Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

The LMS society,

 

The LNER had aprox 60,000 fitted vans and wagons out of a total fleet of aprox 295,000 wagons. The LMS had aprox 20,000 fitted vans and wagons from a fleet of aprox 350,000 vans and wagons. The other two were well behind in comparison. I'm not sure on the last question.

 

I did the stats many moons ago.  Excluding  mineral wagons, the percentages in 1930 were: LMS 44%, LNER 33%, COR 17%, SR 6%.  This barely changed over grouping with the SR nudging up at the expense of the northern companies.  A couple of facts:  at grouping, most companies had about 10% of their wagons comprising covered vans; but this was 20% for the LSWR, many of which were fitted for the Southampton Docks traffic.  Then the L&Y was possibly the most progressive railway for wagon design and construction.

 

Bill

 

ps: COR = certain other railway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 minutes ago, bbishop said:

 

ps: COR = certain other railway.

 

And there was me thinking that it stood for Corroded, Old and Rusty.

;-)

 

 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Well it's big but it's not exactly elegant and, if you've got that much loading gauge to play with, designing a very large loco is comparatively easier.

 

Anyway it wasn't built in Britain.

 

Personally, I think the best goods engines built in Britain were these .

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1140896132_140-C-231-aCCDidierDuForest.jpg.59c04dcb0848370f5113298e3ac9916b.jpg

preserved 140-C-231 at Nogent sur Seine on 24th May 1987 : Creative Commons by Didier Duforest

 

From a total class of 340 locos designed by the Etat railway just 70 were built in France in 1913. All the rest were built in Britain between 1916 and 1920; 20 by Naysmith Wilson, 35 by Vulcan Foundry  and 215 by North British in Glasgow.

 

These also ended up being the the last class of main line steam locos in commercial service in France and 140C 287, one of the final North British batch delivered in 1917, hauled the country's last commercial steam train in September 1975. Being the last class in service allowed eight of these locos, all British built,  to avoid the scrapper's torch, one from Vulcan foundry and seven from North British including 140 C 287.

 

Preserved locos may be beautifully polished but these were hardworking goods locos 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/France_Rail_057_Sommesous.jpg.1caffa6b9c05e8e99bf256db90d6be2e.jpg

140C188 at Sommesous (Marne) between  Troyes et Chalons-sur-Marne 23rd September 1958: CC by Ben Brooksbank

 

That may be a bit OT but it's interesting how many people's favourite heavy goods locos are 2-8-0s

Wherever they're working and whether built by Baldwin or the GWR,  I do find the  most aesthetically pleasing goods locos to be Consolidations. They just seem right in the role with an extra pair of generally smaller driving wheels to show they're built for heavy goods not speed but not going over the top with ten or more drivers.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotthardbahn_C4:5_2-8-0_Lemaco_HO_scale_model.png.d81380b33410bd91ea00501fe1f3a785.pngThough not built in Britain there were other successful 2-8-0 locomotives introduced in Europe at about the same time as the GWR 28XX. How about the Gotthardbahn C4/5 class? According to Locobase these locos were 4-cylinder compound motion, bar frame, high-pitched boiler with wide frame firebox unhampered by the wheels & fitted with superheaters introduced in 1906 & could manage an average speed of 17 mph up the mountains & 40 mph on the level. Their tonnage ratings were:

 

Mountain - freight 180 tons & passenger 260 tons (though there is some confusion about the latter figure)

 

Level - freight 520 tons & passenger 800 tons

 

Anyone who has driven over the Gotthard pass will realise that these are very impressive data for their time. Since they also had to descend as well as climb the passes they must have had impressive braking power too. As Swiss Railways decided to make no more steam locomotives after 1917 (the last were the C5/6 2-10-0 development of the C4/5) in favour of electric traction (Clive Mortimer will be pleased about that?) they are scrapped in 1925.

 

The photo above is a Lemaco HO model. I have one but to respond while this topic is still quite current it was easier to use this stock shot.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting discussion on the heavy freight locos.  For me I think my favourite was always the 2884 series, the rebuilding of the cab makes them look not quite so old fashioned.   It’s amazing to think that such an old design lasted so well.

 

i have managed to do at least a little modelling to mine, converting it to an oil burner.

