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

[kevinlms]

15 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Was it a case of the LNER Garratt no longer being needed at Worsborough following electrification and trying to find other work? 

Yes, on the face of it, it ought to have made a useful spare or replacement of an old loco (the 0-10-0 being built in 1919), having done a somewhat similar duty.

[LMS2968]

I seem to recall reading that the LNER Garratt was tried on a goods train but failed miserably. It seems that a boiler intended to produce steam for only short durations wasn't up to the continuous output on main line trains. I also recall that Big Bertha from the Lickey was also so tried out, with exactly the same results.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

I seem to recall reading that the LNER Garratt was tried on a goods train but failed miserably. It seems that a boiler intended to produce steam for only short durations wasn't up to the continuous output on main line trains. I also recall that Big Bertha from the Lickey was also so tried out, with exactly the same results.

I guess people that ought to have known better, forgot the principle that a steam boiler can be sacrificed for a short time period, such as for banking duties. But a longer run needs the steam to be generated to matched the demands.

[MarkC]

8 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

I seem to recall reading that the LNER Garratt was tried on a goods train but failed miserably. It seems that a boiler intended to produce steam for only short durations wasn't up to the continuous output on main line trains. I also recall that Big Bertha from the Lickey was also so tried out, with exactly the same results.

That Garratt boiler had 6 cylinders to feed, of course, and the boiler wasn't <that> big.

 

Big Bertha (aka Big Emma or simply The Banker) was, if memory serves, hindered more by poor steam passages and valve events at speeds above her normal banking duties.

[Michael Edge]

On 11/09/2021 at 09:03, LMS2968 said:

I seem to recall reading that the LNER Garratt was tried on a goods train but failed miserably. It seems that a boiler intended to produce steam for only short durations wasn't up to the continuous output on main line trains. I also recall that Big Bertha from the Lickey was also so tried out, with exactly the same results.

The Garratt was tried out on an eastbound goods from Manchester, it had to stop by Crowden (some way short of the top of the hill in the Woodhead tunnel) short of steam. It was at Gresley's insistence on using parts from the O2 2-8-0 that led to it having six cylinders, Beyer Peacock would have used four like almost every other Garratt (and the only other 6 cylinder ones were a complete failure as well).

It only replaced two O4s at Worsbrough, there would have still been two on the front of a double load (60 wagons) train - and there are plenty of photos of the Garratt and an O4 pushing. 

It was loathed at Mexborough, the firemen quickly realised that it meant they had to do the work of two men but they mostly put up with it until it was displaced by electrification in early 1952. It was turned round on the Lickey to make buffering up easier but this gave problems with keeping the firebox crown covered.

It's rather sad that the only main line Garratts to run in this country were spoiled by the railway company's interference with what BP built for everywhere else.

[Titan]

23 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

and there are plenty of photos of the Garratt and an O4 pushing. 

 

 

One of the problems with big banking engines mixed with small ones, and this seemed to affect all of them, was there would be a single siding for banking engines.  If a train needed two O4's and the Garrett was second in line behind one O4, then rather than doing some extra shunting to let the Garrett out, they would just use the O4 and Garrett instead.  I expect that most, if not all of the photos showing Big Bertha/9F/Garrett not working alone the larger engine is pushing the smaller one, because the shunt to get it out of the way was just too inconvenient.

[LMS2968]

35 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

One of the problems with big banking engines mixed with small ones, and this seemed to affect all of them, was there would be a single siding for banking engines.  If a train needed two O4's and the Garrett was second in line behind one O4, then rather than doing some extra shunting to let the Garrett out, they would just use the O4 and Garrett instead.  I expect that most, if not all of the photos showing Big Bertha/9F/Garrett not working alone the larger engine is pushing the smaller one, because the shunt to get it out of the way was just too inconvenient.

That is largely true, certainly at Bromsgrove. The bankers simply each took their turn to go into the holding siding, then the required number came out when a train needed assistance. The tankies counted as one unit, Bertha, and presumably the Garratt, as two. If a train needed two units and the order in the siding was a tankie, Bertha and then other tankies, the first engine and Bertha would be used, i.e. three units. If a train needed four bankers and Bertha was way back in the siding, four tankies would appear.

 

It certainly wasn't a flexible system.

[Titan]

Indeed, and it would largely negate the benefit of a large engine if for half the time it was doing the work of one small one, either because it was first in line and they needed a small engine for that train, or there was a small engine in front that could not manage by itself.  It really only works if most trains need more than one small banker, and you replace all banking engines with large ones. 

 

If all the bankers on the Lickey had been replaced by 9F's on a two for one basis perhaps there could have been some significant cost savings.

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

 

One of the problems with big banking engines mixed with small ones, and this seemed to affect all of them, was there would be a single siding for banking engines.  If a train needed two O4's and the Garrett was second in line behind one O4, then rather than doing some extra shunting to let the Garrett out, they would just use the O4 and Garrett instead.  I expect that most, if not all of the photos showing Big Bertha/9F/Garrett not working alone the larger engine is pushing the smaller one, because the shunt to get it out of the way was just too inconvenient.

