Jump to content
 

The Stationmaster

RMweb Gold
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    45,451

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by The Stationmaster

    JimC

    Posted

    18 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

    I've also always been sceptical about promoting the idea of the need for short-wheelbase locos working the Paddington ECS duties, considering standard 15'6" wheelbase locos had been doing the job for yonks, and I think your 'weight balance' theory is far more plausible.

     

    What was needed at Paddington was a strong/heavy ECS loco because of the gradient on the 'carriage flyover', and in that respect the 15xx was ideal, although it could be said the 94xx were perfectly adequate for the task, and they existed in plentiful numbers.

     

     

    However the 57XX, various versions, were equally capable on Old Oak Common - Paddington ECS trains - they were allowed 400 tons trailing between Old Oak Common and Kensington which was over a steeper rising gradient (1 in 61) approaching Viaduct Jcn than eitjher the Up (1 in 75) or Down (1 in 93). E&C Lines via the flyover between Old Oak East and Ladbroke Grove.  Very many years ago (obviously) I had a footplate trip on an 8750 on an Up ECs from OCC to Paddington with 13 Mk1s behind the engine and it went up the bank with no difficulty at all.  But of course the 57XX, 94XX, and 15XX were all Power Group C so not much in it in official terms.  incidentally (officially) speed on the E&C Lines was restricted to a maximum of 10mph although it was raised to 15 mph in the late 1960s.

     

    I don't think there was any particular concern about short wheelbase locos for Paddington ECS work because there were no restrictions at all on where the 57XX/94XX could go at Old Oak and Paddington (apart from the need for ATC clip-up on the electrified lines to the suburban station.  So were the 15XX at Old Oak for ECS work because they happened to be 'more modern looking' harking back to the story of the emergence of the 94XX?  I wouldn't know and i doubt if anyone else does but equally there is no doubt they did good work there and the ease of oiling was no doubt popular with the Enginemen some of whom would have come off main line work fora a more sedate or less strenuous life (Paddngton ECS turns were for years the work on which Old Oak Drivers who had ageing or health problems were usually accommodated).  

     

    As an aside in fact the only restriction in the immediate London area on 0-6-0Ts was the Guinness Sidings at Park Royal where in the 1950s 57XX and 94XX were not permitted.    

     

    Photos also indicate that in South Wales 15XX were used to work freight trips which suggests that such work was not beyond their capabilities.

    • Informative/Useful 2
    Yan

    Posted

    Your point numbering on the signal box diagram is slightly adrift.  No 5 is the main line crossover with the single slip running line end forming one end of it.   The slip connection in that crossover will therefore lie normal the other way round and the other end of it will be the connection you have numbered 12.   You have numbered  your Distant Signals but drawn them as fixed distants with a horizontal line through the middle of the arm - you need to get rid of those central lines.  You also need ground discs reading from  the coal stage siding and Running shed Road 4 and the other two point ends need to be numbered as part of the lever frame.

     

    Everything else is pook as drawn but signals 14,15, & 16 should be niuumbered in the opposite order with 16 being the Distant Signal and 14 being the Starting Signal

    Ravenser

    Posted

    An excellent piece of definition, and illustration, of the various ways in which things can be worked on a layout, complete with a really clear line drawn between timetable and sequence working.  

     

    Something BRM ought to copy and publish in my view in order to make it available to a wider audience.   It some ways it's a shame it's on a blog as posting it in a thread might lead to further debate  (although I can understand that could also be a very good reason for posting it in a blog).

    • Agree 1
    wenlock

    Posted

    Dave - the blue looks about right to me but don't forget that I've only seen such signs well into their mature years so some fading is a possibility (although unlikely with quality stove enamelling I would think).  Not sure about the same font for the signalbox as it would have a Reading S&T works cast nameboard or the individual letters in the style of Frome Mineral Junction (have a look at it at Didcot when you're there).

    wenlock

    Posted

    Sorry Dave but I agree with others (various) and don't like that font for that period.

     

    What would be rather nice - if you can access the GWRElist or use the font Ian has used for Modbury you will be heading the right way for the cast iron running-in boards.  With a different font - I'm not sure of the right one and should have taken a picture today when I was looking at then - you could even go for the blue & white enamelled style which would be suitable for your period and definitely differeent from run of the mill.  Take a  trip to the GWS at Didcot as they have some excellent examples of early running-in boards.

    Ian J.

    Posted

    I presume that East Frith is on the level section and not the adjacent steep gradient?  While Grange Knowle is not on a steep gradient I do wonder if it is sufficiently steep to have attracted adverse comment from the Inspecting Officer especially as there is a steep gradient for over two miles on the Sayersbridge side of the station - is that section double line or single?

×
×
  • Create New...