"Not to be used south of Crewe".

[JeffP]

Many locos were painted with the diagonal yellow cabside stripe in the mid to late 60's, denoting that they were not to be used under the wires south of Crewe, as it was deemed unsafe.

Yet we now see preserved representatives of those same classes used under the same wires.

 

So what changed?

[Steamport Southport]

45 minutes ago, JeffP said:

Many locos were painted with the diagonal yellow cabside stripe in the mid to late 60's, denoting that they were not to be used under the wires south of Crewe, as it was deemed unsafe.

Yet we now see preserved representatives of those same classes used under the same wires.

 

So what changed?

 

Height.

 

It was only a few classes that had the restriction. Those that are on the mainline such as Duchesses and Jubilees have been lowered.

 

 

Jason

[Michael Hodgson]

The big risk at the time was to firemen who routinely climbed on top to put the bag in, and with certain classes they would be closer to the wires than other classes.  There's probably no longer that ingrained habit these days, though the risk when under the wires would obviously still be there.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The big risk at the time was to firemen who routinely climbed on top to put the bag in, and with certain classes they would be closer to the wires than other classes.  There's probably no longer that ingrained habit these days, though the risk when under the wires would obviously still be there.

That would make sense if all Stanier tenders were banned south of Crewe and all Fowler tenders weren't ............ which blatantly wasn't the case.

Many - if not all - tenders on the national network nowadays have low-level 'fire hose' fillers so the necessity - rather than habit - of going on top has been done away with ( there are no conventional 'bags' anyway ).

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

The big risk at the time was to firemen who routinely climbed on top to put the bag in, and with certain classes they would be closer to the wires than other classes.  There's probably no longer that ingrained habit these days, though the risk when under the wires would obviously still be there.

 

That would be covered by the warning patches and don't forget many of the diesels still used the water cranes for the steam heat boilers. Class 40s even had pick up apparatus for water troughs.

 

https://www.keymodelworld.com/article/english-electric-class-40-history

 

Other steam engines were still working under the wires. For example no Black Fives got the yellow stripe and they were still running about.

 

It was purely for height reasons where they would snag the wires and it was only an inch or two. Most mainline locomotives affected have since been lowered. If you didn't know it had been done it's very hard to tell.

 

BR didn't deem the work to lower them worthwhile as they were all due for withdrawal. So they just painted a yellow stripe on them. Sometimes on ones that didn't need it.

 

 

Jason

[Wheatley]

Nothing to do with firemen or water columns, it was to do with clearances on certain structures at the southern end of the WCML. The original plan was to electrify these sections at 6.25KV but practical testing demonstrated that clearances were adequate for most locomotives at 25KV so the plan was dropped. 

 

Those locos which were still a problem got yellow stripes for the reasons stated by Steamtown. Steam locos operating on Network Rail routes now need to comply with the height limit of 13'1", there are no grandfather rights so they have reduced height cabs, boiler fittings and chimneys where necessary. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Wheatley

[TheSignalEngineer]

27 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

It was purely for height reasons where they would snag the wires and it was only an inch or two.

Nothing to do with snagging the wires. Experience had shown that clearance allowances for flashovers on the original 25kv electrification were over generous and could be reduced. Along with some tweaks to OLE design It made considerably savings on the amount and cost of bridge reconstructions required.

[KingEdwardII]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Most mainline locomotives affected have since been lowered

King Edward II in preservation has alternative set of lower chimney and safety valve casing which are fitted to permit running on the mainline - something that has never happened in practice due to width restrictions.

 

Yours, Mike

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

... don't forget many of the diesels still used the water cranes for the steam heat boilers. ...

The difference with diesel and electric locos, of course, is that they were watered from the side rather than the top near the knitting. ( Presumably NOT why Bulleid put water fillers at the front corners of his tenders.)

[Arun Sharma]

Inside and upstairs in the workshop at NRM you can see on display the original cabside sheets of Duchess of Hamilton which were removed as part of the height lowering process.

[melmerby]

The Big LMS locos were 13' 2" over chimney and 13' 3" over cab, so not much lowering required.

