9Fs struggled with Cliffe-Uddingston Cement trains on Stoke Bank?

[highpeakman]

I noted a comment on Facebook a couple of days ago about this working which claimed that the 9Fs struggled when working this train up Stoke Bank and were beaten in timing by an A2/3. I am interested to know if this is true or "one of those stories".

 

My initial thoughts are that the 9F  should be superior as it had the power, speed capability and smaller wheels would, I would think, have given it an advantage with such a train. However I accept that my own knowledge on such matters is insufficient and I am curious enough to ask if anyone else knows about this?

 

I have no idea if this was apparently a one off event nor know anything else about it.

[DCB]

Sounds logical.  A2/3 had 25% more grate area, and a bit more TE than the 9F, with adequate adhesion around 66 tons.

The LNER 9Fs were mainly the single chimney breed which were quite a bit inferior to the double chimney locos, including the rebuilt 92000 and 92220 whose exploits over the Mendips became legendary.  

[Titan]

It sounds like a struggle to move the train fast enough rather than struggling to move it.  I suspect that the train weight was well within the tractive effort of what other locos could handle let alone a 9F, and then boiler capacity rather than tractive effort becomes the limiting factor.  So a loco that can boil water faster than the 9F will be able to haul the train faster up stoke bank.  I have a feeling that prior to the Thirsk incident the max permitted speed of the train was 60mph, and it may have needed to be tightly timed so as not to delay other traffic on the ECML.

 

When it went to Diesel haulage I believe it was diagrammed for 2 x Class 33 as far as York, despite one class 33 being capable of moving the train by itself - and often did due to locomotive shortages.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Titan

[pete_mcfarlane]

6 minutes ago, Titan said:

When it went to Diesel haulage I believe it was diagrammed for 2 x Class 33 as far as York, despite one class 33 being capable of moving the train by itself - and often did due to locomotive shortages.

Didn't a single class 33 lose time going up Stoke bank, hence the use of two of them? 

[Titan]

5 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Didn't a single class 33 lose time going up Stoke bank, hence the use of two of them? 

Precisely. It was more about power rather than tractive effort.  I suspect a single 33 might have been slower than a 9F!

Edited September 9, 2021 by Titan

[bike2steam]

I would suspect 'one of those stories', saying a loco rated at 7F is better than 9F, I'd doubt it. And TE is nothing to go by, as it's just a theoretical calculation of draw-bar power, not total haulage power.

[Titan]

40 minutes ago, bike2steam said:

I would suspect 'one of those stories', saying a loco rated at 7F is better than 9F, I'd doubt it. And TE is nothing to go by, as it's just a theoretical calculation of draw-bar power, not total haulage power.

I think it is quite possible, the F rating would take into account tractive effort, so a locomotive with a smaller boiler, but high tractive effort could get a higher F rating than one with a larger boiler but lower tractive effort.  Therefore  a loco with a lower F rating, but larger boiler can haul a fast freight at higher speed than a high F rated, but smaller boilered locomotive.  A Britannia can haul a 60mph fitted freight much faster than an 8F for example.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Titan

[hmrspaul]

Funnily enough John at the Ebor club on Tuesday evening pointed out that the book tractive effort of many of the A2s was above 40,000lbf which is slightly higher than the 9F. Also their 6ft 2in wheels was suitable for a mixed traffic loco.  Surprised me.  A2  60500 – 60539  4-6-2  LNER  Thompson & Peppercorn   – Preserved British Steam Locomotives {URL didn't work]

 

The ER/NER had so many Pacifics that they used them regularly on the fast freights; I have a clear memory of the A4 Bittern laid by in the lowlands of Scotland on  a freight before being done up for the Aberdeen passenger services.

 

Paul

 

[Titan]

It probably helps that they are 3 cylinder too - more even application of force means higher average tractive effort can be applied before the wheels break free and slip. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Titan

[The Johnster]

There are all sorts of factors involved in this sort of story, and it is diffiuclt to pin down the origin of it.  For example, a driver booked on the job for a week might have had a rough 9F with poor coal one day and 'struggled' up Stoke, and the following day had an A2/3 in top condition with better coal which flew up the bank; his conclusion would be that an A2/3 is a better horse for the job than a 9F, and if he said so to his mates in the cabin afterwards, the story got around.  Normal haulage for the Cliffe-Uddington was a 9F, and I would doubt that unavailability of 9Fs and substitution of an A2/3 was a frequent enough occurrence for such a conclusion to be drawn in a way that would withstand objective critical examination, but I am very much an amatuer in such matters and my opinions, which are that and no more, should be viewed in that light.