2E41AD15-4764-488E-B7FB-33DE5AD7E7B2.jpeg

 

Its a shame there was never a similar modernisation of the 47xx, it would have looked very impressive with a ‘proper’ cab on it!  It does remind me I really must get on and get mine working (pickup problems I believe) built from a PDK kit.  (The con rod is deliberately not fitted while I work on the running issues).  It also needs work sorting out the dodgy weathering...

87673FEA-B585-452C-A706-F013E99D5327.jpeg
 

My favourite non GW prototype has to be the 9f,  the only BR standard that I would love to have a model of!  There’s something about the size of it along with that huge gap between boiler and chassis...

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Thompson was better then Gresley

 

 

Hat

 

 

 

 

 

coat

 

 

 

 

and most definitely gone  

  • Like 1
  • Funny 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about these ? - Fireman's nightmare so I read. Lots of them built / converted etc. Another freight loco with a long and complicated history.

 

Another of Dad's photos on Boars Head bank. Late 50's. At least she is fairly steam tight.

 

1239154395_WHITLEYCROSSINGSUPERDNBDND.jpg.3603d5e828b7a13dbc9e8a762ffc377a.jpg

Brit15

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chrisf said:

 

It seems that Canton regarded "Evening Star" as at least the equal of a Britannia.  There must have been red faces when she arived at Paddington 20 minutes early on the up "Red Dragon" and not just because passengers were still eating their lunch.  The schedule of 180 minutes for the 145 miles from Cardiff to Paddington was a joke.

 

Chris


IIRC the class were banned from express work after one was clocked through Southall in the low 90mph range by the authorities. I can’t remember the source but it was reported in one of the monthly magazines at the time, and is probably repeated in other books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I am not a fan of the "Sheds" but they must be the most successful freight locomotive class to run in the UK. And the most colourful.

Just a Class 59 with one of its best features left out, the "creep" transmission system.

 

That adds around 12,000lb to a 59's starting TE and 6,000 to the continuous rating when compared to its newer lookalikes, around 10% overall, from the same engine horsepower.

 

It didn't come cheap, however, and EWS had to make a trade-off between numbers and grunt when they ordered the initial 250 Class 66s.

 

John

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bbishop said:

 

To continue the theme, whilst the Maunsell S15 was the more efficient locomotive, the ex South Western enginemen preferred the Urie version on freight traffic, especially in bad weather.

Bill

In the early sixties we had 800s (Maunsells) down here on Salisbury-Exeter stoppers formed of a 3-set with or without a van.

 

With 5'7" drivers and 6F grunt on such light loads, the acceleration away from stations wasn't bettered until the Class 159s came along thirty years later*.

 

John   

 

EDIT: * Apart from one occasion when I rode up to Salisbury in a set of 5 coaches with a pair of Class 50s on the front...

Edited by Dunsignalling
*
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Just a Class 59 with one of its best features left out, the "creep" transmission system.

 

 

 

Hmm, not quite that similar and simple especially when it comes to bashing one (class 59) from a RTR class 66 in N/2mm. Different panel positions, different bogies, different roof layout, different exhaust, different fuel tank/underframe, etc:

 

1242711490_66to59pic04.JPG.65a1ba1c368c02675e30a682626ad897.JPG

 

1927335222_66to59pic02.JPG.b28efbe00cf0933df360ba9fef08598b.JPG

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Fatadder said:

An interesting discussion on the heavy freight locos.  For me I think my favourite was always the 2884 series, the rebuilding of the cab makes them look not quite so old fashioned.   It’s amazing to think that such an old design lasted so well.

 

i have managed to do at least a little modelling to mine, converting it to an oil burner.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_06/2E41AD15-4764-488E-B7FB-33DE5AD7E7B2.jpeg.39a18636b2355a2d5fe2cf0ad6259196.jpeg

 

 

 

 

Looks as if it's perched delicately atop Donald Trump's hair.

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's that N/2mm class 59 on it's own (not compared with a class 66). A RTR version has been promised for eons but never produced so I made my own:

 

DSC_0814.JPG.02e1e041de863b7a3a2c8940b1216e7c.JPG

 

1998817055_66to59pic13.JPG.7149d6989759d68a83eb893cf56e5b2d.JPG

 

Apologies for the poor photography and rather cruel close-ups. But it's quite an old model now and old snaps.

