Jump to content
 

6023 dream over?


Hilux5972
 Share

Recommended Posts

To summarise the SR news report.

 

It was due to go to the West Somerset for running in but it seems that it's out of gauge due to platform changes in some locations. The same applies to going to the SVR. The problem is the width over the cylinders as it's already got the reduced boiler fittings and cab roof.

 

They are looking for a work around so that it can work over routes that aren't restricted and spend the rest of the time on heritage railways. However there is the possibility that due to the ICE trains being introduced then it will be back in gauge due to platform clearances being widened for them. Network Rail has apparently been very helpful and is trying to find a solution.

 

 

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I was at Didcot on the 25th October and speaking to a volunteer, 6023 is in bits undergoing maintenance. Both she and 4079 will not be fitted with air brakes as West Coast Railways runs mainline passenger stock with vacuum brakes and they've decided to go with them. I find it ridiculous that British mainline steam locos need to have air brakes with air pumps fitted as vacuum stock was the order of the day for years and perfectly safe. It sounds awful to hear a British steam engine coast into a platform with the air pump pounding away. Saying that air brakes are better than vacuum brakes is utter rubbish. Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. So much in preservation is made from scratch and parts for the vacuum system can be made these days. The coaches if they're air brake only should be converted to vacuum only. That of course is the coaching stock that runs with mainline steam.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at Didcot on the 25th October and speaking to a volunteer, 6023 is in bits undergoing maintenance. Both she and 4079 will not be fitted with air brakes as West Coast Railways runs mainline passenger stock with vacuum brakes and they've decided to go with them. I find it ridiculous that British mainline steam locos need to have air brakes with air pumps fitted as vacuum stock was the order of the day for years and perfectly safe. It sounds awful to hear a British steam engine coast into a platform with the air pump pounding away. Saying that air brakes are better than vacuum brakes is utter rubbish. Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. So much in preservation is made from scratch and parts for the vacuum system can be made these days. The coaches if they're air brake only should be converted to vacuum only. That of course is the coaching stock that runs with mainline steam.   

There was a reason air braking was adopted and apart from a small amount of mainline stock held by West Coast Railways there isn't very much of it about.

 

Given all the safety enhancements that have happened since the Mk1 coach was introduced I'd say we're lucky any Mk1 is allowed on the big railway these days - given what West Coast themselves did a couple of years back we've also been lucky they have not been involved in a serious accident because then I think people might start asking valid questions about how these trains mix it almost daily now with much heavier modern stock be it Pendolinos, Mk4 stock, Freightliners, Aggregates and the like.  I've heard somewhere that one of the touring companies is looking at Mk3 conversions for steam haulage to improve comfort as well as introduce a better standard of safety.

 

Found the item https://www.a1steam.com/category/news/page/3/ 

Edited by woodenhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I find it ridiculous that British mainline steam locos need to have air brakes with air pumps fitted as vacuum stock was the order of the day for years and perfectly safe. It sounds awful to hear a British steam engine coast into a platform with the air pump pounding away. Saying that air brakes are better than vacuum brakes is utter rubbish. Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. So much in preservation is made from scratch and parts for the vacuum system can be made these days. The coaches if they're air brake only should be converted to vacuum only. That of course is the coaching stock that runs with mainline steam.   

 

Its got nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the availability of coaching stock, and perhaps more importantly rescue locos. If a vacuum fitted steam loco fails on the mainline there won't be anything to rescue it as every single diesel ordered since the mid 1970s is air brake only. There is also the little matter that the two types of brakes have very different characteristics and drivers do need regular practice at handling vacuum braked trains if they are to not end up having a SPAD.

 

These were the main reasons EWS (as it was at the time) took the stance that they would refuse to operate vacuum fitted charter trains - with some others following suit. As such by not fitting air brakes a steam, loco owner is actually restricting the number of operators for their machine, which could have implications in terms of generating revenue for its next overhaul.

 

As for your statement that only vacuum braked stock runs with steam - stop talking rubbish.