 

An A2/3 would certainly be capable of working and timing the train, and of bringing it up to the maximum allowable speed, but a 9F should be able to do so more efficiently; a 9F would have the edge starting from rest and accelerating.  The A2/3 is a fast mixed traffic horse, very useful on the ECML where express freights were common and frequent, and pacific hauled 60mph fish trains were sometimes worked to express passenger timings by drivers who were known speed merchants (this must have involved speeds higher than the 60mph that 10' wheebase wagons were allowed prior to the Thirsk derailment, and it is probably best not to examine such matters too closely in the interests of the reputations of some of the drivers involved).

 

The Midland/LMS derived power classification system showed many apparent anomalies; for instance, the 5MT rating of a GW 56xx 0-6-2T clearly does not mean that you could substitute one for a BR standard 5MT and expect 90mph out of it on a North Kent Coast working.  I am not criticising the system, as it is very difficult to devise a power rating system for steam locomotives that eliminates such apparent anomalies.  You wouldn't expect a 56xx to do the work of a Castle, either, but they were both GW power class D.

 

What is the purpose of a power classification system?  Is it to enable the Traffic Dept. to request a loco of a specified power class to be supplied by the shed for a specified working?  If so, it is clearly not fit for purpose, as you would not, for example, send a 5MT 56xx out to work a Cardiff-Portsmouth job; that's a 5MT Hall job.  The Hall, OTOH, would be a bit out of it's depth with a 60 wagon colliery trip.  Sheds allocate locos to workings on the basis of local knowledge, common sense, and experience, and by and largely ignore the 'official' power classifications.  A Shewsbury-Aberystwyth job will probably be booked for a 4MT, or more likely power class C given the continuation of GW practice, with a blue route availability, but Shrewsbury knew fully well that the choice was Manor, standard 4MT 4-6-0, or 43xx.

Edited September 9, 2021 by The Johnster

[MidlandRed]

Per the RCTS book on the 9F, in March 1960 an investigation was carried out into indifferent steaming of 9Fs on the ER and NER - although the outcome was not traced it is thought likely the main cause was excessive wear of piston and valve rings, piston heads and cylinder barrels (possibly resulting from the main use of the ER locos on fast fitted freight work - the NER Tyne Dock locos we’re found, along with the Bidston trio and Lickey loco to demonstrate a tube plate fracture issue - possibly resulting from their pattern of use). So is it possible this period coincided with the displacement of Pacifics from passenger work by diesels (although some were simply withdrawn), thus making more of them available for freight, and also with performance issues of (some) of the 9Fs involved? The ER/NER fleet were showing availability of 80% earlier in their lives so perhaps they were not in the best of health at this later stage? 

The double chimney issue is also commented on - indeed the reason the 9F and other standard designs had single blast pipes is they were designed to operate at relatively low combustion rates - even for the grate size of the 9F (40.2 sq ft). The double chimney is almost inevitably a less effective draught producer when output is lower - so for a given rate of steam production up to 60 mph, a double chimney provides only marginally more power at the pistons than a carefully designed single chimney design to match operating conditions. It’s interesting the Swindon build of 9Fs included double chimneys - although their justification appears fairly marginal from the test results and the Geisel unit (92250 experimentally fitted) was ruled out for reason of not value for money in terms of the level of improved performance at around the same time.

 

No doubt the double chimney fitted 9Fs were at home on passenger services, however! And possibly on stiff gradients (hence at home on the S and D). 