Edited by grahame
  • Like 10
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, grahame said:

 

Hmm, not quite that similar and simple especially when it comes to bashing one (class 59) from a RTR class 66 in N/2mm. Different panel positions, different bogies, different roof layout, different exhaust, different fuel tank/underframe, etc:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1242711490_66to59pic04.JPG.65a1ba1c368c02675e30a682626ad897.JPG

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1927335222_66to59pic02.JPG.b28efbe00cf0933df360ba9fef08598b.JPG

But clearly derived from its elder brethren, and IIRC basically the same motor.

 

I remember drivers calling into the box when we had 66s moving up to Eastleigh from down West for attention, Then, they were new enough not to have yet had general overhauls. Several were quite disparaging about the build quality, especially draughts and rattles from ill-fitting doors.

 

In their favour, I went into the engine room on a couple and you could have eaten your lunch off the GM lump.

 

John

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But clearly derived from its elder brethren, 

 

Yep, rather like most steam engines.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, have avoided writing this up until now as I can't currently find my reference, but was it not the case that the Q7 pulled it's own train AND pushed that of the 28xx and the 28 in question that had run out of steam on those afore mentioned exchanges?  I'm sure I have it in a book somwhere!

 

Nevertheless I'm a big 9F fan.  There is a quote in Gerry Fienne's book 'I Tried to Run a Railway' about a 9F doing over 90 with him in the train as General Manager of the Eastern Region IIRC.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jrg1 said:

In all the posts regarding the merits of heavy goods locomotives, why has there been no mention of the GWR 47xx class?  

Fast, powerful, versatile and at home on heavy mixed traffic-and only nine were ever built.

Perhaps because they were few in number and they weren't really 'heavy goods' engines but very much 'heavy mixed traffic' as an enlargement of the 43XX 2-6-0.  But they were very much the GWR's 'fast/fitted freight' engine as a more powerful supplement to the 43XX 2-6-0s (and thus a very different idea from the 28XX which was  a 'heavy freight/mineral' engine of the lower speed variety) as they were intended to work the fast and vacuum fitted services although they were all too quickly overshadowed by the 'Halls' which were suited to a much wider range of mixed traffic work than the 47XX.

 

And the 47XX were not much liked by enginemen compared with many other GW engines - with the lever reverse Drivers had a tendency to be less willing to notch them up so they often proved hard work for Firemen, especially on Summer Saturday passenger turns and they didn't ride as well at any sort of speed unlike the far better riding 4-6-0s.  But when all that is said and done they lasted as long as w enough work existed for them.  However it is interesting to note that they shared quite a few route restrictions with the 9Fs and there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever about which was far and away the better engine out of those two - as Tony has already noted.

6 hours ago, chrisf said:

 

It seems that Canton regarded "Evening Star" as at least the equal of a Britannia.  There must have been red faces when she arived at Paddington 20 minutes early on the up "Red Dragon" and not just because passengers were still eating their lunch.  The schedule of 180 minutes for the 145 miles from Cardiff to Paddington was a joke.

 

Chris

Yes, the timings were pretty slack but then things were very different back then and maximum speeds were still relatively restricted.  as it happens one of my past supervisors was the man who put 92220 on 'The Red Dragon' when he was a Panel (i.e relief stepped up from Driver) Foreman at Canton on a day when they literally ran out of suitable engines to work the train.  So he said to the other Foreman on duty 'why not use the 92 - it's green and fairly clean' so that was what happened.  Canton men were I think fairly happy with 9Fs, which were the subject of rather mixed feelings at various sheds (and not just on the WR) because of the way they needed to be fired to get the best out of them.

 

And not difficult to regard 92220 as at least the equal of a Brit as they had a mixed reputation at Canton.  They had resented being lumbered with the Brits - some said more 'Castles' would have been much preferred) by their DMPS (District Motive Power Superintendent) who was of course anyway based at Ebbw Junction at that time and who had sat at a Superintendents' conference listening to his colleagues bemoaning the Brits and had said that he would gladly take them, so he got them.   Even at Canton the left hand drive was far from universally popular for various reasons (as was the case at other Western sheds) and the Milton derailment didn't add to their reputation although at least it got the smoke deflector handrails removed and replaced by hand holds.    The main thing iI remember about them from a lineside perspective was the amount of slipping which took place when trying to start a Down train away from Reading, it occasionally got quite spectacular.

