Jump to content
 

LB&SCR E2s working push-pull trains?


Recommended Posts

In 1914 the LB&SCR tried using two of the E2s (first batch) on six coach push-pull trains between London Bridge and Crystal Palace. Apparently they were not a success, but I can't find out what the specific issues were. Does anyone know what they were, and if they could have been rectified?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insufficient fuel capacity I believe. Particularly coal. Compare the bunker size to the 0-6-2Ts doing similar sort of jobs. Simple solution would have been to convert them to 0-6-2Ts with a bigger bunker and increase the size of the tanks (which they did in the next batch).

 

They were mainly used for station pilot duties, shunting and trip work moving goods around London. What is really what they were built for.

 

 

Jason

Edited by Steamport Southport
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Of course it's a fuel. It consists of hydrogen and oxygen. 

 

 

Jason

 

But in a steam locomotive, it undergoes no chemical change; no heat is released by combustion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadn't the Brighton line electrified the inner suburban network with overhead electric, including to Crystal Palace, by this stage?

 

Certainly the Railway Magazine article of ?1911 as found on SEMG suggests so:

 

http://www.semgonline.com/RlyMag/ElectrificationLBSCRly.pdf

 

Maybe the use of E2s was an attempt at wartime economising that didn't pay off.

 

SEMG'S article on the E2 also confirms it was insufficient coal capacity that led to the experiment being abandoned

Edited by The Lurker
additional info re E2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been aware of the E2 motor-train trial, and the stated reasons for it being discontinued, since reading Hamilton-Ellis's book on the LBSCR absolutely donkeys years ago, but The Lurker raises a very good question which should have occurred to me before, but hasn't.

 

Certainly Moody, in Southern Electric says that by this date there was an electric service from London Bridge, although it seems to have been timetabled with a gap in service through the middle of the day.

 

I wonder whether the issue might have been an inability to build motor-coaches during the war, due to difficulty accessing electrical equipment from Europe (specifically AEG in Germany), leading to a shortage of motive power to run the desired timetable. It might have been simply a shortage of spare traction motors to keep the existing fleet fully serviceable, given that the motors were to quite a sophisticated design which may not have been available from British (=American, really) manufacturers Westinghouse or BTH, see 'Latour-Winter-Eichberg' motors here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repulsion_motor. Patronage of the Crystal Palace routes shot-up once they were electrified, rising by 70% between electrification and 1923 (as reported by the LBSCR's electrical engineer), so they were almost certain struggling to service he demand.

 

Certainly the use of a six-car, 2x3 car sets, smacks very much of an electric train with its "motor brake third" motor coaches substituted by ordinary coaches. My copy of the LBSCR coach book is deeply buried, so I can't check whether some of the motor-train coaches were in fact driving-trailers intended for electric trains, or were perhaps built to the same drawings, with later change of motive power in mind. Were any of these coaches re-used to make CW stock, with 'milk van" motor cars, after the war?

 

Using steam locos instead of electrics wouldn't have been a "wartime economy measure", because they would have cost more, not less, to operate, which is why "everybody" electrified suburban railways as fast as their bank-balance would permit.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I've been aware of the E2 motor-train trial, and the stated reasons for it being discontinued, since reading Hamilton-Ellis's book on the LBSCR absolutely donkeys years ago, but The Lurker raises a very good question which should have occurred to me before, but hasn't.

 

Certainly Moody, in Southern Electric says that by this date there was an electric service from London Bridge, although it seems to have been timetabled with a gap in service through the middle of the day.

 

I wonder whether the issue might have been an inability to build motor-coaches during the war, due to difficulty accessing electrical equipment from Europe (specifically AEG in Germany), leading to a shortage of motive power to run the desired timetable. It might have been simply a shortage of spare traction motors to keep the existing fleet fully serviceable, given that the motors were to quite a sophisticated design which may not have been available from British (=American, really) manufacturers Westinghouse or BTH, see 'Latour-Winter-Eichberg' motors here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repulsion_motor. Patronage of the Crystal Palace routes shot-up once they were electrified, rising by 70% between electrification and 1923 (as reported by the LBSCR's electrical engineer), so they were almost certain struggling to service he demand.

 

Certainly the use of a six-car, 2x3 car sets, smacks very much of an electric train with its "motor brake third" motor coaches substituted by ordinary coaches. My copy of the LBSCR coach book is deeply buried, so I can't check whether some of the motor-train coaches were in fact driving-trailers intended for electric trains, or were perhaps built to the same drawings, with later change of motive power in mind. Were any of these coaches re-used to make CW stock, with 'milk van" motor cars, after the war?

 

Using steam locos instead of electrics wouldn't have been a "wartime economy measure", because they would have cost more, not less, to operate, which is why "everybody" electrified suburban railways as fast as their bank-balance would permit.

 

 

Presumably the potential economy would have potentially been the lack of capital outlay; Traction motors required vs available steam locos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my surmise is correct, the issue wouldn't have been capital, which the LBSCR seems not to have had trouble raising in its latter years anyway, but the impossibility of buying from Germany. 

 

The extension of electrification was certainly stopped in its tracks by the inability to buy from AEG during the war, that is an established fact, so I don't think my surmise is any great leap.