Edited September 9, 2021 by MidlandRed

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

There are all sorts of factors involved in this sort of story, and it is diffiuclt to pin down the origin of it.  For example, a driver booked on the job for a week might have had a rough 9F with poor coal one day and 'struggled' up Stoke, and the following day had an A2/3 in top condition with better coal which flew up the bank; his conclusion would be that an A2/3 is a better horse for the job than a 9F, and if he said so to his mates in the cabin afterwards, the story got around.  Normal haulage for the Cliffe-Uddington was a 9F, and I would doubt that unavailability of 9Fs and substitution of an A2/3 was a frequent enough occurrence for such a conclusion to be drawn in a way that would withstand objective critical examination, but I am very much an amatuer in such matters and my opinions, which are that and no more, should be viewed in that light.

 

An A2/3 would certainly be capable of working and timing the train, and of bringing it up to the maximum allowable speed, but a 9F should be able to do so more efficiently; a 9F would have the edge starting from rest and accelerating.  The A2/3 is a fast mixed traffic horse, very useful on the ECML where express freights were common and frequent, and pacific hauled 60mph fish trains were sometimes worked to express passenger timings by drivers who were known speed merchants (this must have involved speeds higher than the 60mph that 10' wheebase wagons were allowed prior to the Thirsk derailment, and it is probably best not to examine such matters too closely in the interests of the reputations of some of the drivers involved).

 

The Midland/LMS derived power classification system showed many apparent anomalies; for instance, the 5MT rating of a GW 56xx 0-6-2T clearly does not mean that you could substitute one for a BR standard 5MT and expect 90mph out of it on a North Kent Coast working.  I am not criticising the system, as it is very difficult to devise a power rating system for steam locomotives that eliminates such apparent anomalies.  You wouldn't expect a 56xx to do the work of a Castle, either, but they were both GW power class D.

 

What is the purpose of a power classification system?  Is it to enable the Traffic Dept. to request a loco of a specified power class to be supplied by the shed for a specified working?  If so, it is clearly not fit for purpose, as you would not, for example, send a 5MT 56xx out to work a Cardiff-Portsmouth job; that's a 5MT Hall job.  The Hall, OTOH, would be a bit out of it's depth with a 60 wagon colliery trip.  Sheds allocate locos to workings on the basis of local knowledge, common sense, and experience, and by and largely ignore the 'official' power classifications.  A Shewsbury-Aberystwyth job will probably be booked for a 4MT, or more likely power class C given the continuation of GW practice, with a blue route availability, but Shrewsbury knew fully well that the choice was Manor, standard 4MT 4-6-0, or 43xx.

Yes, someone once suggested to me, that if there exists timings of Black 5's on expresses on the WCML, that meet 8P timings, why did the LMS bother with Pacific's?

 

Fact is the Class 5 can only haul such a train at such a speed, if it is pushed along pretty hard, which means that everything has to be just so, with virtually no margin for any problems.

 

 

[LMS2968]

57 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, someone once suggested to me, that if there exists timings of Black 5's on expresses on the WCML, that meet 8P timings, why did the LMS bother with Pacific's?

 

Fact is the Class 5 can only haul such a train at such a speed, if it is pushed along pretty hard, which means that everything has to be just so, with virtually no margin for any problems.

 

 

The Black Five v Pacific performance ratio was considered to be one Pacific equated to two Fives. The truth is that the Fives were pushed on expresses far beyond their actual ability. J.W.P. Rowledge and Brian Reed's* comment was, "‘… In the immediate post-war years … the Black Fives’ … use on principle passenger trains was one of the leading locomotive causes of the chronic unpunctuality of the LMSR Western and Midland Divisions…" They were used in place of 5XPs, both Baby Scot and Jubilee, which they could probably manage if in good condition and with good coal, but they could not keep up with a Scot, and certainly not a Pacific.

 

* The Stanier 4-6-0s of the LMS (1977) David & Charles Ltd, Newton Abbot ISBN 0-7153-7385-4

[The Johnster]

The '2 Black 5s equals one pacific' equation seems to have been prominent in Ivatt's thinking with the diesel twins; one at 1,600hp = 5MT Black 5, two in multiple at 3.200hp = 8P pacific.  English Electric used a similar thought process in the 3.300hp Deltics, but went on to produce the overweight and underpowered (though admittedly bombpoof reliable) class 40 to BR's specification after the Rugby Testing Plant results suggested that about 1,800 - 2.000hp equated to 8P performance.

 

Of course, if all you've got available is a Black 5, then that has to do, and do it's best.

