Jump to content

MR Chuffer

How far does your loco run on its coal and water capacity?

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm new to this forum and revisiting modelling after a 40 year break. I’m lucky to find I have some OO locos from the first time round but in developing a realistic timetable and roster, it occurs to me that I have little idea of how far a loco would travel, or was designed to travel, for a given coal and water capacity at a constant load.

 

Scene setting, the Midland Railway’s end-on connection with the L&Y at Colne in East Lancashire in the 1905-10 period, where the MR has running rights over the L&Y line into Blackburn (fantasy) and from there to Manchester and Liverpool (fact).

 

Example locos – Deeley 0-6-4T Flatiron, 3.5 tons of coal and 2,240 gallons of water and 4 Clayton clerestory coaches (Ratio). This would surely make it to Blackburn – 23+ miles, but ok to Manchester Victoria at 47.75 miles total?

 

What about the MR 0-6-0T 1F half or full cab with 6 – 10 freight wagons on a trip goods, 1.2 tons of coal, 900 gallons of water? A trip goods to Burnley Rose Grove – 12 miles, or Accrington – 17+ miles? I’m guessing Blackburn might be a stretch. Going the other way to Skipton should be ok at 11.5 miles or should it just stop in the yard all day shunting? I read that a  MR 0-6-0T 3F (Jinty) which I also have was designed to shunt for 24 hours between refuelling - 2.25 tons and 1,000 gallons, does that relate to distances that could be covered?

 

And the forthcoming Bachmann L&Y 2-4-2T short bunker version, 2 tons of coal, 1,340 gallons of water and 3 bogie coaches or 12 wagon goods plus brake/break? Should make Blackburn (23+ miles), but what about Manchester Victoria (47.75 miles)?

 

I could add tractive efforts for the above but a gut feeling would be really useful. I’m less concerned about Johnson-type 0-6-0 tender engines as they seemed to pootle everywhere. Has this been covered elsewhere and wouldn’t a formula be handy. Thanks in anticipation.
 

Edited by MR Chuffer
layout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water shouldn't be a problem; the railways put standpipes, water-cranes  or tanks at any point where a loco might stand for a while. If a train were not scheduled to stop, then there were water troughs where loco water-tanks could be replenished 'on the go'.

I'm sure that coal consumption would be measured and tabulated, but where, I'm not sure. Perhaps the I.Mech.Eng. might have something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figures I have for coal consumtion for some North Eastern locomotives quote between 30 and 34lb per mile. (North Eastern Steam, W A Tuplin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of the RCTS Locomotives books give details of coal consumption for certain classes. Bradley does quote one survey carried out in 1908, for a number of lines, but gives only overall figures based on total usage of coal, so probably much higher than in actual service.

LBSCR. 51.5 lbs per mile, SECR.  58.9 lbs per mile, LSWR.  46.8 lbs per mile, LNWR.  83.1 lbs per mile, MR. 68.9 lbs per mile,  GNR. 77.1 lbs per mile,  GWR. 57.9 lbs per mile.

Another survey, carried out in 1928 by Maunsell, came up with some figures for Southern tank locos:

LSWR 0-4-4s O2 - 36.9 M7 - 40.4, SECR R1 0-4-4 36.3, J 0-6-4 42.6, H 37.2, LBSC D3 0-4-4 39.3, E4 0-6-2 38.9, E5 40.1, I1X 4-4-2 41.5, I3 superheated, 34.2.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul/Nick, that's a start, looking at it by ibs per mile sounds sensible and referencing the examples across to my circumstances gives me a start whilst I look for other sources, thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not so much a question as to how far a locomotive could travel. It is more a case of where it was able to replenish coal and water during a days workings.

On my local branch coal was never a problem from what I saw. However after coming down the branch, a distance of around nine miles and doing a spot of shunting and possibly visiting one or two industrial sidings, water was always taken on board before the trip back up to the junction. It did involve a climb of around 1 in 39 from memory so that might be part of the reason. The locomotives were Ivatt class 4 machines and prior to that Midland class 3 and 4 locomotives.

Totally OT.

I have just come across a model locomotive where the coal in the tender actually reduces in height as the machine runs. Clever that.

For those not in the know it is the Piko G Scale DR Reko 50.35.

Bernard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall consumption will include standing losses lighting up etc, on the road figures just the coal used for a specific duty.

Main line locos used significantly less water after superheating which came in in the early 1900s,      Apart from the 1F all the locos should be fine for coal but I would expect a precautionary water stop for the 2-4-2T after 20 miles or so but 4 coaches is a featherweight load compared with what the 2-4-2T s and the flatiron would normally handle. Flat irons were brand new in your era so 8 or 10 or more coaches on the premier suburban turns was their metier.

