Jump to content

Martin Shaw

Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

83 profile views
  1. There is some truth in what you say however the round of tender swapping between the D15,L11, and 700 classes was done for the specific reason of equipping the D15 with a 13ft wheelbase tender to fit on Fratton turntable. Besides the 6 wheel tenders held 3500 gallons when full, which is only 4.4 tons lighter than the 4500 gallon variety so not much difference really. I can't think of an instance where the tender weighed more than the loco, in the three classes above D15 loco 59T 15C tender 49T , L11 loco 46T 14C tender 39T 12C, 700 loco 42T 15C tender 37T 14C. These are the as built weights, superheating would add an amount to the loco in due course. Of course as a journey progressed and the water and coal was used the weight of the tender as a percentage of the total diminished and compared to the weight of the train a few tons here and there made little difference. Regards Martin
  2. I had unintenionally overlooked the S11 and L12 class. As far as I can tell the S11's, a class of 10 locos retained the 8 wheel tenders until withdrawal, almost en-bloc in 1951. The L12's were built with 8 wheeel tenders until 1925 when half of the class (10) had 6 wheel tenders fitted and were transferred to the Eastern Division. It would seem that they kept these until withdrawal, again almost en-bloc in 1951. I've had a look at the SEMG info re K10's, it generally agrees with that I posted upthread but I can't find enough concinving evidence that would suggest that they migrated around the engines of the class although undoubtedly some differing couplings may well have occurred at works visits. There is no doubt that the LSWR and it's successor were able to vary types of tender with work according to need with some degree of success, but it does make tracking it all from mostly a century ago a haphazard affair. Regards Martin
  3. In response to Wickham Green, the D15's had 8 wheel watercart tenders when new but were replaced by 13ft 6 wheeled ones in 1925/6. Six of the K10's received 8 wheel bogie tenders from T9's in the summer of 1928, there own short 6 wheeled tenders going to the T9's in a straight swap permitting their use on the Central Section. All of the pre T14 4-6-0 classes, F13, E14, G14, aand P14 had 8 wheel watercart tenders which they kept until withdrawal. additionally all Drummond's early stuff had them as well, T7, E10, the C8's gained 8 wheel tenders between 1902 and 1907. Regards Martin
  4. Hugh On your first point you are correct, It is the Stirling designed steam reverser that originated on the SER and was also used by the SECR and SR. Probably the most reliable steam reverser fitted to UK steam locos. On the second point, you have confused yourself, the upper picture is looking at the RH side of 757, the lower picture the LH side of 788. All the LI class had this pipe but it was in all cases on the RH side. It is the vacuum ejector exhaust pipe. Lastly please don't apologise for not knowing something, a polite question should get a polite reply, I hope mine is. Regards Martin
  5. Thanks PT, I note that 10 and 12 are effectively selected by the position of 9, so your question is a very good one. I don't know enough about GWR/WR practice and whilst I have the recent book I have by no means read enough of it to have an opinion. Regards Martin
  6. The relative displacement of 10 after 12 raises a potential issue. Does 10 precede 12 in the locking, if not then in theory 12 cleared leads to a stop signal 60 feet or so on. I realise custom and practice in the 1950s may well override modern considerations, but does anyone know if the locking table exists? Regards Martin
  7. Looking at both diagrams I felt that the whole arrangement of 9,10,11,12 seemed a bit messy so I looked up Pryer. He states box was reframed c1920 so I think the SRS is probably near enough, going from 15 levers to 12. What I hadn't realised is that 9B points had a one hole FPL so the pull sequence is either 9, 10 or 11,12, BTW did the GWR differentiate point ends worked from the same lever, I think A,B is a BR thing. It would seem likely that a new diagram was provided with the new frame. From a cartographic point of view disc 10 should be the other side of 12. Regards Martin
  8. Unfortunately the wording of the proposal doesn't fully explain the situation, it should have added "if the train has not been accepted by the box in advance and line clear given on the block instrument". The effect of the LC release overrides the berth track circuit occupation release on the home signal lock allowing it to be pulled before the starting signal. Given the propensity of the LMS for sequential locking it has to be this way. It was presumed that given a clear run a signalman would have no need to not pull off all the signals, which is the slight loop hole still present. One manufacturer of Lock and Block systems not mentioned was Tyers and although not as common as Sykes was much used by the Caledonian Rly especially in the Glasgow area. Regards Martin
  9. Mike This was a practice introduced by the LNER, the E&G had a number of boxes with this function, Bo'ness Junction is one that springs to mind and there were no doubt many others. I can't bring to mind any Southern examples either. Regards Martin
  10. Chris I feel your setting yourself up for a hard task if you go down the route of using ground frames to which you want to fit lever locks and circuit controllers. The space requirement is I think going to defeat you. Basically the choice likely available is either Westinghouse D series or SGE, both of which are large and whilst having the capacity for a circuit controller, aren't designed for external use. The other option is baby locks to which you would also need other circuit controllers. It's an awful lot to cram onto the back of a GF and Stevens knee frames were designed before electrickery anyway. I don't say it can't be done, but I wouldn't start from here. Ian S&T is no different from any other part of the many systems that make up an operating railway, they all have to be maintained to a standard. I'm all in favour of simple and safe, and S&T installations on heritage railways are, by virtue of the equipment being a known and proven entity, and the installation being designed to well documented principles and standards. The HMRI have no inspection per se these days anyway, it's done by Independent Competent Persons who are engaged as part of the design process, nor is it technically difficult, so absolutely no reason to shy away from it if that is the railways choice. Of course not having any signalling is also a wholly valid choice but it does bring its own limitations. Regards Martin
  11. Jim has made the point I would have as well. It's worth noting that there were several classes of superheated slide valve engines that seemed to work ok. The advantage of piston valves is that the load on the valve against the ports is not a direct function of steam pressure which means the frictional losses are not so great, live and exhaust steam distribution tends to be better as well. Regards Martin
  12. OK folks, I spent half an hour this morning oiling up an Austerity, the right crank leads the left crank by 90 deg when going forward. The wheel pins for the coupling rods are at 180 deg relative to the crank on the same side of the engine. The crankpin throw is 13", the coupling rod throw about 10". The eccentric throw is I would guess about 4", but to be honest this last is a bit of a guess. Regards Martin
  13. Martin Shaw

    Yeadon Volume 16

    Mark You could try Douglas Blades of Ardrossan, I bought quite a few volumes from him earlier this year, and he had a lot more. Regards Martin
  14. Nick In answer to your question, absolutely nothing, although to be wholly fair to signalmen throughout history I can only think of a small handful of incidents where signalmen have bent or broken rules that resulted in loss of life, and in truth really only one where the signalman possibly had malice aforethought. There was and possibly still is a regulation such that signals cleared for routes with points in them should not be returned to danger until the train has cleared the points, so holding the locking. Treadles and backlocks, not really. Martin
  15. Nick If you compare your two linked photos, the earlier one shows a vaguely triangular device to the left of the points, this is a hook selector used to determine which signal of two worked from one lever would clear as determined by the lay of the points. In the later pic this has disappeared and replaced by a weighted detector, used to ensure the detector slide fully clears the notch in the stretcher. I have found on David Hey's site a picture taken in the opposite direction for the platforms and the running shunt has been removed, and with that gone the locking bar is pretty much redundant, so likely BR took it away. Track circuits on a secondary byway are exceptionally unlikely, to a point I can almost say definitely not. Hope this helps. Regards Martin
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.