West Somerset Railway General Discussion

On top of that, the firing compartment only had a single door and even back then ASLEF expressed doubts about safety.

 

I suspect the separation of driver and firemen without the ability to readily observe what the other was doing and communicate would be frowned upon these days as well!

Out of curiosity, when the WSR operate an auto train with the carriage leading, do they allow the fireman to be unaccompanied on the footplate (i.e. driver in the driving carriage and fireman on loco), or do the rules require a three man crew, i.e. two on the footplate and one in the leading carriage?

Tom

 

I think you could say this about just about everywhere else as well, apart from one or two places that genuinely need something just a little larger or quite a number for whom a 2MT would be plenty. The latter have rocking grates and hopper ashpans as well.

PH

 

One of the problems with the Leader was brought about by remedies to mitigate the separation of driver and fireman (and I think only one door). The boiler was off set so that a passageway could be retained twixt footplate and drivers compartment. This of course led to an unbalanced loco and hence the need for additional ballasting (c.20 tons it would appear.) which greatly increased the overall weight.

I don't think off hand that the Turf Burner was so handicapped.

(I still think a Q1 (as originally drawn by somebody in the Bulleid design team, loco and tender,) enshrined in an overall air smoothed casing, painted in Malachite Green etc would bring a real lift to the Heritage Railway World )

The GWR always preferred to have a passed fireman on the footplate of a loco with auto coach. The Southern was not so concerned: I remember 18 year old firemen solely on the plate of an H. I am not aware that the WSR requires two on the footplate (ie three in total), although in practice there are often two 'up'.

Certainly when we had 'Railmotor' No.93, there was only ever a driver and fireman on both days (four loco shifts) I spent with the ensemble, (although obviously one can walk through the passenger area to obtain access from one end to the other.)

Michael Rowe

 

Judging from someone I met quite recently this is just a little over simplified. He found himself in this position but was evaluated by a locomotive inspector before being allowed to do so regularly. The evaluation was done on the basis that the system would be worked "pin out" as by that time the air system "never worked". The Inspector worked on the basis of realities rather than the ideal.

PH

 

Mr Ivatt's small 'moguls' (plus tank derivative and the Riddles look a likes) are splendid machines. However at 25 mph they 'given the lot' can produce c.600 - 650 EDHP, ie sufficient 'oomph' to maintain 25 mph on our long climb, mostly at 1/92 from Williton to Crowcombe with a six coach train. Hence the below line speed over this six mile section, plus the slow acceleration with a seven or eight coach train, mitigates against their use on the WSR in normal service. Remember that our lengths between passing places are such that the only way we can cope with Summer/peak loadings is to run seven or eight coach trains.

Should, as we hope, pax numbers rise (as indeed the long term financial viability of the WSR dictates) then nine coaches (even ten) will become the norm. The currently ongoing signalling mods at Williton are related to longer trains and less delays passing at the station.

Class 4, or above, steam motive power, is not a WSR luxury, it is a business prerequisite, (similarly for several of the other Heritage Railways.)

Michael Rowe

 

Being a bit of a cynic, I do tend to associate thoughts of "We must have locomotives of a certain size" with "Big Chufferitis" which is an expensive disease to treat. At Dartmouth the gradients are steeper but they do handle seven bogies with a small Prairie. Plenty of Youtube evidence to support this.

PH

 

Paignton to Dartmouth. Half mile level, 1/71R, 1/93R, 1/60R, level through Churston, then 1/75F, 1/100F through tunnel, 1/66F then one mile level.

WSR BA to WD to Watchet, one mile 1/200R varying, One mile 1/65R then post Washford Station 1/74F, 1/211F and 1/76F with two bends to Watchet station,

Paignton Dartmouth bank can be rushed from both directions, BA to WT can be rushed only in the Up direction. However both these banks are short (less than 2.5 miles).

Williton Crowcombe 5.9 miles, average 1/94R. 1/100R from platform end at Williton, 1/68R from platform end at Stogumber, the intermittent stop.

No not a cynic ! just not reviewing the whole picture ie length of line, distance between crossing points, length of adverse gradients etc etc,

Michael Rowe.

 

Trouble is that you don't seem to have read my first posting No. 2323 (i.e. following Black Jim's point that a 4MT would be ideal for the WSR) quite as I wrote it. Nowhere did I say anything about the WSR in particular, only that there were "quite a number" of lines for which a 2MT would be more than adequate. My point that elsewhere a railway with comparable gradients (difficulty of working is largely subjective in this case) was working 7 carriages with similar sized motive power was in response to your reply.

