GWR No 111 The Great Bear 4-6-2

[The Stationmaster]

Iron ore from Newport Docks uphill to Ebbw Vale. In BR days they used double headed 9Fs.

 

After reopening of the steelworks the Ebbw Vale iron ore trains were worked by 72XX or 42XX prior to the arrival (or rather the getting right) of the 9Fs although no doubt the arrival of the latter allowed loads to be increased.  

 

I can find no photographic evidence that the 9Fs were double headed on these trains and in any case assistance front was not permitted over most of the route from Newport to Ebbw Vale (I would have been amazed if it had been, especially with the heavy ore trains).  There are some published photos showing 9Fs working ore trains on their own but most photos show them assisted in rear, usually by a second 9F.  So the iron ore trains could be seen with two 9Fs but one at each end and definitely not with two on the front.

[The Johnster]

The Newport Docks-Ebbw Vale iron ore trains were probably the heaviest freight turns on the GW, and on a par with Tyne Dock-Consett as one of the heaviest in the country.  The operation lends itself to top and tailing, especially on the final steep pitch from Aberbeeg.  Trains were banked from here the rest of the way into the steelworks and returned with the banker leading and the original train engine acting as a brake van as far as Aberbeeg.

 

42xx/5205 were the standard fare until the eventual introduction of the 9Fs, which were tried on the route almost as soon as they were available.  They left a black smoke screen up the valley that would have allegedly done credit to a naval battle, and there were numerous public complaints; the double chimneyed 9Fs seemed to solve the problem but were not available until towards the end of steam.  The 8-coupled tanks did not like the sharp curvature of the route, though did well enough in other respects, and frame strain led to excessive leakage in the side tanks of these locos, messing up the timetable as drivers stopped for unscheduled water.  I cannot see how the proposed 2-10-2T could have fared any better in this respect, as it's frame would have been even longer and more 'strain prone'.  The 9Fs had flexible coupling rods, no flanges on the centre driving wheels, and were build with a large amount of sideplay in the outer axles; they were in many ways the ideal locos for this work.  They were in turn replaced by type 4s, class 47 and 'Falcon' at the end of it's career, and later class 60s, though raw steelmaking had finished at Ebbw Vale by then and there were no iron ore trains.

 

A King was tried out on the work once, having to be towed dead to Ebbw Jc shed drained down to meet axle loading restrictions.  I have never seen axle loadings for the 2-10-2T, and this was not an issue on the route (curvature and gradients were the limiting factors), but I suspect that the locos' works visits would have involved towing in non-working condition.  I would be unable to make any comment as to the idea that this may have been the cause of the loco's failure to make the cut into production.  The Ebbw Vale trains never had a loco that was too powerful for the job, and heavier loads could always have been carried; in this sense there was certainly a case for the 2-10-2T

 

And The Great Bear might have been successful at it; it hauled a very heavy coal train from Stoke Gifford to Acton once and the shorter coupled wheelbase might have done ok on the Ebbw Valley's sharp curves.  One does not immediately think of a pacific with 6'8" driving wheels for heavy mineral work on gradients, though...

[The Stationmaster]

I'm not sure if they were the heaviest freight/mineral trains on the GWR.  The 1947 loads were 30x21/22 ton iron ore hoppers for a Group D engine assisted rear by a Group C engine from Newport to Aberbeeg and 24, assisted, from Aberbeeg to Ebbw Vale.  the unassisted load from Newport to Aberbeeg was 17 and photos of single 9Fs on the Ebbw Vale trains show them with loads of about that number of wagons.  Additionally the GWR Sectional Appendix refers to trains of 36 iron ore wagons between Aberbeeg and Ebbw Vale worked by three engines.  Clearly with the need to reduce the load at Ebbw Vale by 6 wagons on assisted Up trains the provision for a load of 36 wagons would have enabled working forward of the reduced sections from two trains which had been assisted from Newport.  Whatever the engine used the problem would always be the reduced load north of Aberbeeg which effectively limited the load of a through train all the way from Newport. 

