BR 4MT tanks on Parcels & Goods ?

[The Johnster]

If we're talking about axle loads, these are all over the place for freight and mineral wagons unless they've been weighed properly on a weighbridge.  I used to be a little concerned sometimes working Freightliner trains, with a nominal axle loading of 25tons; who knew what was in the boxes?  I know enough about shipping in general and the avoidance of duties in particular to know that what it says on the manifest ain't always 'xacly what's in the container!  

 

Certainly, if you were working the job for a week, say Cardiff Pengam-Swansea Danygraig, with the same class of loco and same driver using the same driving technique, the actual performance varied very considerably day to day, especially on the banks, while the load on the slip I'd been given by Pengam supervisor and handed with my signature to the driver varied by very little, normally up to the max for this train.  I remember searching the section between Abergavenny and Pontrilas (Sunday, Pandy switched out) for an Edinburgh-Cardiff Freightliner which we found stalled and immovable across a catch point about a quarter mile shy of Llanvihangel summit.

 

We're drifting a bit, but it illustrates that the matter of all up weight wasn't always taken as seriously as perhaps it should have been.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by The Johnster

[Porkscratching]

Have to say there's lots of interesting stuff coming to light here even if beyond the original question,  so keep on drifting gents, it's all good! 

[johnofwessex]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

....................  I remember searching the section between Abergavenny and Pontrilas (Sunday, Pandy switched out) for an Edinburgh-Cardiff Freightliner which we found stalled and immovable across a catch point about a quarter mile shy of Llanvihangel summit..................

 

 

 

Never have stalled if the train engine was a Standard 4MT Tank

[The Johnster]

Class 47, sorry to disappoint everyone.  And I was on a class 120 dmu; date about 1973.  To be fair, I did mention that we were drifting a bit...

 

My general impression was that a 9F and 47 were about on a par in performance, and that a 9F with air brakes would have been ideal for Freightliner work.

[Phil Bullock]

What is highlighted is a fundamental difference between a diesel and a steam loco.

 

With a diesel - pull back the handle - notch 7 or as appropriate - and what you get is the rated horsepower minus the inherent losses in the traction systems. Thats it - never more, but may be less due to a number of circumstances eg loss of adhesion

 

Whilst those factors also apply to steam locos it is the case that a skilled crew could extract more than the average power from a loco when needed. IIRC a Duchess was generally considered to be around 2200 hp but could be pushed to 3000hp in extremis if the fireman was up to it. Which is why the LMR came unstuck with 2000hp EE Type 4s - their rail HP was only 16-1700hp so comparatively timings were bound to suffer.

 

Phil

 

 

[LMS2968]

6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Class 47, sorry to disappoint everyone.  And I was on a class 120 dmu; date about 1973.  To be fair, I did mention that we were drifting a bit...

 

My general impression was that a 9F and 47 were about on a par in performance, and that a 9F with air brakes would have been ideal for Freightliner work.

The problem with the 9Fs was that they were ahead of their time. Fully braked block trains would have been their forte, but these were few and far between when they were introduced. When the Freightliners, etc., did arrive, so had the diesels. The 9Fs spent much time working the same turns as pre-national eight-couples types, and quite frankly, the eight-coupled types were better at it and generally preferred by the men on this type of work.

[johnofwessex]

In what way were the 9F's inferior to older 8 coupled loco's?

 

I gather that they were not the easiest locos to fire

[Siberian Snooper]

13 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

In what way were the 9F's inferior to older 8 coupled loco's?

 

I gather that they were not the easiest locos to fire

 

Having shoveled coal into one, it's a bloody long way to the front corners and that was only on a preserved line with 3 coaches on.

 

 

[Compound2632]

Terry Essery, Firing Days at Saltley*, is very positive about 9Fs, despite a nightmare experience on an early run with a stoker-fitted example on a Birmingham-Carlisle run. He's chiefly comparing them to Black 5s on long-distance fitted freights, rather than to 8Fs on mineral trains. By his account, they were lighter on fuel doing similar work (though heavier if forced to stand frequently, given the larger grate area) and with such a large boiler, there was a reserve of steam to call on even if the fire was giving trouble. He also says they gave a very smooth ride, though this did mean that they could be deceptively fast, especially in the dark. He records an embarrassingly early arrival at Sheet Stores Junction - the Toton driver taking over hadn't had time to mash his tea - and covering the 14.5 miles from passing Lazonby to a stand at Carlisle Petteril Bridge in 11 minutes - an average of 78 mph, albeit only by Essery's timing corroborated by the guard - but even allowing 30 s error, over 75 mph. 