 

The Milton derailment Report should anyone be interested -

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Milton1955.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

Hmm, have avoided writing this up until now as I can't currently find my reference, but was it not the case that the Q7 pulled it's own train AND pushed that of the 28xx and the 28 in question that had run out of steam on those afore mentioned exchanges?  I'm sure I have it in a book somwhere!

 

Nevertheless I'm a big 9F fan.  There is a quote in Gerry Fienne's book 'I Tried to Run a Railway' about a 9F doing over 90 with him in the train as General Manager of the Eastern Region IIRC.

It isnt something I can ever recall reading on a subject I've long found fascinating. Aside from the unlikely event of this happening, there is the point that no Q7's were featured in the trials.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But clearly derived from its elder brethren, and IIRC basically the same motor.

 

No, I'm pretty sure the 66 has a 710 engine and the 59 has a 645 engine. (those numbers mean swept volume in cubic inches per cylinder!)

 

As well as that, ISTR the 59 was built up to a specification and the 66 built down to a price (which included volume discount as well as EMD's sweeteners for opening up the European market - in which they were very successful!)

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I very much doubt know that two 66s could not do what we did with two 59s and shift a 12,000 ton (N.B. real tons, not those metric wimp things) trailing load up a 1 in 330 gradient.  A shame we never got to the 1 in 145 which could have been very interesting but alas despite all the precautions we had taken a coupling hook broke so our trial run came to a premature end.  And no problems getting a 5,000 ton trailing load (plus a dead 59) up 1 in 138 on curved track with a wet rail but it did need the super creep to do it.   

 

However we did hang 2,500 tons behind a 9F at Merehead Quarry on one very secretive occasion and it shifted that load with no trouble at all, not even a slip as it first got hold of the train.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

It isnt something I can ever recall reading on a subject I've long found fascinating. Aside from the unlikely event of this happening, there is the point that no Q7's were featured in the trials.

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

 

1921 Trials, Perth Edinburgh freight trials, Q7, 28xx and J37 classes.  C J Allen, 'Locomotive Exchanges', 1949, pictured on P49.  However this book does not have the quote about the 28 being pushed by the Q7, I can't find that currently.  It does state (although admittedly in unscientific terms) the Q7 performed better than the 28, which slipped to a halt in poor weather, on p35.

Edited by New Haven Neil
Spelling
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the 59 was Ed Burkhadt's starting point for the 66. Obviously 5he 710 engine was put in i stead of the 645. However  he wanted a lo ger eange so a larger fuel ta k was fitted. To keep the weight down they fitted lighter weight traction morors and a lighter weight alternator. It was definitely  built down to a spec.

As to the 90 mph 9F's I also read Gerry Fiennes' account of his 90 mph teip down Stoke Bank with Bill Hoole at the regulator. I have also read somewhere about 92220's explouts on the Red Dragon. Apparently the piston speed terrified the powers that ve with 8 revs per second.

 

Jamie

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

 

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

 

1921 Trials, Perth Edinburgh freight trials, Q7, 28xx and J37 classes.  C J Allen, 'Locomotive Exchanges', 1949, pictured on P49.  However this book does not have the quote about the 28 being pushed by the Q7, I can't find that currently.  It does state (although admittedly in unscientific terms) the Q7 performed better than the 28, which slipped to a halt in poor weather, on p35.

With respect, I wasn't mistaken. The thread was mentioning the 1948 trials. I find this interesting and will certainly find out more about these 1921 trials. The Q7's  were superb machined but in no way could they be described as superior to a 28 which was a far more modern and efficient machine.  The fact that they have often been described as being at least 20 years ahead of their time in engineering and design terms also explains why they were still the front line GWR heavy freight locomotive at the outbreak of WW2. In essence Swindon didn't need a new design, when they already had the perfect tools for the job.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, New Haven Neil said:

Hmm, have avoided writing this up until now as I can't currently find my reference, but was it not the case that the Q7 pulled it's own train AND pushed that of the 28xx and the 28 in question that had run out of steam on those afore mentioned exchanges?  I'm sure I have it in a book somwhere!

 

Nevertheless I'm a big 9F fan.  There is a quote in Gerry Fienne's book 'I Tried to Run a Railway' about a 9F doing over 90 with him in the train as General Manager of the Eastern Region IIRC.

 

 

 

I have heard about a stalled 66 on a bank being rescued by a following 60 with its own train.

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.