tanks, the bottom of the milk tank should be level with the bottom of the side tanks.

 

I actually think Ralph has a good idea.
A water lift is a good deal simpler than an injector and often has to lift water much further than thi would require.
Another idea would be a small builders pump, in fact Brell Ewart used to have one in the support coach for emergency, they will shift a lot of water quickly.
The solution seems to be dead simple West Coast have come up with an elegant solution to carrying water, the rest should be simple.

Cheers Dave