Large GWR locos, e.g. some Castles, were 13' 5½" high! Clun Castle is now 13' 1"

[woodenhead]

12 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Big LMS locos were 13' 2" over chimney and 13' 3" over cab, so not much lowering required.

Large GWR locos, e.g. some Castles, were 13' 5½" high! Clun Castle is now 13' 1"

So it's not just humans who shrink with age 😆

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, melmerby said:

 

Large GWR locos, e.g. some Castles, were 13' 5½" high! Clun Castle is now 13' 1"

Flat tyres?

[Wickham Green too]

55 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Flat tyres?

Nah - just getting towards scrapping size.

[LNERGE]

I wonder what damage was done..

 

 

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, LNERGE said:

I wonder what damage was done.. 

From the location of the flash, I'd guess a new dome cover would've been needed ...................... and a new set of nerves for the crew.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, LNERGE said:

I wonder what damage was done..

 

 

Interesting and of course also seen with the Duchess somewhere.   The situation with this one is reasonably easy to understand - the engine slipped which would have drawn the exhaust even before it was quickly shut-off which in turn wouds have pulled bits of fire through the tubes including hot gases and part butny coal.  And that led to arcing from the overhead conductor.  Quite what made the sparks falling back is open to den bate but I would think they more likely fell on the dome rather than the arcing hitting it

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[johnofwessex]

What did these events do to the electrics?

[Michael Hodgson]

Doesn't seem to have bothered the pedstrians.

[jim.snowdon]

15 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

What did these events do to the electrics?

Trip the feeder circuit breakers, and in all probability the Electrical Control Operators simply logged the event and reclosed the offending breakers, which would then have remained closed. They only usually get interested when the reclose is unsuccessful. There would probably also have been a call to the signalling centre to enquire as to what train was in the electrical section at the time. As far as the OLE is concerned, it would have left a small burn mark on the contact wire, but being solid that is not usually much of a problem. Copper tends to vapourise rather than melt.

 

[rogerzilla]

On 19/10/2022 at 09:12, Wickham Green too said:

The difference with diesel and electric locos, of course, is that they were watered from the side rather than the top near the knitting. ( Presumably NOT why Bulleid put water fillers at the front corners of his tenders.)

The execrable "Leader" class turned out to have a filler too high up for SR water cranes!

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

The execrable "Leader" class turned out to have a filler too high up for SR water cranes!

I suppose no worse than the LMS Garratt's that had to pull up twice to refill, because the tank fillers were in the wrong place to take advantage of the dual water cranes, which were a feature of the Midland mainline.

[Titan]

On 19/10/2022 at 09:12, Wickham Green too said:

The difference with diesel and electric locos, of course, is that they were watered from the side rather than the top near the knitting. ( Presumably NOT why Bulleid put water fillers at the front corners of his tenders.)

Classes 21,24,29,31, peaks and possibly others all had hatches in the roof for filling with water, often with footsteps fitted in the bodyside to climb up. They were of course eventually removed and plated over, but they would have had them under the wires for some time and probably closer to the OLE than hatches on a tender.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Titan

[LMS2968]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

I suppose no worse than the LMS Garratt's that had to pull up twice to refill, because the tank fillers were in the wrong place to take advantage of the dual water cranes, which were a feature of the Midland mainline.

To be fair, designing an entire loco around the distance between adjacent water columns, where two where provided, would be asking a lot from the drawing office. There was a balance pipe between the front and rear tanks to allow the water taken at one end to fill the tank at the other end simultaneously. A more realistic criticism was that this pipe was of too small a bore so the water took and excessively long time to settle. 

 

You also need to consider that two spaced columns were provided for double headed trains with two engines, and two drivers and two firemen, one pair to each column. With only a single crew available, two columns held little or no advantage.

Edited October 26, 2022 by LMS2968

[woodenhead]

11 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

A more realistic criticism was that this pipe was of too small a bore so the water took and excessively long time to settle. 

 

Perhaps deliberate to ensure one tank did not empty on gradients or unbalance the locomotive with water sloshing from one tank to the other uncontrolled?