Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by LN850, May 21, 2010.
I suspect they had too much power for the available adhesion.
..... and brakes! Tom's summary a couple of posts back makes perfect sense. They lasted pretty well though, though I'm still a bit surprised the braking issue was never addressed. I was lucky enough to see C1 in harness at the Bluebell during it's time in the south, where it seemed master of all which was asked of it. Love 'em or hate 'em, you can't mistake 'em for anything else this side of Legoland!
I suspect that once the wartime emergency was over, the Southern would have been once again running less freight. In order to run freights at speeds to fit between an intensive passenger service either they need more of a fitted head than might be used elsewhere, or the train loads needed to be reduced accordingly. (or perhaps both)
Given the above it is perhaps no surprise that Southern region was I believe the first part of BR to ban unbraked freights (1980 if my memory serves).
I think the key statement is in HAV Bulleid's quote: "So the increasing of the Q1 brake power soon got onto Durban's job list in the Drawing Office; but there were always more important jobs and no loud shouting from Traffic and so it never got done." (my emphasis).
In other words, the deficiency wasn't so serious given the normal duties, such that for a hard-pressed drawing office other problems got priority.
While unfortunately having 'a plan' appears to be all too often seen in this light, it is essential for efficient operation - as they say, 'fail to plan and you plan to fail'!
Or, an old one I seem to be hearing a lot lately: 'Plans are useless. Planning is essential.'
I know full well that planning is important and I fully expect Ropley and many other locomotive departments have been doing just that for years. But equally, if all you ever say to the public is that the plan is to provide x number of locos in service at any one time, with an average turnover of one overhaul every y years in support of the known service requirements, and that we're currently working on 98606, 98705, 98805 and 98479 (not entirely made up numbers), that's a perfectly reasonable and indeed measurable objective. Nobody can complain when the next to emerge from the works isn't the one they were told it was going to be five years ago...
So yes, I do think the MHRs willingness to actually set out a more detailed public strategy is going above and beyond what is strictly necessary and therefore commendable. Who knows, it may also help with fundraising a bit...
Point understood! Yes, useful for fund raising and also openness and definitely commendable! BTW, I have never assumed that the lakc of a published plan doesn't mean the lack of an unpublished one too!
One advantage of a published plan is that I think it does both focus the mind before publishing and discourage too many changes of plan afterwards - both of which can be good!
It's really good to see the MHR being open about the proposed order of work. Plans always evolve, so any organisation needs a starting point to cope with the inevitable changes. Hopefully 98628, 98699 and perhaps 98750 will also fit into the queue at some point.
So we can safely conclude that the Waller's Ash over-run wasn't serious!
Joking aside, I'd imagine the work around was simply to set load limits the Q1 could stop without any undue dramas.
It's always struck me as odd that the only place fitted freight stock was routine in these islands was the Irish 3ft gauge, the L&B and L&MVLR .... unless anyone knows of any others. Unfitted freights must have been the bane of many a traffic department!
Looking forward to seeing 30506 back in steam this year. I wonder if the Autumn gala will be based around 30506 returning to steam. With any luck maybe 30847 from the BB could be one of the visiting locos for the gala.
yes I think the railways left it too late to compete with road transport when it boomed. I also think Beeching was too late too, although pruning the branches had already begun before his time.
The railways were in no position to compete. They suffered from two misfortunes. First they were common carriers and had to accept whatever was offered no matter how uneconomic for them. Second their rates were set by government. They were unable to cut their goods carriage rates to meet the competition from unregulated (largely) truck operators who ran on roads heavily subsidised by the public purse using war surplus (WW1) lorries that were in plentiful supply at peppercorn rates. When one takes into account the natural advantage of the lorry in that it can go door to door it was only the restriction in vehicle weight and speed that lasted well into the 1950s (60s?) that kept so much freight on the railways, that and the fact the railways had to carry even the loss making goods.
We are in a unique position (for us anyway) that makes publication of a plan desirable:
1. We have for the first time a number of locomotives that will have to await space in the shed for their next overhaul despite being complete.
2. We already have several overhauls (35005, 34105, 30850, 30506) and a restoration (75079) underway. We cant do everything all at once so we need to prioritise and drive to completion. Three of the overhauls are time-bound.
3. We have recently acquired a well-beloved locomotive, and rightly the membership want to understand plans for it.
When you've answered all the questions, you've provided the plan.
The plan is of course caveated with "any plan remains under constant review and may change at any time". I think it was Patten who said that it wasnt the plan which was important, but the planning was essential.
Do you mean the former governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten?
Any plan is subject to change, i'm assuming that of those engines listed 30506 , will be outshopped later this year, and 35005 some time next year /2020, with 34105 most likily 2020-2021, thats still some 3 years, of course you have to remember at the same time engines will be coming out of traffic as they reach the end of their boiler certificates , i ideally it needs to be one out, one in, so you have sufficient engines to meet your traffic needs, and then you have to look at what engine needs what, for instance, if you have two engines, one needs less work and can be turned round in 12-18 months, vs one thats going to take 3 years, which do you do? my gut feeling is that if 850 hasnt been started, it may be prudent to look at what engine in the overhaul queue needs what, and then to move engines up the queue , and of course you have to separate what is all together already together mechanically, but in need of boiler work , to what is a full strip down and decide what do you do?
..... and Generalfeldmarschall Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke who said "No plan of operations extends with certaintly beyond first contact with the enemy's main force", adding "Strategy is a system of expedients". Only, he said it in German of course.
The Chinese Zhou dynasty general and philosopher Sun Tzu made much the same points, only 2500 years earlier, proving he'd have been a useful chap to have around to manage an overhaul!
Ein Punkt für "Zen und die kunst der Dampflok Wartung"!
"The MHR now has one of the most impressive Loco fleets in the preservation world."
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
From the MHR website:
30499 - SR S15 Class
Status Under restoration
30506 - SR S15 Class
Status Under Overhaul
30828 - SR S15 Class
Status Under Overhaul
34007 - SR West Country Class ‘Wadebridge’
Status Not Operational
34058 - SR Rebuilt Battle of Britain Class ‘Sir Frederick Pile’
Status Under Overhaul
34105 - SR West Country Class ‘Swanage’
Status Under Overhaul
35005 - SR Merchant Navy Class ‘Canadian Pacific’
Status Under Overhaul
41312 - LMS Ivatt Class 2MT
45379 - LMS Black 5
75079 - British Railways Standard Class 4MT
Status Under Restoration
76017 - British Railways Standard Class 4MT
Status In service
80150 - British Railways Standard Class 4MT Tank Engine
Status Ongoing conservation programme and fabrication of parts underway
850 - SR Lord Nelson Class ‘Lord Nelson’
92212 - British Railways Standard Class 9F
925 - SR Schools Class ‘Cheltenham’
Thomas the Tank Engine
Plus 73096 has now returned to the fleet.
I guess having three S15's and four Bulleid Pacifics, the sole surviving Lord Nelson and a Schools Class back on the territory they used to work on is not really that impressive though is it "std tank"............
Bit of a stretch to say that 34058 is 'Under overhaul' isn't it?
Not bad I suppose, but personally I prefer a more diverse show of locomotives like what the Bluebell has or the North Norfolk, a good cross section.
Separate names with a comma.