West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I quote verbatim " 4.8.1 The following table is a guide to the maximum permitted loading of steam locomotives working (or likely to work) on the WSR "

If it speaks like a guide, looks like a guide says it's a guide it probably is a guide.

Practice under BR varied from Region to Region but generally it was left to the driver as to whether he sought assistance if over the permitted load. There are examples of locos climbing banks well over load throughout the Network e.g. Brittanias on Shap when no banker was available at Tebay at the end of steam and ex LBSC tanks on the Cuckoo line at the other end of England. Exceeding the permitted load seemed a not infrequent occurrence in the Scottish Highlands.

I also remember occasions when footplate crews asked for assistance when actually well under the permitted limit. Sometimes the situation could be somewhat bizarre; the crew of a Banbury based Stanier 5 with 15 on refusing to move without assistance after the stop at Brockenhurst on the through York Bournemouth and causing considerable disruption to services ! Nobody seemed to know whether they were entitled to assistance and if so where it was going to come from !

Michael Rowe

 

Given the wording "likely to work" it's a slightly strange list for visits from potential non-WSR based locos. The GER (sic) B12 is listed, but apparently no likelihood of a certain other type of 4-6-0 that has multiple examples preserved (both pre- and post-grouping build), and a type that had a long association with the proper railways in Somerset to boot!

Tom

 

Not only does it not include S15s, there is no limit for an N15. Yet 777 has visited more than once, and very good it was.

I think Mr Holden, particularly after the rebuilding at Stratford post the 1923 grouping under Mr Thomsons direction, would be surprised that a B12/3 was considered two coaches inferior to a Manor, even allowing for larger coupled wheels !

Michael Rowe

 

I'm sure I'll regret this but in preservation it's often the limit imposed by the owning group that defines peak loading allowed. Sometimes little to do with the theoretical capability of the loco.

 

Nope.

As a WSR line Controller, the relevant page from the Rulebook may use the word 'guide' but in fact it gives the maximum loads which are permissible without the way leave of the Head of Mechanucal Engineering.

Not sure that Michael would have had much cause to deal with such issues as a TTI. It IS something we Controllers do have to deal with on occasion, especially during periods of high demand and difficult Loco availability due to track issues, as this summer has been.

Robin

 

The key words here are "maximum permitted" and elsewhere "must". I would expect that if ever the load exceed the prescribed limit without implicit instructions from the relevant Inspector then there would be a one-way conversation without tea or biscuits.

To be fair to MR, the use of the word "guide" within the rulebook is probably misplaced and ought not to be taken at face value. If it were just a loose guide then the limits would be described as "suggested".

 

West Somerset Railway - Then and Now #46

Minehead platform looking east 1991 / 2017

A preservation view with the new (one coach) carriage shed just open and a whiskery platform still.

Robin

1991


2017

 

I was surprised at the time by your describing the 43xx as more powerful but neglected to comment then. A Manor is several tons heavier than a Mogul, it has a larger grate and a higher nominal TE, and it was BR class 5 against class 4 for the Mogul.

 

I am not a GWR first person so I tread carefully. I have always thought the Manors to be an enigma.

My understanding, apart from being a lighter Grange, of their raisin d'etre was to be lighter than a 43xx 2-6-0 (weight on coupled wheels) ie specifically to work over the Cambrian. I believe in practice they were not permitted over that section until 1943 when they and the 43xx 2-6-0s began to work over those routes.

BR designated them 5MT ( apparently illogical designations are not new ). When Ell/Cook et al carried out their work at Swindon to improve the steaming characteristics of the Manor boiler a BR 4 MT 4-6-0 was tested alongside. As a matter of interest at 18,000 lb/hr (a steaming rate attainable with the Manor only after modifications to the blast pipe etc.) the 75xxx 4-6-0 at 30 and 50 mph developed DHPs of 1015 & 980 and IHPs of 1155 & 1280. The corresponding figures for the Manor were DHP 860 & 800 IHP 1000 & 1100.

Yes the Manor No.14 boiler grate is 22.1 sq. ft compared with the 43xx standard No.4 of 20.6 sq.ft but the corresponding evaporative areas are Manor No.14 tubes 1286 sq.ft S/H 190 firebox 140, 43xx No.4 1350 sq.ft S/H 192 firebox 129. With a high calorific coal (e.g. S.Wales) I believe the 43xx is not grate limited ie with the greater evaporative area the Swindon No.4 will have a higher maximum evaporation rate than the No.14. (and as the front ends are similar will be capable of developing a greater power)

How does this pan out in practice. I think I mentioned previously that when Keith Farr was preparing his article on the Manors for the RM we looked for highest power outputs, the maximum we could find, whether on the Cambrian or between Reading and Redhill was an EDHP of c. 850 (ie agrees with the Swindon tests above ).

