The Midday Scot 19th March 2016

I have plenty of examples of Class 8 Merchant Navy and class 7, (Bulleid Light pacifics), putting in very good performances with bad coal in the 1960s. One of the best was Class 7 4-6-2, 34101 in Feb 1966 with 10/330 tons. Well inside even time start to stop over the short distance 23.5 miles Basingstoke - Woking. Allowing for the signal check approaching Woking the net average speed was circa 71.4 mph start to stop. BR steam history doesn't have vast numbers of 70 mph start to stop steam runs over a short distance like that, even with locos with good coal.

Boiler pressure was 220 psi when we left Basingstoke, but down to 140 psi just after we reached 90mph at Fleet, and when we were close to sustaining 88 mph on near level track after Bramshott Halt. 79 mph over MP 31 and 88 mph around Brookwood. Full regulator and 25% cut off most of the way after we got going. Fireman working on the fire the whole way to get the best he could out of rubbish coal and a loco that also needed a boiler washout. Gordon Porter driving and Tom Moult firing. They knew when they could work a loco very hard to get the best out of a fire messed up by bad coal. And they also knew when to take it easy whilst getting a bad fire etc into good enough condition to work the loco very hard again. I saw that work and the superb run with 34101 in February 1966 first hand as I was standing behind Gordon on the footplate.

Modern day steam crews do not of course have the day after day experiences of dealing with such conditions on a regular, sometimes every day basis, so clearly have to take a lot more care when problems develop.

 

Surely the coal that was in the tender on arrival to Carnforth was loaded at Carnforth prior to its run down to Manchester Victoria to start its trip north or am I missing something here?

 

I get the sense that too many here are wanting to have their cake and eat it in wanting ever-more spectacular feats of haulage.

Trains run to a timetable, and it is a mark of good enginemanship if the crew get from A to B safely and on time; if they achieve that and also deal with curve-balls such as poor coal, then it demonstrates excellent enginemanship. With poor coal, eking out the loco up with a plod up Shap and then letting it run on the easier gradients to regain time showed a lot of skill and understanding of the machine.

If every run becomes a competition to set load-and-speed records up various hills, the risk is a move towards unreliability: I suspect that for most passengers, there is a greater premium on reliably delivering what you set out to do (in terms of running to time); relatively few are going to be obsessed about record setting. What mainline steam needs right now is a bit of boring everyday reliability far more than a few flashy thrashings uphill.

Tom

 

One possible factor is that 46233 was readied for a move to ELR earlier in the month, later cancelled at short notice. If the tender was loaded for that move and 25mph use it may not have been premium quality coal that the engine took to Victoria and then set out with.

 

If as you suggest it was not premium coal it still managed to arrive at Carnforth one down and only two down at Tebay after the climb of Grayrigg and the run through the Lune Valley

 

It has been generally reported the coal was not premium quality, the TI being specifically quoted in this regard. As you point out it puts into even greater context the efforts of the crew to cope so admirably with the hand they had been dealt.
The earlier point being speculated was merely that the planned working changes may have been the reason the tender contained sub standard coal for the job in hand.

 

Coal forms such a small part of the cost of a major steam excursion that it hardly seems worth any depot having less than the best quality coal. In the worst case bad coal could cause a locomotive to sit down on a climb and wreck the timetable.

 

Cant fault your logic but clearly coal of variable quality is out there so one can only conclude penny wise and pound foolish sometimes applies. Whoever picks up the bill for coal surely specifies the quality? Its hard to imagine anything other than 'best' is ever specified for a trip of this sort. Its then in the hands of the supplier to meet the order requirements.

 

The ability to burn bad coal more effectively was why BR went for wide fireboxes where possible, chose a pacific for class 6 duties and wangled a box above the driving wheels in the 9Fs.

 

Why not ask Smith at Carnforth hes a coalman
Your fetiche for coal has to be admired lol






10A supporters club like this

 

The only addition to that equation is whether what is supplied matches the cost .........
It is also a notoriously difficult product to prove quality of with many steps in the supply chain.

 

I was afraid you would have.

 

Thanks for this interesting footage.
Surprised some Whizz hasn't superimposed/splitscreened this with Galateas epic struggle of a few months back. Am I right in thinking that the Plume coming out of the tender is from the Coal Pusher ?

 

I did wonder when someone would bring David Smith into this with a negative spin. As I see it, WCRC bent over backwards to make sure this tour went ahead despite their own problems. It was WCRC stock on the tour for which they were paid but already had a contract to supply. Someone had to open the gate to let the train out in the middle of the night. Coal, like many products, can be of variable quality and you don't know what you have bought until you use it.

What must be recognised is the tour set off on time, despite more obstacles than could be imagined. It arrived on time. A talented crew managed a difficult situation with professionalism. In the current days of limited steam on the mainline, we should be rejoicing at the success of Saturdays tour.

 

I suspect bad coal is a difficult problem to deal with. As others have said, there is often a convoluted supply chain, especially now so little is home produced.

Anyone remember Tornado on day 3 of the Christmas Coronation, 20 November 2010?

Struggled as far as Rugby then gave up because of a badly clinkered fire. Pretty sure bad quality Russian(?) coal was cited as the reason for the problem.

So it can happen to any operator.

 

The variable quality of coal supplied for locomotive use has long been a problem. If you want some fuel for your car, 95 octane, 98 octane, it has to meet a standard. With coal for your locomotive ( or traction engine, or steam launch or anything else that relies on burning this solid fuel) is it supplied to a standard? Having fuel to a standard was tried, but my understanding is that just about anything slipped through. And the same occurs today. A larger grate area is seen as something of a solution to the problem, it works with some fuel types. Having a better exhaust system can be beneficial. You can try a variation in the combustion system. In fact you can throw everything into a design but if the fuel supplied is not of a sufficiently high quality you might as well try to burn ballast (some engines were reputed to be such good steamers that they were considered capable of this feat - those believing this are sadly deluded).
It would be ideal if a consistent quality could be supplied but steam locomotivesght are very minor players when it comes to the quantities used. However as global coal consumption declines who knows what the future might hold.

 

No, the steam from the back is from the firemans arse as he shovels like hell to find some descent rock....