It was very easy to shunt the bankers at Wentworth junction using the banker siding (with the ashpit) and the colliery siding because they came out on a facing crossover unlike the trailing connection at Bromsgrove. It's rarely clear what sort of train is being banked in the photos though and extra locos were often added at each end of a train, I think in practice it was just a case of next train, next loco.

[jonny777]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

 

It only replaced two O4s at Worsbrough, there would have still been two on the front of a double load (60 wagons) train - and there are plenty of photos of the Garratt and an O4 pushing. 

 

 

Is that really surprising? 

 

60 wagons, even older wooden bodied ones, are going to be quite a formidable load (something around 1100 tons fully loaded) to get up 3 miles at a minimum of 1 in 40, and even steeper in places with mining subsidence. 

 

That the U1 did it's job for a quarter of a century, is the kind of unsung work which happened without ceremony in those days. 

[DCB]

23 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

It was very easy to shunt the bankers at Wentworth junction using the banker siding (with the ashpit) and the colliery siding because they came out on a facing crossover unlike the trailing connection at Bromsgrove. It's rarely clear what sort of train is being banked in the photos though and extra locos were often added at each end of a train, I think in practice it was just a case of next train, next loco.

The procedure was that the train plus banker would arrive at Wentworth Junction.   if the U1 was available it would buffer up to the banker and shove the procession up Worsborough bank before dropping off hopefully with the boiler pressure well down and the injectors on to avoid wasting steam while the train continued towards Penistone etc.

If the U1 was not available then two bankers had to be added.  The maximum allowed was two bankers on the rear so one was attached as pilot and one at the rear.  At the end of the 1 in 40 the train stopped to detach the pilot which then joined the rear banker for a return to Wentworth.   The train then restarted on a gradient.

I can't find the book of enginemen's reminiscences where its detailed, but he wasn't too enthusiastic about firing it.  But then again he only had one turn, nothing like enough time to learn the technique.

 

[jonny777]

The U1 performed its banking ritual between 25 and 30 times a day, so some of the firemen must have worked very hard during a shift. 

[The Johnster]

28 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

The U1 performed its banking ritual between 25 and 30 times a day, so some of the firemen must have worked very hard during a shift. 

Assuming a 16 hour day with relief half way through it, the fireman is working pretty much flat out against falling steam pressure for some 12 or 15 trips up the bank, of perhaps about 15 minutes each, and plenty to do rebuiliding the fire and topping up the boiler on the drop back down the bank for the next job.  I think you'd know you'd done a tough day's work when you went home!  Lickey is a little steeper but a little shorter, though suffers less from mining subsidence 'bad spots'.

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

That is largely true, certainly at Bromsgrove. The bankers simply each took their turn to go into the holding siding, then the required number came out when a train needed assistance. The tankies counted as one unit, Bertha, and presumably the Garratt, as two. If a train needed two units and the order in the siding was a tankie, Bertha and then other tankies, the first engine and Bertha would be used, i.e. three units. If a train needed four bankers and Bertha was way back in the siding, four tankies would appear.

 

It certainly wasn't a flexible system.

Flexibility wouldn't have been required, IF Big Bertha had proved to be a huge success, the MR/LMS would have built at least one more, maybe 2. After all if they were highly convenient and did the job well, why wouldn't they want to get rid of multiple 3F tanks?

 

Fact is, Big Bertha did it's job but was nothing special. The LMS did a lot of work on their sums and it was very common to withdraw classes with small number of members and you can't get lower than one! The only thing that extended it's life, was that Derby had a spare boiler, unique to the loco. This helped the turnaround time in the workshops.

 

 

By the way, what was the normal complement at Bromsgrove, the Garratt and how many 3F tanks?

[NorthEndCab]

On 10/09/2021 at 13:45, The Johnster said:

With very good reason IMHO. 
 

Speed merchants of that sort are bad drivers, simple as.  Any idiot can open the regulator, put her in full gear, and blaze away, then curse anything that slows him down.  The speed limits, whether on track or the stock, are there for good reasons, and consistently ignoring them suggests an arrogance and contempt for your mates that is never going to make you popular, and a lack of pride and competence in the job.  A skilled driver prides himself on keeping time and making it up within the limits while using the minimum possible amount of coal and water, and not attempting to break the fireman or wrap the guard around the stove pipe. Not to mention that you are courting disaster because there may well come a day when you can’t stop in time…

Well said. Absolutely this. Always better to be running up to a red thinking “I could be going a bit faster,” than running up to a red and thinking “I wish I was going slower.”

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

By the way, what was the normal complement at Bromsgrove, the Garratt and how many 3F tanks?

This was the 1960 WTT page with the Bromsgrove shunting and banking engine details.