 

*or Saltley Firing Days, depending on which edition you're looking at.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Compound2632

[LMS2968]

Basically, they were too big for most of the work, and not just too powerful. They were very long engines with a long coupled wheelbase which didn't fit well on the tight curves of many yards. Derailment of the flangeless driving wheels was sufficiently common that drivers ignored it, and drove the engine - derailed - to the next set of points where they might be bumped back on to the rails. It usually worked, but was not too good for either track or engine.

 

They also suffered from the notorious stiff BR Standard reverser, which required strong arms to move it. On the main line, this hardly mattered, but pick-up goods with constant reversing to set back, drop off and pick up wagons, or any shunting, involved very hard work.

 

And whatever the specific coal consumption figures found in testing, they were heavy on coal when running with less than heavy trains. The brakes were not as good as those of, say, an 8F, critical with a heavy, unfitted coal train.

 

Alternatively, they were easy to prepare and dispose, and their riding, as previously noted, was excellent. Ideal engine on long distance, non-stop workings, not so good on trips.

[Porkscratching]

I've always been keen on the 9f since building the Airfix version as a kid !..it's great to hear some chapter and verse from some of you guys who've actually had 'hands on' them..

Seems so tragic that most were just cut up after such a short lifespan, even if they'd been exported and used in India or somewhere, they'd have been well utilised no doubt..  what a waste.

[LMS2968]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Terry Essery, Firing Days at Saltley*, is very positive about 9Fs, despite a nightmare experience on an early run with a stoker-fitted example on a Birmingham-Carlisle run. He's chiefly comparing them to Black 5s on long-distance fitted freights, rather than to 8Fs on mineral trains. By his account, they were lighter on fuel doing similar work (though heavier if forced to stand frequently, given the larger grate area) and with such a large boiler, there was a reserve of steam to call on even if the fire was giving trouble. He also says they gave a very smooth ride, though this did mean that they could be deceptively fast, especially in the dark. He records an embarrassingly early arrival at Sheet Stores Junction - the Toton driver taking over hadn't had time to mash his tea - and covering the 14.5 miles from passing Lazonby to a stand at Carlisle Petteril Bridge in 11 minutes - an average of 78 mph, albeit only by Essery's timing corroborated by the guard - but even allowing 30 s error, over 75 mph. 

 

*or Saltley Firing Days, depending on which edition you're looking at.

I've read Terry Essery's books. Informative they might be, but many of his opinions seem to be his and his alone, particularly with regard to the BR Standards. In 1973 I worked, after steam finished but still fresh in the memory, at Edge Hill and no-one there would choose a Standard Five over a Black 'un unless the former was known to be in good nick and Black 'un run down. Likewise they would not take a Britannia in preference to a Scot.

 

The Standards, as has been commented elsewhere in this thread, were not intended to improve on previous performance and mostly they didn't. But the men expected the new machine to be better, and when it wasn't, they were disappointed and didn't take to it. Their advantage was in ease of preparation and disposal, but these took only a small part of the working day - unless they had a shed turn - while most time was spent try to keep time on the main line. It was generally where there was an improvement in performance that the Standards were welcomed, such as on the Great Eastern. Here they had gone from Class 4 B12s to Class 5 B1s, and suddenly had Class 7 Britannias, so not really surprising that the men took to them. GWR men, used to Castles, were . .  er, less enthusiastic.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

I've read Terry Essery's books. Informative they might be, but many of his opinions seem to be his and his alone, particularly with regard to the BR Standards. 

 

Their advantage was in ease of preparation and disposal, but these took only a small part of the working day - unless they had a shed turn

 

I don't think there's anything unusual in opinions differing among enginemen authors, especially from different divisions! Without re-reading Essery's book, I think it's only the 9Fs among the standards that he particularly had experience with. He does speak very highly of any engine with a rocking grate and self-cleaning smokebox! (Later LMS engines as well as standards.)