 

The LBSCR, GER, LCDR and many other railways used AIR Brakes for their trains - it was only the advent of the 'Big 4' that saw a general standardisation on vacuum brakes. Go back to 1920 and Brighton station would be full of locos with Westinghouse air pumps. This was despite the fact that vaculm brakes are much easier to install on a steam loco and has a lot to do with the fact that the laws of Physics prove that air brakes are more responsive and faster acting than vacuum. A distinct advantage on todays busy railway which is there to move passengers and freight round in an efficient manor NOT to indulge the whims of Gricers who are obsessed with the past.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

 

To summarise the SR news report.

 

It was due to go to the West Somerset for running in but it seems that it's out of gauge due to platform changes in some locations. The same applies to going to the SVR. The problem is the width over the cylinders as it's already got the reduced boiler fittings and cab roof.

 

They are looking for a work around so that it can work over routes that aren't restricted and spend the rest of the time on heritage railways. However there is the possibility that due to the ICE trains being introduced then it will be back in gauge due to platform clearances being widened for them. Network Rail has apparently been very helpful and is trying to find a solution.

 

 

 

Jason

 

It was also reported that sister engine 6024 has had new build narrower cylinders fitted precisely to get over the issue. Maybe something for the owners of 6023 to consider in future.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at Didcot on the 25th October and speaking to a volunteer, 6023 is in bits undergoing maintenance. Both she and 4079 will not be fitted with air brakes as West Coast Railways runs mainline passenger stock with vacuum brakes and they've decided to go with them. I find it ridiculous that British mainline steam locos need to have air brakes with air pumps fitted as vacuum stock was the order of the day for years and perfectly safe. It sounds awful to hear a British steam engine coast into a platform with the air pump pounding away. Saying that air brakes are better than vacuum brakes is utter rubbish. Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. So much in preservation is made from scratch and parts for the vacuum system can be made these days. The coaches if they're air brake only should be converted to vacuum only. That of course is the coaching stock that runs with mainline steam.   

 

clearly you've never had any real train handling experience if you believe vacuum braking to be superior to air braking - there's a good reason that VB stuff is all but gone from the main line.

 

And if the sound of an air pump offends , presumably the cab kitted out with all of the latest safety equipment required to run on a main line is equally offputting? The alternative is not to run steam on the main line, which given the behaviour of some people lineside , would be no bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that the air pumps fitted to mainline steam engines are reciprocating pumps is that they are cheap second hand items. The owners could just as well fit axial pumps which wouldn't make the racket but would be more expensive in themselves and would require electricity to power them. Not an impossibility, not at all, but it does add to the cost.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably in a rather small minority in thinking that a Westinghouse pump by the smokebox improves the appearance of a steam engine...

If vacuum brakes were better, or even comparable to air, then I suspect (literally) the entire world would not have standardised on air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jason

 

Just like the model then!

The problem is the width over the cylinders ...

I had to give up running my Hornby King William IV (R2234) not the very latest I hasten to add but the model before.  Not sure if was built to toy standards but it was certainly too wide to fit between my platforms.  No issues with the latest incarnation.

 

Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites

 However there is the possibility that due to the ICE trains being introduced then it will be back in gauge due to platform clearances being widened for them. Network Rail has apparently been very helpful and is trying to find a solution.

 

Network Rail?  Deutsche Bahn surely?  :onthequiet:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that the air pumps fitted to mainline steam engines are reciprocating pumps is that they are cheap second hand items. The owners could just as well fit axial pumps which wouldn't make the racket but would be more expensive in themselves and would require electricity to power them. Not an impossibility, not at all, but it does add to the cost.

 

Regards

Which of course brings the added issue that electrical components don't mix that well with dirty steam engines

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect (literally) the entire world would not have standardised on air.