There are several detailed logs behind 43xx 2-6-0s indicating EDHPs > 1000 (indeed > 1100 is not unknown, a figure I have observed behind 5322 during the Preservation period), As a matter of interest back in the 1950s the late Professor Tuplin suggested DHP/grate area as a comparator of locomotive performance (as with all such comparators it has its limitations but..) . Top class by this measure out of a large no of different BR classes was a 43xx 2-6-0 performance over c.50 miles on the PDN-Birmingham route. Whether the praise should go to the 43xx design or the Swindon No.4 boiler I leave to others. (Holcroft, I was fortunate enough to meet him at a SLS meeting in the early sixties, would have said it was his design !)

I have no doubt that the 43xx are significantly more powerful than the Manors. The weight restriction led to the No.14 boiler being somewhat of a compromise. As for blast pipe sizing etc According to the official BR notices an optimum diameter was agreed post the Swindon improvements, however my understanding is that post Barry the three Manors that were delivered to the SVR all had different diameter blast pipes. (Definitely an enigma ?)

I observed a day when 7828 & 9351 shared the working on MD1 and with controls and BP similar the advantage to 7828 on the WSR gradients was slight and that is comparing a Swindon No.14 boiler with a Swindon No.2 boiler ( grate 20.4, tubes 1144, SH 82, firebox 122). But then as Robin White notes I am only a TTI.

Michael Rowe

 

Are you the line controller for the flying scotsman visit? Where would you recommend the best place for photography during the visit?

 

Many thanks for that. The implication is that the no. 14 boiler was a poor design and that instead of nominally rebuilding some Moguls into Manors the GWR would have done better to refurbish them as they were.

 

post deleted

 

It isn't practice to say publicly who is on duty when.

As far as photography goes, it is a loco on a train and will be chimney first in one direction and tender first in the other, and the usual considerations of light and the like apply. There are some good guides elsewhere to WSR photographic locations.

It is important to remember that some WSR stations will be restricting access to the stations to ensure that those who have paid to travel get the best possible experience.

It should be an interesting chapter in WSR history.

Robin

 

I have had the privilege of riding on 3 78xx & 7325 during the pres era at mainline speeds & although a limited sample, as might be expected the ride of the 4-6-0s was considerably better than the ride of the 2-6-0. I suggest that the rebuilding of 43xx locos into 4-6-0s was a natural progression to improve, ride, effect on PW, safety at speed, comfort and maintenance.

Re the surviving 78xx locos comparisons are interesting with 7802/12/19 having blast pipe diameters of 5.125/5.250" (two as received from Woodhams/BR; one as enlarged in the pres era as it was "choked"). 7820 apparently has similar at 4.875"; 7828 4.625". Figures for 7808/21/22/27 are not known. It is interesting to compare the noise of these different locos in use with some, mistakenly, associating greater noise with increased power - as some WSR crews will testify.

 

Funny really, I left 'pointless digging' behind when I left the Royal Engineers for the Intelligence Corps .

All utterly fascinating for those who like such stuff but all we Operators are really interested in is what load (usually measured in Mk1 coaches) the WSR CME / HoME says is comfortable without special authority for each Loco. No doubt there are a number of factors which feed into that, and the maximum loads laid down (not a guide) have been influenced by experience.

Something on which I would always defer to the CME / HoME.

Can't ever remember asking a TTI for help in interpreting that, but I DO remember several such conversations with Andy Forster @Aberdare who may have some useful insights into the particular load limits.

Back to the allotment.....

Robin

 

When does 60103 and 34046 arrive to the WSR please?

 

Signalling by the seaside

We longer-serving West Somerset Railway Signalmen tend to find ourselves at Minehead or Bishops Lydeard. But today I had a real treat - a day at Blue Anchor. This is a box with an amazing coastal location. The day started with breakfast at the Driftwood cafe, included beautiful steam locomotives with super shiny paint finishes, a tremendous heritage environment and plenty of folk settling in for what promises to be a splendid Bank Holiday weekend.

And the opportunity to create a MONSTER traffic jam is never to be turned down, especially if you can spot a London registration plate for the longest wait.....only kidding.

 

From a comment on one of the mainline threads, am I correct that 46100 is stabling on the Railway between railtours?

If so, I presume it must have proven not possible to gain agreement for the loco to run services during recent steam problems?

Steven

 

There are concerns over the projected weight on the rear set of coupled wheels wrt current permitted axle loadings on the WSR

Michael Rowe

 

By rail I'm guessing.