Imaginary Locomotives

[John Besley]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

How much work would a fireman actually do, when banking? How much coal would a loco like the U1 actually use? 

 

Depends on the length of the bank, be pretty much the same as working a normal train depends on how free steaming she is, tubes clean, recent boiler washout etc....you would want to start off before buffering up with a good hot fire well banked up in the back corners and under the door, the boiler 3/4 full and the gauge on the red line, the opposite damper to travel direction open fully.

 

Once the train is under way, the fire is getting drawn you would open the doors and with the shovel push the fire forward then start firing to the brightest parts of the fire as this will be where its burning through, you dont want a hole in the fire bed (if you stick the shovel through the door and angle the blade around it will direct the flames away so you can see the firebed)

 

Firing a bit at a time and wait a few minutes then another round to keep feeding the fire as you don't Want to black it out, the doors would be shut between each shovel full to keep the cold air out - the secret is the brick arch must be red hot as this is what helps combustion.

 

The live steam injector can go on once the safety valves start to lift to keep the boiler topped up, and adjusting the primary air flow through the dampers and secondary air through the door to keep black smoke to a minimum

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by John Besley
Schpelling

[TheSignalEngineer]

7 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Three, I think all allocated to Saltley and intended for the Birmingham - Carlisle freights, via the Midland route. For an account of the effort required by the fireman when the mechanical stoker failed, see Terry Essery's Firing Days at Saltley.

Back in the early 1960s I knew a Saltley fireman who had worked the Carlisle fitted over the S&C on occasions. His account was much in line with Terry Essery, to the extent that after working it with a non-stoker 9F he was barely able to get off the loco.

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Back in the early 1960s I knew a Saltley fireman who had worked the Carlisle fitted over the S&C on occasions. His account was much in line with Terry Essery, to the extent that after working it with a non-stoker 9F he was barely able to get off the loco.

 

Essery tells of a fireman in the mess at Carlisle, who had worked there on a Duchess from Euston, saying to him that the Saltley men were the heroes - he'd had an easy time of it in comparison!

[TheSignalEngineer]

19 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Ah, but at Reading you could make the comparison in the flesh, as it where, with simultaneous departures on the main and relief.

We used to get the same at Stafford in the early days of the WCML electrification. Northbound trains from Birmingham to Liverpool were often sent Slow line to Crewe as that suited the platforming arrangements and junctions at Stafford and Crewe. One Sunday night I was on a late running Euston - Birmingham - Liverpool. At Stafford we pulled up alongside a Euston - Liverpool via TV. There was a quick exchange of words between the drivers as both signals were Off, us P5 to Slow and the other P3 to Fast. They syncronised the departures, both having the same 12-coach load of mixed Mk1 and Mk2 stock. We got away slightly faster as we had a straight alignment and the other had to negotiate a crossover and by Norton Bridge we were only the train length behind despite the Fast being 100mph and the Slow 75mph in those days. After the Fast line speed restriction there at that time I watched the tail lamp raidly disappear into the darkness.

Edited November 6, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[rockershovel]

21 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Back in the early 1960s I knew a Saltley fireman who had worked the Carlisle fitted over the S&C on occasions. His account was much in line with Terry Essery, to the extent that after working it with a non-stoker 9F he was barely able to get off the loco.

Which shows why we never developed mechanical stokers in this country - there were no duties anywhere which were beyond hand firing, although there were some that were at the limit. 

 

Compare with the NYC Hudsons taking on 27 (short) tons at the halfway point.... 

[JimC]

I suppose if we want to imagine super power freight locomotives, we also have to imagine that in say 1890 RCH/Board of Trade mandating that by say 1931 all freight wagons were to be railway owned with continuous brakes and safe to run at 50mph.

Sadly I can't help thinking the actual result would have been roads jammed with coal lorries by the late 1920s. Mind you we can then continue imagining utterly different tax regimes for road repairs etc. 