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

The overweight and underpowered (though admittedly bombpoof reliable) class 40 to BR's specification after the Rugby Testing Plant results suggested that about 1,800 - 2.000hp equated to 8P performance.

Which goes to show how far adrift from reality was the Rugby Test Plant! To suggest that an engine which delivered 2000hp at the flywheel was equivalent to one which could deliver 2500 at the drawbar must have taken some imagination. It turned out that normal timekeeping on the WCML required 2100hp in some places, and that allowed nothing for making up lost time. Fortunately, soon after what became the 40s took over, electrification works south of Crewe required generous recovery times to be built into the timetable.

[Ian Hargrave]

2 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Per the RCTS book on the 9F, in March 1960 an investigation was carried out into indifferent steaming of 9Fs on the ER and NER - although the outcome was not traced it is thought likely the main cause was excessive wear of piston and valve rings, piston heads and cylinder barrels (possibly resulting from the main use of the ER locos on fast fitted freight work - the NER Tyne Dock locos we’re found, along with the Bidston trio and Lickey loco to demonstrate a tube plate fracture issue - possibly resulting from their pattern of use). So is it possible this period coincided with the displacement of Pacifics from passenger work by diesels (although some were simply withdrawn), thus making more of them available for freight, and also with performance issues of (some) of the 9Fs involved? The ER/NER fleet were showing availability of 80% earlier in their lives so perhaps they were not in the best of health at this later stage? 

The double chimney issue is also commented on - indeed the reason the 9F and other standard designs had single blast pipes is they were designed to operate at relatively low combustion rates - even for the grate size of the 9F (40.2 sq ft). The double chimney is almost inevitably a less effective draught producer when output is lower - so for a given rate of steam production up to 60 mph, a double chimney provides only marginally more power at the pistons than a carefully designed single chimney design to match operating conditions. It’s interesting the Swindon build of 9Fs included double chimneys - although their justification appears fairly marginal from the test results and the Geisel unit (92250 experimentally fitted) was ruled out for reason of not value for money in terms of the level of improved performance at around the same time.

 

No doubt the double chimney fitted 9Fs were at home on passenger services, however! And possibly on stiff gradients (hence at home on the S and D). 

And they were used on express passenger work on the ECML in the late 1950’s .  New England turned one out for the down Heart Of Midlothian and there were recorded instances of them cracking along at 90 mph until senior management forbade the practice.

[The Johnster]

Canton had a go at using 'Evening Star' when she was first delivered to the shed in 1960 on the 'Red Dragon', which did not require 90mph running but did require 16 coach loads to run into the mid 80s to make up whatever time had been lost between Severn Tunnel Bottom and Badminton.  After 3 days of this, officialdom at Paddington noticed that the usual clean Canton Brit had too many little driving wheels and, like on the ECML, a halt was called.  A free running 2-10-0 with 5' diameter driving wheels and modern lubricants can manage 90mph fairly easily as has been proved, but whether it is advisable to subject the loco to this sort of treatment or the track to the not inconsiderable consequent hammer-blow is anothe matter...

[65179]

Regarding the use of an A2/3, these previous posts below may be of interest. It's a topic that keeps on cropping up on Wright Writes for example.

 

The comment is attributed to Peter Townend, one time Kings Cross shedmaster, in one of his books as detailed in the links above.  Plenty of doubt about how frequent an occurrence it was though.

 

Simon

[MarkC]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The A2/3 is a fast mixed traffic horse, very useful on the ECML where express freights were common and frequent, and pacific hauled 60mph fish trains were sometimes worked to express passenger timings by drivers who were known speed merchants (this must have involved speeds higher than the 60mph that 10' wheebase wagons were allowed prior to the Thirsk derailment, and it is probably best not to examine such matters too closely in the interests of the reputations of some of the drivers involved).

 

 

Bill Hoole's name comes up regularly when reading books about ECML operation - didn't he (in)famously catch the down "Talisman" once with a following fast freight? 

[The Johnster]

I remember him on the Ffestiniog in the late 60s, where Prince, the oldest loco in service anywhere in the country at the time, was his favourite steed, and he had a bit of a reputation even there!  Guards on the ECML working fish or fully fitted freight usually took the opportunity allowed in the General Appendix to marshall up to 4 axles behind the brake van to steady things up at some of the more insane speeds...