Like everything in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. It should be remembered that the choice for vacuum was made in the days of steam, and over a century ago at that. One advantage that vacuum had then was that the vacuum could be generated by an ejector rather than a pump. An ejector has no moving parts so is simple and requires little in the way of maintenance (the GWR and LNWR used pumps to maintain the vacuum when running. The LNWR's successor abandoned pumps, partly on maintenance grounds). The vacuum system is also easier to maintain: leaks at the joints between vehicles tend to draw themselves together under the influence of the vacuum inside, while air pipes force themselves apart due to the positive pressure inside.

 

Maximum braking shows little in favour of either system: it's down to the diameter (and thus piston area) of cylinders) and is also proportional to the pressure differential with atmospheric in either air or vacuum systems. Vacuum needed bigger cylinders as the maximum operating pressure was theoretically atmospheric - 14.7 p.s.i. You could make the vacuum brake sufficiently robust to cause wheel slide, which would do nothing to enhance the braking characteristics, just as you could with an air system. Where it fell down was the time delay between a brake demand and it's actuation, especially at the rear of a long train, which in itself could give problems.

 

There is no doubt that air brakes are better in the modern age, where vacuum ejectors are a thing of the past, but don't dismiss vacuum's use in this and other countries as simple reaction: it made sense at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your statement that only vacuum braked stock runs with steam - stop talking rubbish.

 

The LBSCR, GER, LCDR and many other railways used AIR Brakes for their trains

You're the one talking rubbish phil-b259. No where in my post did I state that vacuum brakes were the only braking system used by companies during the steam era. I wrote that the vacuum brake system was the order of the day but I did not write that the Westinghouse air brake system was not used by any railway company in the UK. I'm well aware that other companies used the air brake system. Don't interpret and twist what people write just so you can attack them.    

Edited by faulcon1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You're the one talking rubbish phil-b259. No where in my post did I state that vacuum brakes were the only braking system used by companies during the steam era. I wrote that the vacuum brake system was the order of the day but I did not write that the Westinghouse air brake system was not used by any railway company in the UK. I'm well aware that other companies used the air brake system. Don't interpret and twist what people write just so you can attack them.

The point is that while having an air pump on Clan Line or a GWR castle class loco might not be authentic to that particular loco - you cannot ignore the fact the sound of an air pump running was an everyday sound on large parts of the steam era railway network at certain times.

 

As such your comment about 'mainline steam' does not stand up to scrutiny - the Brighton 'mainline' was every bit a 'mainline' back in 1910 when every LBSCR passenger train used air braking.

 

Equally Mk1s are not vacuum only coaches and neither are some of the MK2s in use by charter operators - so again the fitting of air brakes to a steam loco so it can haul said 'mainline' rakes is equally nonsensical.

 

Perhaps a better way of expressing your views would be to say that you dislike an air pump makes on a loco that never carried one before preservation (a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to take) and that in your view you believe that the availability of vacuum fitted coaching stock (plus suitable diesels for positioning / rescue moves) should be maintained.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trains didn't crash everyday in Britain because of the vacuum brake system. 

 

Trains don't crash every day full stop. Even if the eventual brake power is the same, A vacuum brake takes a lot longer to apply to full service or emergency, at least an extra 10 seconds if not more depending on the length of train.

 

To take just one example, The driver of DP2 reacted very quickly and applied the brakes fully at about 80mph or so. In 10 seconds you travel a long way at 80mph, a couple of hundred yards at least. Had the train been fitted with faster acting air brakes, of identical brake force to the vacuum, even if it could not stop it would have been traveling much more slowly than the 30mph or so it managed with vacuum brakes. This would have resulted in much less damage to DP2 and the following coaches. DP2 would have been repairable, and far fewer people would have died, possibly none.

 

So yes, using vacuum brakes risks killing more people and doing more damage as proved by the above accident, and I am sure there are many other accidents where being able to get the brake fully on 10 seconds or more sooner would have significantly improved the outcome.

Edited by Titan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think we need to understand the needs of the modern railway outweigh the aesthetics of steam engines, they need to coexist in the same space so should be subject to reasonably the same systems - train brakes, signalling actuation, infrastructure clearance etc.