[john new]

3 hours ago, DenysW said:

What motivation are you giving him?* The L&Y R graphs have a sanity check for a maximum of 40 hp/sq-ft of grate superheated, 32 hp/sq-ft saturated. However, I have seen assertions of 50 hp/ft-sq when the team were striving for a record. And I note the "Same pay, twice the £$%^& work" remark above - that I've not yet seen for the LMS Garratts.

 

…. Snipped…

 

*Her only a modern possibility, sadly.

Interesting point, obviously back then social norms decreed that sexism was general in work roles. If my understanding from athletics though is correct men are better for absolute grunt work but women catch up the difference for prolonged input events. Would a female firing on a long turn therefore prove better (or closer to) than a man, albeit perhaps doing it with more, slightly smaller, shovelfuls with the converse for shorter jobs? 

[rockershovel]

In Soviet Russia, locomotive drives you!

[DenysW]

48 minutes ago, john new said:

... men are better for absolute grunt work ...

Possibly, but UK working class men were systematically malnourished up to WW1, as shown by the average height of UK conscripts being 4" (100 mm) lower than US or Australian conscripts heading to the trenches. There's almost certainly some effect of hybrid vigour in there for the non-UK soldiers, but even so you should not ignore how weedy the workers were back then compared to now. It is therefore my belief that modern female fireman (firewoman?) could hold her own against a 1920s man, both chosen for knowing what the job was and being willing to do it.

[John Besley]

There is a difference in the industry you are working in... at work our scheduler is a woman, she grew up on a farm and once acquired her class 1 licence went out cattle hauling with a trailer and drag 6 wheel Scania back in the 80's covering the UK, after which she ended up scheduling drivers for an abattoir - she stood no nonsense as she could do the driving and they knew it no-one got the better over her.  She finally left when she had enough of being talked down to by senior management - who was slso a woman. 

 

 

(ERF trailer and drag, this is still in existence...)

 

 

In storage as seen on Friday last week, this is a new warehouse we fitted the fire alarm to - the building is as far as I can work out on the footprint of the S&D loco shed at Highbridge... the rest of the site is on the site of Highbridge works - anyone who travels the M5 will know where this site is...

 

I also know a young female mechanical electrician who was so good at her job she was head hunted by two firms to manage their engineers.

 

While both of the above are hard physically jobs they don't compare to footplate work back in the day - women are designed differently unless they are on the lines of 'Rosie the Riveter'

Edited November 6, 2022 by John Besley
Reload

[rockershovel]

Don't know about "hybrid vigour", it was well understood on BOTH World Wars that the UK lower-class diet was chronically inadequate - see the effects of rationing in WW2 which although universally resented, produced measurable improvements in public health. 

 

Also the effects of being brought up to hard work in an outdoor environment. 

 

It's difficult to find objective studies of work rates in pre-WW2 populations, but consider Orwell's graphic description of coal miners at work (from "Road to Wigan Pier") in which it is clear that habituation to the work is crucial. 

 

This is self explanatory..

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by rockershovel

[billbedford]

Can I just slip in a wagon question here?

 

When did wagons start to be given wooden spacers between the brake push rods?

Edited November 7, 2022 by billbedford

[JeremyC]

On 06/11/2022 at 09:18, DenysW said:

The UK chose to make that statement true, but it was a choice. The grade (size) of coal for mechanical stokers is different from shovelling coal, so there's a direct cost of having two coaling stations, and a botheration factor of keeping the two separate. 

IIRC in his book 'Calling Carlisle Control' Peter Brock said that at Carlisle the stoker fitted 9fs were taken over to Canal shed for coaling because the size of coal supplied there was more suitable for them.

[tythatguy1312]

19 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Compare with the NYC Hudsons taking on 27 (short) tons at the halfway point.... 

I'm starting to question how Gresley's A1's managed to do with 9 tons what the NYC couldn't do with 20. Really shows the difference in loco design doctrine.