[david.hill64]

A good friend of mine, and a railwayman to boot, will often over a pint regale me of trip he had in the early 60's from Euston to Glasgow on the relief Mid Day Scot, which ran 15 minutes ahead of the main service. Britannia from Euston to Crewe, Duchess from Crewe to Carlisle, the shock, horror, a black 5 from there to Central. He fully expected to be looped and have to take a banker for Beattock, but the driver was having none of it and assaulted the bank with gusto. Bob doesn't relate whether they were right time on arrival, but he does offer it as an example of what was just about possible with an engine in good condition and a willing crew.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

A good friend of mine, and a railwayman to boot, will often over a pint regale me of trip he had in the early 60's from Euston to Glasgow on the relief Mid Day Scot, which ran 15 minutes ahead of the main service. Britannia from Euston to Crewe, Duchess from Crewe to Carlisle, the shock, horror, a black 5 from there to Central. He fully expected to be looped and have to take a banker for Beattock, but the driver was having none of it and assaulted the bank with gusto. Bob doesn't relate whether they were right time on arrival, but he does offer it as an example of what was just about possible with an engine in good condition and a willing crew.

The problem was that if things DIDN'T work out for any reason, then you had a blockage on the WCML!

 

The LMS had a couple of goes at testing on Lickey Incline, to see if the minimum load before a banker wasn't required could be increased. The fact that the weight was never increased, suggests that not all went well with the trials! Better to have a banker, than deal with the rescue aftermath.

 

There is the famous story of a test on Lickey with an LMS Garratt and the LNER Garratt, which stalled (how!) and had to be rescued by Big Bertha!

[john new]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

The problem was that if things DIDN'T work out for any reason, then you had a blockage on the WCML!

 

The LMS had a couple of goes at testing on Lickey Incline, to see if the minimum load before a banker wasn't required could be increased. The fact that the weight was never increased, suggests that not all went well with the trials! Better to have a banker, than deal with the rescue aftermath.

 

There is the famous story of a test on Lickey with an LMS Garratt and the LNER Garratt, which stalled (how!) and had to be rescued by Big Bertha!

I am sure the local Bromsgrove crews would have found a way to make a loco design they didn’t want foisted on them fail to steam.  From memory of my reading the distance from cab to front buffers on the 9F was a problem for buffering up, on a Garratt it would be worse.  Not just that issue, 3 tank engines versus one Garratt needs less men, who wiling helps aid their own redundancy.
 

“Oh dear it won’t steam on the gradient chaps” should perhaps have been foreseen by HQ!  Perhaps overfilling the boiler with new water at the bottom, deliberate use of wrong firing techniques etc., to make it fail.

[LMS2968]

LMS Garratts worked trains up Lickey as part of the journey but weren't used as bankers on it, or anywhere else. The Garratt that was used was the ex-LNER one designed as a banker for the Worsborough Incline.  At Bromsgrove, it was turned so the chimney was to the bottom of the incline to aid buffering up; and it was converted to oil firing. Its boiler was not designed to produce a lot of steam over a lot of time, but the length of the Lickey didn't require this.

 

The usual response to an engine which wouldn't steam was to send out a footplate inspector to observe what was happening and then 'educate' the men if he he saw they were doing it wrong. But it's true that the Garratt was never popular with Bromsgrove crews.

[The Stationmaster]

9 hours ago, MarkC said:

Bill Hoole's name comes up regularly when reading books about ECML operation - didn't he (in)famously catch the down "Talisman" once with a following fast freight? 

Indeed - and was despite several unplanned stops to detach wagons with hot boxes.  Hoole had something of a reputation asa 'hard runner' which also meant in reality being hard on the Fireman and on the engine so he was not particularly popular as a  work mate with Top Shed Firemen who tried to steer clear of him.  

 

I sometimes wonder if his way of driving almost harked back to the pre-war days of the A4s when they could be worked hard out of the Cross and all the way up to the first summit at Potters Bar with minimal firing to get it there (still possible in BR s days with an engine in absolutely tip-top condition but they were increasingly a rarity).