 

For mainline steam to have a future it has to move forward, here we see the difference between preservation and public enjoyment of old objects on the network. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Personally I think we need to understand the needs of the modern railway outweigh the aesthetics of steam engines, they need to coexist in the same space so should be subject to reasonably the same systems - train brakes, signalling actuation, infrastructure clearance etc.

But does that conflict when it comes to braking even exist outside this thread? Some are running with vacuum brakes, so they must be acceptable and not too big a risk, even if from a practical point of view many mainline steam operators have gone for air brakes. So if they fit an air pump for use with whatever air braked stock they've got, fine, if they stick with vacuum brakes and NR is happy to let them run on its network, and all the other authorities are OK with it, fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

But does that conflict when it comes to braking even exist outside this thread? Some are running with vacuum brakes, so they must be acceptable and not too big a risk, even if from a practical point of view many mainline steam operators have gone for air brakes. So if they fit an air pump for use with whatever air braked stock they've got, fine, if they stick with vacuum brakes and NR is happy to let them run on its network, and all the other authorities are OK with it, fine.

 

A couple of things to note:-

 

There have been quite a few moans on this forum from some complaining about the profusion of coupling styles fitted to EMUs / DMUs and the inflexibility this brings in the event of train failures for one unit to rescue another. In that context having a mix of of vacuum and air braked charter operations is not exactly the end of the world is it.

 

BUT....

 

Lots of enthusiasts still chose to ignore the fact that the whole steam charter industry remains massively subsidised by NR in the sense that delay minutes are capped for charter operators at a pretty low level with Network Rail stepping in to cover the reminder - and a hold up on the WCMl does not come cheap! As such there is an argument that until the charter train industry is willing to expose themselves to the full force of the delay minute system (as open access operators like Hull trains do) then it is reasonable for NR to put in restrictions designed to facilitate quick recovery of a failed steam hauled charter train. With the mainstream FOC companies basically being air braked only that may mean restricting vacuum only operations in some form....

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as vac brakes are acceptable on NR, then it's a legitimate choice to not fit air. If the loco owner is happy to restrict the trains they can pull in that manner (because of the limited amount of vac fitted coaches and operators prepared to use them) then that's their choice and it's fine.

 

Though, I can foresee a situation at some point where vac brakes are not permitted on NR, because they might make a train near impossible to rescue, or because drivers don't have enough exposure to the system to be able to use it safely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's all about compromise, a word which many on RMweb hate, regardless of whether it is applied to models or the real thing. Personally I can't see the point in compromising both the looks and sound of a locomotive in order to run it on a main line railway where it is increasingly out of place. Everything on the main line network has changed, from flat-bottom rail to lack of telegraph poles, to modernised or modern stations, and now ugly overhead line masts everywhere. In the end, the only reason for wanting steam on the main line is so that it can run at speed, and that requires the most efficient form of braking which is known and understood by modern drivers. A Bulleid 'Pacific' with an air pump banging away sounds all wrong, but if you want steam on the main line, that's what you have to put up with. I'd rather see steam preserved and running on preserved railways. Even that doesn't fully reflect how it used to be, but it's closer than dimensionally compromises engines on the main line. (CJL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daft question- the air doesn't have to come from on the engine, right?  What's needed is a coach with a diesel engine in, or under it, driving an air compressor.  Surely this isn't beyond the ability of the (preservation side of) railways to create?  I realize that means an additional air line (from the compressor to the 26L(*) valve on the loco), but this isn't rocket science...

A decently muffled IC engine isn't going to make the same noise as a Westinghouse Cross Compound air compressor running away on the engine.  For that matter, it is possible that if a "new" rake of coaches (Mk 3's have been mentioned) were going to be used, that the compressor, along with a HEP generator, could be mounted at the rear of the train rather than the front...or an electric driven compressor mounted in the front coach, with the HEP supplying power ?

 

(*) YMMV, that's the North American brake valve of choice)

 

James

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...