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I'm starting to question how Gresley's A1's managed to do with 9 tons what the NYC couldn't do with 20. Really shows the difference in loco design doctrine.

 

Weight of train; calorific value etc. of coal, gradient profile of route... 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I'm starting to question how Gresley's A1's managed to do with 9 tons what the NYC couldn't do with 20. Really shows the difference in loco design doctrine.

The A1s pulled 12-car sets of carriages which individually weighed around 25% (or more) less than their US counterparts. 

 

The NYC Hudsons were making around 35% higher TE, pulling trains of 16-18 heavyweight carriages, at continuous speeds of 85mph plus and long spells of 90mph plus. They were generally believed to be regularly exceeding 100mph in service, with reliability far exceeding the Gresley product. 

 

Their run was 1000 miles, more or less so their halfway mark was 25% further than the A1s etc. 

 

Perhaps someone with more relevant expertise might check the arithmetic, but I'd guess that both locos were achieving similar efficiencies. 

[DenysW]

51 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Their run was 1000 miles

At the time union agreements limited crews to travelling 500 miles in a single shift, so a break to re-fuel and change crew would be a neat fit. This 500 mile limit was abandoned while I was resident out there in (about) the mid-1980s, amidst some wringing of hands from 'we fought for that' traditionalists.

[DenysW]

On 07/11/2022 at 14:13, rockershovel said:

On 07/11/2022 at 12:20, tythatguy1312 said:

I'm starting to question how Gresley's A1's managed to do with 9 tons what the NYC couldn't do with 20. Really shows the difference in loco design doctrine.

The A1s pulled 12-car sets of carriages which individually weighed around 25% (or more) less than their US counterparts. 

 

The NYC Hudsons were making around 35% higher TE, pulling trains of 16-18 heavyweight carriages, at continuous speeds of 85mph plus and long spells of 90mph plus. They were generally believed to be regularly exceeding 100mph in service, with reliability far exceeding the Gresley product. 

 

Their run was 1000 miles, more or less so their halfway mark was 25% further than the A1s etc. 

This feels like comparing apples and Kiwi Fruit. On a quick check the NYC Hudsons were specifically designed for long, very fast running on the flat, with boosters fitted to the trailing bogie to make sure they had enough grunt to start their trains. Gresley's A1 had a 1:100 to climb to escape from Scotland, with the route having been used to trial boosters, but not for their permanent use.

 

The Hudsons also started out on similar 400(ish) mile routes to the A1s like New York-Buffalo and New York- Scranton, only later doing the longer New York-Chicago route.

 

Not as severe as comparing these with the duty needed for the Kenya-Uganda Railways 400 miles(ish) route from the coast to Kampala that rose to 8000 ft above sea-level at its peak, but still risky. Details in "The Garratt Locomotive".

[rodent279]

On 02/11/2022 at 21:57, The Johnster said:

More than 30 years, Alfa, we needed to slap 'em into line the same time as you colonial gentlemen sensibly adopted bogie air braked vehicles with Janney couplers as standard nationwide!

One for the Imaginary Railways thread-BoT mandates auto-couplers & continuous brakes on all rolling stock, passenger & non-passenger, in about 1900.

[rodent279]

On 25/10/2022 at 13:35, rodent279 said:

I suppose to some extent a Deltic is just that-two expensive diesels working in multiple. They are just in the the same bodyshell.

 

On 25/10/2022 at 17:14, Flying Pig said:

 

Fair enough.  Pairs of Type 3s it is then, as envisaged by Ivatt.  The LNWR naming tradition was delightfully eclectic, so I'm imagining a train pulled by Mendel's Peas* and John D Profumo (later renamed of course). 

 

*an experiment

 

On 25/10/2022 at 16:38, Flying Pig said:

I don't think it would have been so easy to make double heading the basis of dieselising the Premier Line,

And yet, effectively, that is exactly where BR ended up, with the HST. Effectively two Type 4's in multiple, albeit at either end of the train.