 

Alas I can't find any published loads for the 9F.   Normal working was either to run assisted throughout - logical as it allowed a heavier train - or either reduce or take assistance from Aberbeeg when working with a single engine from Newport.  Most published photos of trains worked by assisted 9Fs seem to have been taken south of Aberbeeg with some clearly being assisted from Newport and I'm fairly sure that would have been the normal pattern although, as in GWR days, it would all depend on wagon supply at the dockside and the rate at which ships were discharged but running the heavier loads would save paths on the busy Western Valley.  Incidentally photographs do not suggest that the assisted trains were worked on a top & tail basis as they only had a brakevan at the rear end when photographed running in either direction; certainly the GWR Instructions for Ebbw Vale do not refer to any sort of working without a brakevan at the rear of the train other than for certain shunting movements at Ebbw Vale itself.

 

As for coming back down I can only go on what Joe Field, a WR HQ Loco Inspector said a good many years ago about what happened when the 9Fs ran into their early problems on the Western Valley.  And they were definitely coming down with only one engine working the train at that time otherwise what took place would no doubt have been even more serious than the runaways which were occurring and which resulted in the 9Fs being withdrawn for modification of the regulator valves.

 

I do wonder if any complaints abut smoke from the 9Fs were a consequence of the short lived trial of one of the stoker equipped engines?  Otherwise 9Fs tended to be no more smokey than anything else all other things being equal and assuming they were fired correctly - specific complaints about smoke from 9Fs as opposed to anything else don't seem to have been common elsewhere.  Was someone who didn't like working on them stirring up the locals I wonder?  

 

Class 47, Brush Type 4s were something of a liability of the Western Valley.  Although they were permitted a load of about 1,000-1,100 tons unassisted they could get into considerable trouble on the steeper gradients north of Aberbeeg but particularly if they were stopped at the signal at the end of the (rearranged) Victoria Sidings which was probably the steepest gradient of the lot and where it could be very difficult to get away on even a clean rail.  As ever on the Valleys the Class 37 EE Type 3s were preferred because they had sanders, which were essential in some places if the railhead was wet or greasy.

 

Working on the Valleys was, in my view, what I called 'real railway work' with much of what had to be done, particularly with loose coupled trains, being little different from the way railways had been worked since almost their early days.  Always a battle with gravity and far more dangerously so coming down hill rather than going up - great place to work but alas it has all been swept away. 

[The Johnster]

Absolutely and reluctantly (as a wimpy Canton man) agreed that Valleys incline work was the real thing; a constant battle with gravity in both directions demanding a very high level of skill and 'nerves of steel'!  Drivers, guards, brakemen, and shunters needed to not only exercise this inordinate skill on a daily basis, but understand, often by no more than telepathy, what each other were doing.  This is perhaps one of the reasons that a job, once it was done a certain way the first time, tended to be done in exactly that way in perpetuity, maybe sometimes for more than a century!  Real railway work; the nearest we came to it was the Aberthaw cement turn, which I loved!

 

I agree from memory that 9Fs topped and tailed the iron ore trains up the Ebbw Valley, and have always assumed, without really giving it much thought, that this was because they were shedded at Ebbw Junction and not Aberbeeg.  The ruling gradient is between Aberbeeg and Cwm, and fearsome; I only visited Aberbeeg once in steam days but recall a top-and-tailed train with 9Fs having further assistance uncoupled in rear from an Aberbeeg 94xx, which led the cavalcade of empties back down the valley as far as Aberbeeg later.  At that point the van was shunted to the rear of the train.

 

If you are into operation, especially banking, Aberbeeg has much to offer as a prototype for a model, a very busy location on a restricted site!

 

Someone with a more inquisitive mind than mine might have questioned why 9Fs were not allocated to Aberbeeg; turntable or space restrictions perhaps?

 

One aspect of Valley working in the 70s was the more or less complete domination of the 37s because there were no suitable type 4s for the work; as you say the 47s were out of their depth on Ebbw Vale working and I have not heard that 1200 was any better.  Westerns would have been good, a massive tractive effort and sanders, but were too long for many locations.

[steam69]

I've just googled Aberbeeg and found this wonderful resource  http://llanhilleth.gwentheritage.org.uk/content/category/categories/transport/rail

Pictures of 9F's and 72xx's plus the fine track layout that existed at this location.

 

Richard

[OnTheBranchline]

I wouldn't want to be in the brakevan if the heavily ladden iron ore train broke a coupling and turned into a runaway.