[TheSignalEngineer]

3 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

IIRC a Duchess was generally considered to be around 2200 hp but could be pushed to 3000hp in extremis if the fireman was up to it. Which is why the LMR came unstuck with 2000hp EE Type 4s - their rail HP was only 16-1700hp so comparatively timings were bound to suffer.

Weren't the Twins conceived to run as a pair on Duchess turns? When they used to run as singles on our trains they were on jobs normally done by  Jubilee and which could in emergency be handled by a Black 5

 

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

The problem with the 9Fs was that they were ahead of their time. Fully braked block trains would have been their forte, but these were few and far between when they were introduced.

.

One of their better turns on our patch was Water Orton to Glasgow fully fitted via the S&C. The stoker-fitted locos were reserved for that as it was probably beyond the capabilities of a single fireman to keep it fed. They also worked the Avonmouth - Bromford Bridge tanks. I remember seeing one through Lifford with the empties one day c1961 and it was probably the fastest I have seen anything go through there.

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

One of their better turns on our patch was Water Orton to Glasgow fully fitted via the S&C. The stoker-fitted locos were reserved for that as it was probably beyond the capabilities of a single fireman to keep it fed. 

 

T. Essery (vide supra) seems to have managed it, though dealing with a non-functioning mechanical stoker seems to have nearly done for him. He does recount one occasion when he put the very last of the coal on at Water Orton, with time to wash out the bunker before arrival at Washwood Heath - 9 tons of coal shovelled in 10.5 hours. 

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

I've read Terry Essery's books. Informative they might be, but many of his opinions seem to be his and his alone...

 

Not unlike his brother then...

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Basically, they were too big for most of the work, and not just too powerful. They were very long engines with a long coupled wheelbase which didn't fit well on the tight curves of many yards. Derailment of the flangeless driving wheels was sufficiently common that drivers ignored it, and drove the engine - derailed - to the next set of points where they might be bumped back on to the rails. It usually worked, but was not too good for either track or engine.

 

They also suffered from the notorious stiff BR Standard reverser, which required strong arms to move it. On the main line, this hardly mattered, but pick-up goods with constant reversing to set back, drop off and pick up wagons, or any shunting, involved very hard work.

 

And whatever the specific coal consumption figures found in testing, they were heavy on coal when running with less than heavy trains. The brakes were not as good as those of, say, an 8F, critical with a heavy, unfitted coal train.

 

Alternatively, they were easy to prepare and dispose, and their riding, as previously noted, was excellent. Ideal engine on long distance, non-stop workings, not so good on trips.

I'm not so sure about the reverser being stiff but very much a mangle wheel (as some called it) where you had to do an awful lot of winding to go from fore gear to back gear - definitely not the sort of reverser operation you needed when shunting.  

 

The real firing 'difficulty' on 9Fs was the back corners - and many who worked on them will tell you that to get the best performance out of the fire and hence really good steaming, it was essential to fire to the back corners  - thus you could tell a good 9F Fireman by the burns on the back of his hands (unless he was one of those who wore gloves) as you almost needed to get the whole shovel into the firebox to do it properly.  Provided you kept the back corners looked after you would keep a good steaming rate as the coal in any case worked its way down the firebox, not bothering with the back corners and you could get holes developing there and down the sides at the back end of the firebox although obviously you had to fire to the rest of the 'box as well.  One 'lazy' trick practiced by some Firemen/depots was to put broken firebrick in the back corners so they didn't, or rather couldn't, take so much coal

Edited July 25, 2019 by The Stationmaster
correct typo

[LMS2968]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I'm not so sure about the reverser being stiff but very much a mangle wheel (as some called it) where you had to do an awful lot of winding to go from fore gear to back gear - definitely not the sort of reverser operation you needed when shunting.  

The reverser's being stiff was, however, a recurring theme among the men, and also those who committed to the printed word: I forget which book it was but one fireman always looked forward to getting a 9F in particular on a trip job as he could almost guarantee that he would be driving it!

[Phil Bullock]

its also worth looking at Peter Smiths Footplate over the Mendips and Mendips Enginemen books for anecdotes on working with 9fs - And Black & Standard 5s.

 

S&D enginemen certainly liked the standard engines. Although the S&D really was one of a kind operationally...

 

Phil