Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo
- - - - -

Use of 0-4-0s on passenger trains.





  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 toffee

toffee

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:00


Their is a small discussion going on on a FB page about the use of 0-4-0s on passenger trains. The post has a photo of Y7 68089 at Seahouses on the North Sunderland Railway wondering if it wasn't legal at the time to use it, the loco seems to be fitted with a vacuum brake but the use of these locos was thought to be frowned upon by the BoT.
Mention is made of the Easingwold ordering a 0-4-0t when it was being built but being told they couldn't use it so bought a 0-6-0 instead.
So my question is why was a rule banning them in force and if it was when did it cease as preserved lines these days do use 0-4-0s on trains.
I'm sure others with more knowledge than me know the answers !

John.

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#2 Oldddudders

Oldddudders

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,503 posts
  • LocationLe Mans, France

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:12

Google LSWR C14 and S14, both 4-wheel locos intended for light passenger duties. I suspect the only bar on their use would relate to available weight and thus effective braking power. 


  • Informative/Useful x 1

#3 Gordon A

Gordon A

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,736 posts
  • LocationBristol

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:34

I also wonder if it is a case of an 0-4-0 is generally not as stable as an 0-6-0 at any speed.

I think there short wheel base makes them unsuitable.

 

Certainly the roughest ride I have had is in a DMU trailer car towed by an 0-4-0 many years ago.

 

Some preserved railways used and still use 0-4-0's on their passenger trains, so IU don't think they are banned from hauling passenger trains.

 

Gordon A



#4 Poggy1165

Poggy1165

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,666 posts
  • LocationNorth of Annesley Junction (Near Manchester, actually.)

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:59

I had the "pleasure" of riding behind a 0-4-0 on a preserved railway some time back, and it made me understand why their use was discouraged. Every blow of the pistons seems to be transmitted through the whole carriage.



#5 Zomboid

Zomboid

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,700 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:01

I had the "pleasure" of riding behind a 0-4-0 on a preserved railway some time back, and it made me understand why their use was discouraged. Every blow of the pistons seems to be transmitted through the whole carriage.

I've experienced that behind a 2-6-2T, so I'm not sure it's because of the wheel arrangement.
  • Agree x 2

#6 Nick Holliday

Nick Holliday

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,474 posts
  • LocationSutton, Surrey

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:40

The Wantage Tramway only had four coupled locos yet provided a passenger service until the nineteen twenties, as did the Wisbech and Upwell line, where the original tram locos were four wheelers, so it seems unlikely that the Easingwold was actually forbidden to use similar locos. As Oldudders has implied, almost every steam railmotor had a four wheeled propulsion unit, some of them 0-2-2 or 2-2-0, and they dated from 1903 onwards.

#7 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,246 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:25

I've experienced that behind a 2-6-2T, so I'm not sure it's because of the wheel arrangement.

Definitely not unique to 0-4-0s, but they probably waddle too, due to having a short wheelbase, which will exacerbate the effect.

 

Riding behind a GWR 8-coupled tank the piston strokes can be felt very strongly and it is quite uncomfortable in the first three coaches when the loco is pulling hard.

 

John


Edited by Dunsignalling, 06 December 2017 - 15:22 .

  • Agree x 1

#8 PatB

PatB

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:29

IIRC the North Sunderland was a b. it of a special case, with inadequate bridges imposing a very low axle load limit which only a few tiny locomotives could meet. It also spent long periods running unbraked passenger trains but I don't think that was with BoT approval.



#9 Nearholmer

Nearholmer

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,847 posts
  • LocationBirlstone

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:12

The Cambrian, IIRC, used the odd 0-4-0ST on branch passenger.

Festiniog England engines.

Every steam tramway in the country (every?).

#10 AMJ

AMJ

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,659 posts
  • LocationSuper Leeds

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:14

The hunting issue giving a slightly jerky ride is often caused by the use of outside cylinders.

NER 1310 H class isimilar to the Y7 is a nice ride.

Just need vacuum or air brake control the train brake

Steam and diesel four wheel locomotives are still used at Middleton

#11 BG John

BG John

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,083 posts
  • LocationWest Wales

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:22

And not just British tramways, although strictly speaking this is an 020, being from foreign parts.
3079371505_2_27_aJiZqNJF.jpg
 

 

GWR No 101, made famous/infamous by Hornby, was built to work passenger trains on the Wrington Vale Light Railway. The reason it didn't was more to do with the technology incorporated into the loco than the number of wheels. I'm tempted to put an EM chassis under one of my spare bodies, and assume the technical problems were overcome!

 

Some steam railmotors were built with what was effectively a separate 0-4-0 loco, and the some locos were later detached, but I don't think in general they were then used on passenger trains.


Edited by BG John, 06 December 2017 - 12:23 .

  • Agree x 1
  • Like x 1

#12 Echo

Echo

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 348 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:30

I have read that the Board of Trade definitely did discourage railways from using 0-4-0T engines on passenger trains.

 

The North Sunderland railway was a long way from London and does seem to have got away with a few no-nos including putting the carriages at the back of mixed trains from time to time, so I wouldn't read to much into their use of 0-4-0Ts

 

The Wantage Tramway was legally a tramway, not a railway, so was subject to a completely different regime of rules and regulations. It too seems to have ignored a few of those.


  • Agree x 1

#13 Nearholmer

Nearholmer

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,847 posts
  • LocationBirlstone

Posted 06 December 2017 - 15:10

It was in being before a good many of them were written, which probably gave it grandfather rights. Or of not rights, then perhaps indulgences.

Edited by Nearholmer, 06 December 2017 - 15:11 .


#14 sir douglas

sir douglas

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,507 posts
  • LocationWakefield

Posted 06 December 2017 - 15:31

the Aberford railway near leeds used their manning wardles on passenger trains up to its closure in 1924

 

for how long were the Furness 0-4-0 tenders in service?