 

Westinghouse (Manchester) (1), BTH (Rugby), and possibly one or two other factories,  were almost certainly capable of "Chinese copying" the German kit, or, if the issue was confined to the traction motors then effectively the same machines could, in ordinary times, have been obtained from a French (I think, although possibly Swiss) manufacturer, but with a war on my guess is that Westinghouse and BTH had been directed to more pressing jobs, and that French/Swiss factories were as inaccessible as German ones.

 

Its easy to forget that at the dates in question British really deep knowledge/experience of single-phase AC railway electrification was confined to very few engineers, and the man who had quite literally written the book on it, Philip Dawson, who the LBSCR used as consultant electrical engineer, was himself engaged in war work that had nothing to do with railway electrification.

 

In summary, my surmise is desperation, rather than economy.

 

(1) Westinghouse had supplied one 6.6kV single-phase train to the LYR. Although I'm fairly sure that it had an earlier type of motors and control gear than were used on the LBSCR Crystal Palace stock.

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

LBSC electrification went to West Croydon before the war, then onwards afterwards.

 

if you know where to look there are still remains of the masts, between West Croydon all the way to Sutton.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2019 at 02:05, GWRSwindon said:

In 1914 the LB&SCR tried using two of the E2s (first batch) on six coach push-pull trains between London Bridge and Crystal Palace. Apparently they were not a success, but I can't find out what the specific issues were. Does anyone know what they were, and if they could have been rectified?

 

Thanks

Probably the same as the E1s as rebuilt as E1Rs  I suspect that as purpose built shunters the driving wheels were not balanced.  The first batch of E1s converted to E1Rs had to be withdrawn from passenger duties and replaced by further conversions with balanced driving wheels.  Apart from the GWR most pre grouping 0-6-0 tanks were built for shunting and did not have balanced wheels so were uncomfortable over about 30 mph    The vast majority of GW tanks were built as general purpose mixed traffic locos and had balanced wheels right back to the 1880s and before.a

Edited by DavidCBroad
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, neither the E1 or E2 were "purpose built shunters". The E1 was the standard goods engine for many years on other than "trunk" services, only gradually descending to shunting as loads outclassed it, and the E2 was intended to replace worn-out E1 on London and suburban goods, where distances run were pretty short and run-rounds were tight, as well as act as pilots and ECS locos.

 

None of which alters the key point that the E1 was not balanced for running at any great speed, and are recorded as being quite scary when speed was attempted; the same might be true of the E2, but I've never read that they were rough, and lack of coal space is always cited as the reason for the ending of motor train working.

 

Does anyone have the relevant volume of Bradley to hand? I can't find my copy, but I think it talks about the motor train experience.

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10 May 2019 at 14:17, Nearholmer said:

In fairness, neither the E1 or E2 were "purpose built shunters". The E1 was the standard goods engine for many years on other than "trunk" services, only gradually descending to shunting as loads outclassed it, and the E2 was intended to replace worn-out E1 on London and suburban goods, where distances run were pretty short and run-rounds were tight, as well as act as pilots and ECS locos.

The first E2, No 100, was sent new to Eastbourne, and 102 and, later, 109 were allocated to Brighton, working along the coast line to Worthing and beyond, and up to Hassocks. The others were based in London, often handling empty-stock trains.

On 10 May 2019 at 14:17, Nearholmer said:

 

None of which alters the key point that the E1 was not balanced for running at any great speed, and are recorded as being quite scary when speed was attempted;

 

Although this was true about the first built E1's, in 1880 there was an acute shortage of passenger tank locos, as a temporary measure 37 E1's were prepared for passenger service, with Westinghouse brakes and attention was paid to balancing, and Krupps tyres fitted to the leading wheels, and painted in Improved Engine Green. The modifications weren't entirely successful, as many passenger complained of surging and bumping, and the firemen found them difficult to fire at speed.

On 10 May 2019 at 14:17, Nearholmer said:

 

 

the same might be true of the E2, but I've never read that they were rough, and lack of coal space is always cited as the reason for the ending of motor train working.

 

Does anyone have the relevant volume of Bradley to hand? I can't find my copy, but I think it talks about the motor train experience.

Bradley states that the failure of the experiment was due to excessive oscillation when accelerating as well as unsteadiness at speed, with fire-throwing also proving troublesome. It should be noted that the E2 bunker could hold two and a half tons of coal, the E1 bunker only taking one and three quarters of a ton. The E1 tanks held 900 gallons of water, the E2's 1,090 and 1,256 gallons depending on tank design.

i can't find any reference in Gould's book as to which motor train coaches were used in the experiments. By 1914 only thirteen non-balloon autotrailers had been built, and all seem to be accounted for on the services they were built for, and they were mainly intended to operate as pairs. Taking six out of service for these trials would have severely compromised existing arrangements. It would be interesting to know more about the stock that was used - I think there is a photo of the train, but I cannot recall where I might find it.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10 May 2019 at 00:08, adb968008 said:

LBSC electrification went to West Croydon before the war, then onwards afterwards.

 

if you know where to look there are still remains of the masts, between West Croydon all the way to Sutton.

 

The final extension of the electrification to Coulsdon and Sutton actually opened in April 1925, although the wires were in place almost to Sutton prior to the war starting.

Having spent most of my life in the area I would love to know where I can find remains - I've found plenty of evidence around East Croydon and closer to Victoria but none on the stretch from West Croydon to Sutton. 

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...