The GW did Sharpness to Lydney around 50 miles with a Pannier with a water stop half way at Gloucester.

The 1F wasn't really a trip freight loco, very short on coal they were in demand for yard shunting duties at this time where topping up the bunker from an adjacent loco coal wagon was quite practical. An 0-6-0 tender loco would have been much more likely. Again 6-10 wagons is unlikely, they wouldn't have wasted time running such short formations, 20 -60 is more likely, and lots of 8 tonners and even less, not modern 12 tonners.    The little 1F 0-6-0Ts were branch locos in BR days but coal must have been an issue. GW Panniers had 3 tons plus coal capacity post 1930 to allow 24 hour shunting or branchline shifts and could also handle quite long distance pick up goods duties the preserve of 0-6-0 tender locos on other railways.

Locos on stopping duties used more coal than equivalent non stop runs, Gresley pacifics pre 1925 used 50lbs mile or  so about a hunderdweight every two minutes, the same rate as some evil Caledonian and GSWR locos on goods work at half the speed.100 lbs mile.  Those blokes must have really earned their money.  BR and the unions set limits in 1957 which basically said the limit was firing a BR std 4 at maximum rate.   On the other hand it is recorded that with a full firebox a Duchess could do Glasgow to Carlisle without needing any coal added en route...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water. As and when needed. Water was everywhere in the days of steam.

 

Coal would last all day or until it was next scheduled to go on shed. A shunter could last for days with a full bunker. A Duchess or A3 running to Scotland would have a full refuel after every trip.

 

You would be better looking at duties performed by the locos rather than fuel consumption. Most of the statistics were used to try and save money.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the passenger services between the Lancashire cities and Hellifield, the Midland was using 1808 Class 4-4-0s (with 2,950 gal or 3,250 gal tenders) - all of which had been fitted with the larger round-topped H boiler by the end of 1905 - so I imagine your postulated through services via Colne (to Leeds?) would also have used this class - most of which were based at the L&Y sheds in Manchester and Liverpool, and at Hellifield. For Midland-worked goods trains over L&Y metals, the standard Johnson 0-6-0 goods engines were used - again, some rebuilt with H boilers by the later Edwardian period.

 

In short, the range of tank engines doesn't come into it. The Flatiron 2000 Class 0-6-4Ts were pretty much confined to suburban passenger workings in the Manchester South District, Birmingham District, and Central District - i.e. Nottingham area. On the other hand, West Riding local passenger workings were in the hands of a multitude of 1532 Class 0-4-4Ts based at Manningham.

 

Ref. S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 4 (Irwell Press, 2005).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My knowledge is greatly expanded! @Compound2632, as I am sure with your knowledge, I'm in fantasy land here, specifically we're talking Barnoldswick (Barlick), which was privately funded by the local burghers and businessmen and opened in 1871 with a Skipton facing connection on the Colne-Skipton line, and absorbed by the Midland in 1899.

 

The fantasy is that Barlick was and always has been in Lancashire (it ihas been since 1974 - heresy to Barlickers, I suspect!) and therefore the owners would/might have pointed the branch to Colne and East Lancs rather than to Skipton. And that it was bigger than either Nelson or Colne so had more industry which could have conceivably significantly altered the traffic flows including a daily direct service to Manchester, as the original Barlick had on Tuesdays and Fridays for the cotton merchants.

 

And point taken on the 4-4-0s, I'd love one, but I have a rather nicely finished 0-6-4T with round top boiler originally in use on my Leicester to Coalville line 30+ years ago, and the Johnson 0-6-0T 3F but no self build skills to tackle scratch- or kit-built worth mentioning at the moment, so RTR it is for the time being.

 

Finding an MR branch in the northwest is hard enough, let alone mixing it with L&Y traffic, which is why I have developed this parallel universe. And Barnoldswick had such character for its size and location, as in the https://oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=7255 and http://www.archive.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/forum_topic9fd0.html websites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MR Chuffer, it's true that the Midland isn't the place to look for a classic single-track branch line terminus! So I like your expanded universe. Of course a fictional line can have fictional requirements - maybe the gradients are such that Manningham had to have a small allocation of 0-6-4Ts to work the line, it being just a bit too much for the 0-4-4Ts - though I expect you've got your name down for one of those, RTR!