 

and the Corringham light railway in Essex had a Kitson well tank 0-4-0 which was mostly just used on passenger



#15 davknigh

davknigh

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • LocationSunny Southern Ontario, Canada

Posted 06 December 2017 - 18:09

I suspect that Wantage and North Sunderland might have got away with it on the grounds of low speed.

Cheers,

David

#16 Caledonian

Caledonian

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • LocationCurrently near Backworth Colliery but originally from Aberdeen (Kitty)

Posted 06 December 2017 - 19:51

Their is a small discussion going on on a FB page about the use of 0-4-0s on passenger trains. The post has a photo of Y7 68089 at Seahouses on the North Sunderland Railway wondering if it wasn't legal at the time to use it, the loco seems to be fitted with a vacuum brake but the use of these locos was thought to be frowned upon by the BoT.
Mention is made of the Easingwold ordering a 0-4-0t when it was being built but being told they couldn't use it so bought a 0-6-0 instead.
So my question is why was a rule banning them in force and if it was when did it cease as preserved lines these days do use 0-4-0s on trains.
I'm sure others with more knowledge than me know the answers !

John.

 

The North Sunderland only officially became a light railway for the purposes of winding up, having been built before the Act was thought of. Nevertheless once the original Manning Wardle 0-6-0ST gave up the ghost a variety of 0-4-0s were borrowed - an attempt to use a J71 foundered when it split the track on a curve because the wheelbase was too long. An 0-4-0 Armstrong diesel was much more successful, but the Y9 had to be borrowed when it was off for maintenance. Brakes for the passenger service were however insisted on. At one stage an ex L&Y puggie had to be used, but because it didn't have a vacuum brake it was just used for the fish wagons, while any passengers traveled by taxi.



#17 eastglosmog

eastglosmog

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts
  • LocationWest Oxfordshire, by the Old Worse and Worse

Posted 06 December 2017 - 21:15

And there was Dolgoch on the Talyllyn, a longish wheelbase 0-4-0WT.  Also slow and a long way from the eyes of the BoT.


Edited by eastglosmog, 06 December 2017 - 21:16 .


#18 Dunsignalling

Dunsignalling

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,246 posts
  • LocationMilepost 154 3/4

Posted 06 December 2017 - 22:16

And there was Dolgoch on the Talyllyn, a longish wheelbase 0-4-0WT.  Also slow and a long way from the eyes of the BoT.

Still is, on all counts. :jester:


  • Informative/Useful x 1

#19 brack

brack

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 282 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 22:18

I suspect that Wantage and North Sunderland might have got away with it on the grounds of low speed.

Cheers,

David


The north Sunderland got away with it on the grounds that they didn't care what the rules officially were, and they were so well known to the various regulatory authorities and officials that they were ignored at both grouping and nationalisation and essentially nobody much came to check.
Operating and maintenance procedures were pretty flagrantly illegal on many of the smaller narrow gauge lines, perhaps a combination of lack of knowledge by the authorities or turning a blind eye on the understanding that the expense of compliance may render a line unviable and thus deprive a district of the service.

#20 Dava

Dava

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,795 posts
  • LocationEast Midland returned from Eastern Canada

Posted 06 December 2017 - 23:13

The GSWR had 3 steam rail motors which had the normal problem of the engine units transmitting their reciprocating motion to the passenger unit. The third had the loco separated from the coach which was given its own leading bogie and they ran on the Cairn Valley Railway for a few years before all the railmotors were withdrawn. The GSWR also had the biggest 0-4-0T class of all, the 272 class, for dock shunting. The only reason against using 0-4-0s as passenger locos was their unsuitability. The Derwent Valley Light Railway used its Sentinel shunter to run the passenger service in the 1920s before the petrol rail cars arrived.

Dava

#21 Killian keane

Killian keane

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 23:29

What about the wisbech and upwell tramway y6 class, surely they were designed primarily as small passenger engines
  • Agree x 1

#22 pete_mcfarlane

pete_mcfarlane

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 00:33

for how long were the Furness 0-4-0 tenders in service?

 

If you're thinking of the preserved number 20, she was withdrawn by the Furness in 1870. 

 

http://www.furnessra...k/fr20story.htm

 

How about this for a far more recent example of a 4 wheel loco (although not actually an 0-4-0) on a passenger train. CIE's Loughrea Branch, worked by Deutz diesel shunters until closure in 1975. 

https://commons.wiki..._locomotive.jpg



#23 DavidB-AU

DavidB-AU

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,050 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 07 December 2017 - 01:58

Google LSWR C14 and S14, both 4-wheel locos intended for light passenger duties. I suspect the only bar on their use would relate to available weight and thus effective braking power.


Two examples on a railtour.
https://mikemorant.s...-1952/i-4L7NWM4
http://www.bulleidso...mpton_Docks.jpg

Cheers
David
  • Agree x 1
  • Like x 1

#24 wagonman

wagonman

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Locationnorth Norfolk

Posted 07 December 2017 - 10:59

Google LSWR C14 and S14, both 4-wheel locos intended for light passenger duties. I suspect the only bar on their use would relate to available weight and thus effective braking power. 

 

 

I would contest that on the grounds that when separated from their carriage portions (ie as C14/S14) they were primarily used/intended for shunting, not for passenger work.



#25 wagonman

wagonman

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Locationnorth Norfolk

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:03

In this discussion light railways and particularly tramways don't count, and neither do steam railmotors – it could be argued they were 8 wheeled vehicles – but that still leaves the Kerry Donkey...

 

0-4-0 tender engines like Copperknob were usually goods engines, or so ancient that they predated BoT regulations.









Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.