PH

 

For good reason the SVR have, in recent years, restricted 4566 to load 6 (7 lighter LMS) as this class of loco is rather too willing for the longevity of its frame plates. Before that ban regular frame repairs were necessary which has not been the case since. The fact that 4561 is receiving entirely new frames is no coincidence. Given that we want our steam heritage to have a viable long term future there is quite a lot of merit in (modestly) over providing power. That's not to in any way condone 4-6-2itis but more to suggest that a class 5 (or 8f) loco on class 4 work is no bad thing.

 

Agreed - I don't think you can have a sensible discussion about what is the "optimum" size motive power without factoring in the long-term per mile repair costs, and they may take several periods in traffic to become apparent. Moreover, mileage between heavy repairs has an impact on how many locos you need to cover the service, which then comes back to how many overhauls you have to do per unit time. It's a very complex area that doesn't come down to a straight comparison of "what's the smallest grate area that will still pull the load?" Given all that, my general presumption is that a loco that is a little too big for the duties on offer will probably work out cheaper than one that is a little too small, even if that too small loco could be flogged to meet section times.

The other area which I think you have to consider - even though some won't thank me - is the role of enthusiasts in funding what they want to see: if such enthusiasts are prepared to provide significant sums of money to overhaul a large locomotive in a way that they wouldn't with a small one, the larger loco may thereby become more cost-effective to run when assessed on a whole life cost over an overhaul period. All the time certain locomotives attract disproportionate levels of discretionary income, there's not much point saying that those providing it are misguided!

Tom

 

Now that is an argument I can appreciate although, Tell it not in Gath, the frames of G.W.R. designs did have a certain reputation for cracking(!) Does not invalidate your basic premise though.

What was it I was told the other day that a 2MT 2-6-0 could cope with all S.V.R. requirements

Paul H

 

Having crewed an Ivatt 2 on the SVR on many occasions they would (like a 45xx) haul 8 coaches around flat out if pressed. But the longevity consideration eventually prevailed so like the 45xx they were sensibly restricted. There is no way an Ivatt could reasonably be called upon to take load 10 (even though that occurred at least once when fairly ex works) and load 10 is a requirement from time to time when special parties are attached to service trains.

 

46443 was subject to the same loading restrictions as 4566, in that it shouldn't take more than 200 tons, for the later stages of its ticket. I understand that this was primarily to reduce wear as outlined earlier in the thread rather than the mechanical condition of the loco. in that respect it was not permitted to undertake all requirements than regular SVR service requires.
Here again is the difference between what a class of loco can do and what it should be expected to do on a regular basis by conscientious owners.

 

Thank you very much Perhaps you are able to comment please on something else I have heard that a 45xx is at least as capable as a "large" prairie. Apart from wear and tear issues that is.

Paul H

 

I suppose it depends on which aspect of "capable" you are considering.
They are intended for different work with the 45xx most suited to modest speeds on hilly & sharply curved routes whereas the 51xx is more of a mainline loco intended for higher speeds but less able to go everywhere.
In the context of our 25 mph railways both are useful but the 51xx would have the sustained haulage edge over the smaller loco whereas the 45xx can get away & up to line speed quicker having smaller wheels but the same boiler pressure.(the 61xx would have and advantage here with a 225 psi boiler).
The 51xx carries significantly more water as there is a tank under the bunker.
Arguably 4160 is the best of its type as it has double the superheat of all the other survivors.

 

Can anyone provide the relative coal/lubricant costs of different locos on the same trains?

I understand that the size of firebox in Pacifics/9F's can have a major impact on fuel consumption but what about the relative consumption of 4160/4F/7F/80xxx/Hall/Manor/Black5/8F/Whatever on say the WSR

 

Super engine

4160 on the WSR was notable for the ability of to make the superheat delivery that extra ommps once you got everything hot.

The locomotive would be welcome once the overhaul is complete.

Jeff Price

 

The BR Loading Tables for a 465xx from Machynlleth to Talerddig was 138 tons. So 4 coaches?

 

For each revolution of the wheels 28xx is 14.53 feet, 68xx is 17.81 feet and 49xx is 18.85 feet, so with all these engines with the same boiler/firebox/cylinders, and so against the 28xx with their 4'7 1/2" the 68xx with their 5'8" wheels will go 22% further and 49xx with their 6'0" wheels will go 29% further for the same amount of steam used, and as they will need to less revolutions there will be less ware on the bearings etc.