 

If you put your modelling period a bit later, after the Great War, there are more RTR options - Bachmann 3F and 4F; even converting an Airfix / Hornby 2P to a 483 Class 4-4-0 (which is how those 1808 Class engines ended up anyway). Unfortunately you have to stray into early LMS days to justify the Bachmann 1F 0-6-0T, as none received Belpaire boilers in Midland days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know, Im just stuck in that MR Fin de Siecle groove of 1910-ish, all positivity and optimism for the new century, and with over 40 hand- and kit-built MR and PO wagons of the period from my original setup - doesn't Ratio go back a long time... The Bachmann 0-4-4T, absolutely, the 1F, I'll acquire and run as is until I have the guts and knowledge to de-Belpaire it and dress it all fancy, Salter valves, et al.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MR Chuffer said:

with over 40 hand- and kit-built MR and PO wagons of the period

 

Would love to see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I got them out of the loft the other day and can't believe how steady my hand must have been in those days, Measham Colliery, Desford Colliery, Charnwood Cooperative, and many more, a scratchbuilt MR 6-wheel brake and some MR wagons I don't think Ratio do nowadays. Only one problem with the POs, they're all Leicestershire and I don't think the fantasy would provide for an East Midlands coal train trundling into East Lancashire.

 

I may put them up to view when I decide what I am going to do with them as I'll either repurpose them or offload to a good home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water and coal consumption can be affected by many variables.

 

The way the locomotive is handled; a "heavy" driver could make life quite miserable for his mate, the latter seeing his efforts transferred into "stair rods" as live coal was ejected from the chimney leaving holes in the firebed thus causing further issues.

The quality and type of coal could affect the engine's economy and thus the amount burnt during a journey. Locomotive boilers of pre WWII origin were generally designed to burn coal as efficiently as was possible utilising fuel from the most convenient source available to that Railway. Locomotives with narrow fireboxes could be quite "finicky" if an unsuitable coal was all that was available, lending to the expression "100lb of smoke and no steam!". Wider fireboxes tended to be less fussy on what they were given - provided they could get enough of it!

Engines in poor condition, due for "shopping" were notably heavier on coal and water; add to this, poor coal and the problem was compunded. 

 

On the Southern, locomotives working back from Bournemouth to Waterloo would generally take water at Southampton before embarking on the ensuing non stop run to London. However, some crews have made the whole 108 mile journey without replenishing the tender en route. Similarly, Nine Elms allocated engines could at a pinch do the return trip on one tender full of coal, but it was tight, especially if delays were encountered on the return trip. Needless to say, all the many variables had to be favourable. 

 

Sadly, as steam drew to a close, in many instances, maintenance standards became less than ideal, leaving everyone to make the best of a bad job. Much footage and photographs are available depicting these remaining locomotives going about their business with steam emanating from many hitherto unlikely places. This was also evidence of waste of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone, I'm now comfortable with my timetable and rostering based on @Nick Holliday's Maunsell 1928 survey and read across where possible to equivalent power outputs and duties of my current stable and proposed purchases.

 

A Happy (modelling) New Year to everyone!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12th February 1966 I went on a railtour from Birmingham Snow Hill with 43002 as the motive power. The train travelled to Old Hill, Dudley, Walsall, Nuneaton, Burton-on Trent, Trent, Codnor Park, Ambergate, Burton-on Trent (again), Wigston, Market Harborough and Rugby. The return to Birmingham was piloted by D5011 to Leamington Spa (Avenue) and by 45031 from General to Snow Hill as 43002 was reportedly running out of coal by Rugby. I will leave you to sort out the mileage for that lot:wub::rtfm:.

 

Edit to point out to the uninitated that 43002 was a Pig (Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0) and not an HST power car.

Edited by Poor Old Bruce
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The duties were divided into links, so crews were used to working the same jobs every 6 to 10 weeks or so.  With regular pairings of drivers and firemen, each crew would develop a routine for how they actually tackled the job, knowing where and when to take water, fire, open/close the regulator, change reverser settings, inject water into the boiler, brake, and so on.  The routine could be upset by a different fireman who would have to learn that driver's way of doing things, or a different driver who would have to instil his preferred methods into the existing fireman.  After doing the job a few times, they'd knocked the edges off each other and things settled down, but a request for water at a location not normally used by that train might interfere with the signalman's way of doing things.  

 

Railwaymen like to do the job the way they've successfully (by which I mean 'without causing problems or incurring any adverse comment') done it before; it was, in steam days, a very 'small c' conservative industry.  This is the reason that new, bigger, better, locos were often disliked initially; they upset the routine until a new routine was established.  There were pros and cons to this; in general, things worked smoothly, everybody knew what was going to happen next, and they just got on with it, but the downside was that anyone who had an idea that would make the job more efficient but interrupted the status quo would be shouted down, and improvements never happened.  In the 70s, as a Canton freight guard, I asked why the daily Milford Haven-Paddington Fish train changed locos at Canton, to be told that the loco coming off was out of coal by this time and needed changing.  The train had run like that for years, at least since the opening of the Swansea District line, and nobody saw any need to change it; 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', even if it saved a loco!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • 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.