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

One for the Imaginary Railways thread-BoT mandates auto-couplers & continuous brakes on all rolling stock, passenger & non-passenger, in about 1900.

 

With something like 30 years for compliance. The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, gave the Board of Trade the power to make statutory rules enforcing safer working practices. The BoT exercised these powers twice, with rules prohibiting dangerous methods of shunting and mandating adequate lighting of yards used at night, etc., in 1902, and then, after a lengthy period of consultation and experimentation by the railways themselves through the RCH, with rules requiring both-side brakes on goods wagons, in 1911 - with up to 20 years for compliance, which in was in due course extended up to 1939.

 

Whether the BoT's powers under that act would have extended to auto-couplers is an interesting question, as is how an extended transition period for goods wagons would be managed. I believe auto-couplers were discussed by the Royal Commission on Accidents to Railway Servants that sat in 1899-1900 (leading to the 1900 legislation). It would have looked like a very attractive safety measure, avoiding the need for shunters to pass between wagons.

 

See, for example, this, among other entries in Hansard:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1909-09-22/debates/66f53c79-cfe7-4066-9ecf-60db4a92014d/AutomaticCouplings

 

Reading further, I find that an Automatic Couplings Bill was proposed in March 1899 but not proceeded with because the outcome of the Royal Commission was awaited:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1899/mar/28/automatic-couplings

 

And here's Mr Churchill prevaricating away again:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1908-07-27/debates/129eb45f-37b4-4b22-a3a7-9aa00aae6a23/AutomaticCouplings

Edited November 10, 2022 by Compound2632

[rodent279]

Hmmm. Mr Churchill's ability to talk round and through the question, leaving the reader with a vague feeling that said question has not been answered, seems uncannily reminiscent of certain more contemporary politicians.......

[AlfaZagato]

I could see the railway worker's unions taking issue with automatic couplers.   Probably under some claim that the work loses meaning.   Gives the railway a reason to pay the union boys less.

[The Johnster]

If the BoT had insisted on fully fitted trains and automatic couplers in 1909, the railway companies would have demanded government funds to effect the change or dragged their feet for half a century, certainly after WW1 when the availability of investent capital became progressively lessened.  The only way to have achieved this would have been to nationalise the railways, since the Treasury would (or at least should if they were doing their job) have otherwise objected to subsidising shareholders with public money, and I doubt there was any political will to do this in 1909; maybe during WW1 and shortly afterwards, but of course we compromised (we are, after all, British, dammit Carruthers and never do things other than by comprised half-measure; our attempts to satisfy everybody a little bit result in dissatisfaction for everbody a lot) with the grouping instead. 

 

It would have needed an almost complete replacement of the existing freight and PO mineral stock, as automatic couplers would have needed bogie vehicles; they act as buffing gear as well.  The Americans had the 'advantage' of rough, lightly laid, track during their early development period which demanded bogie stock to run reliably on it, and were, except for some industrial and mineral lines, more or less 100% bogie from their inception.  Hence their customers' loading and unloading facilities were set up for longer bogie vehicles and the system never really changed, though the vehicles became longer and of higher capacity over time.  Of course, bogie stock with automatic brakes can be safely run at much higher speeds, and by the turn of the 20th century their per.way was using heavier rail and was capable of sustaining much higher axle loads than ours.

 

The Janney was concieved as a safety measure to avoid the need for shunters to go between wagons, but did not solve another perennial American safety issue, their need to go on to the walkway on top of boxcars where one was liable to be knocked off balance with a resultant fall, sometimes between moving vehicles, which seldom had a happy ending.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, AlfaZagato said:

I could see the railway worker's unions taking issue with automatic couplers.   Probably under some claim that the work loses meaning.   Gives the railway a reason to pay the union boys less.

 

I don't think so. Safer working conditions was very much a union campaign, and one that had gained considerable public and press support; they had representatives on the Royal Commission.