[The Johnster]

Me neither!  Fortunately speeds were not high and one would have the option of jumping for it if one decided early enough.  But I have never heard of a case of coupling breakage on any vehicle fitted with instanter or screw couplings, as all were in my memory (from 1963), with the iron ore hoppers being instanter fitted.  

 

Drawgear failures on the other hand did occur sometimes, and drivers and guards still had to ensure that the trains were run as smoothly as possible, as a bad 'snatch' could still mean big trouble.

[OnTheBranchline]

Why did The Great Bear derail when backing into trains at Paddington? I read in the book Edwardian Enterprise that this would happen often?

[Andy Kirkham]

 

One aspect of Valley working in the 70s was the more or less complete domination of the 37s because there were no suitable type 4s for the work; as you say the 47s were out of their depth on Ebbw Vale working and I have not heard that 1200 was any better.  Westerns would have been good, a massive tractive effort and sanders, but were too long for many locations.

 

I did once see a Western passing through Aberbeeg, but I was not quick enough with my camera and failed to capture it.

[The Stationmaster]

I've just googled Aberbeeg and found this wonderful resource  http://llanhilleth.gwentheritage.org.uk/content/category/categories/transport/rail

Pictures of 9F's and 72xx's plus the fine track layout that existed at this location.

 

Richard

 

A nice reminder of one of the better pay rounds in South Wales as in later years the former Area Manager's office at Aberbeeg was still the base for one clerk and an important feature of the Western Valley pay round was doing some shopping on the first stage and leaving it with Peggy at Aberbeeg who then cooked lunch while we went off on a further bit of the pay round before returning to eat.  A number of pay rounds had their compensations although few were that good although one of my Assts at Taunton insisted on doing the Cogload and Athelney round as that meant he could visit the bakery in Athelney - which left me permanently on the West-Super-Mare based round which suited me as i knew a good café for lunch in Weston.

 

Incidentally returning to the Western Valley the 9Fs appear to have gone to Ebbw Jcn as direct replacements on the shed for 28XX 2-8-0s although obviously some of the work they did was not the same as that previously covered by the 28XX engines.

[The Stationmaster]

I wouldn't want to be in the brakevan if the heavily ladden iron ore train broke a coupling and turned into a runaway.

That was the whole point of assisting in the rear.  Apart from providing extra power to lift trains up the steep gradients part of the point in assisting freight trains (in particular) in the rear was to reduce strain on couplings and minimise the risk of breakaways.  Over the years i bet more than a few Drivers who thought they could 'get away without a banker' in certain places finished up getting far greater delays due to couplings or even drawbars pulling out - I know of one place which was notorious for it and they not only kept a handy stock of spare couplings but even had some spare drawbars kept close at hand.

[OnTheBranchline]

That was the whole point of assisting in the rear.  Apart from providing extra power to lift trains up the steep gradients part of the point in assisting freight trains (in particular) in the rear was to reduce strain on couplings and minimise the risk of breakaways.  Over the years i bet more than a few Drivers who thought they could 'get away without a banker' in certain places finished up getting far greater delays due to couplings or even drawbars pulling out - I know of one place which was notorious for it and they not only kept a handy stock of spare couplings but even had some spare drawbars kept close at hand.

 

Was it usually trains over a certain length that were more likely for the couplings/drawbars to break?

[The Stationmaster]

Was it usually trains over a certain length that were more likely for the couplings/drawbars to break?

 

All depended on the weight and the state of the wagons - breakages were more likely on heavier trains and they were definitely more likely with wooden frame wagons or really old steel frames (on the latter two it wasn't unusual for the entire headstock to be pulled off!).

[LMS2968]

I recall reading that up to sixty wagons was about the limit; after that, the risk of a breakaway rose exponentially.

[jim.snowdon]

All depended on the weight and the state of the wagons - breakages were more likely on heavier trains and they were definitely more likely with wooden frame wagons or really old steel frames (on the latter two it wasn't unusual for the entire headstock to be pulled off!).

Which is why, after several instances of elderly and badly maintained PO coal wagons being pulled apart, the Railway Clearing House specified the use of continuous drawgear as a requirement for privately owned wagons to be accepted for operation on the main line railways. With continuous drawgear, the pull is actually taken on the rear headstock of each wagon, putting the underframe into compression, not tension. Only the couplings and the through drawbar were in tension.

 

Jim