Which was the worst 0-6-0 produced by the Big 4, 2251, J38, J39, 4F, Q or Q1

[TheSignalEngineer]

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

From Daw Mill Colliery?

No, the ones on Kingsbury Branch.

Daw Mill largely took over from them when the second shaft was sunk at the end of the 1960s and the drift was added c1983. Incidentally before closure Daw Mill held the record for the highest annual production at a UK coal mine.

Edited November 19, 2022 by TheSignalEngineer

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

No, the ones on Kingsbury Branch.

Daw Mill largely took over from them when the second shaft was sunk at the end of the 1960s and the drift was added c1983. Incidentally before closure Daw Mill held the record for the highest annual production at a UK coal mine.

 

When my parents were first married, they lived over a shop in Erdington. Then I came along, forcing a move to an affordable house - a new build in Wilnecote, from where my father would cycle in to work at one or other of Birmingham's Public Libraries. Being a keen cyclist, he knew the country well. So he suggested a short cut to Wilnecote to the removal lorry driver, which unfortunately involved a low bridge under the Kingsbury branch. As far as I'm aware, the only damage done was to the driver's estimation of my father...

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Loco size is a case of Horses for Courses IMHO, being an infrasturcture man. In the twilight of steam a Saltley fireman remarked to me "all we get now is 2-8-0's when a 4F could **** the job"

Did the 8F require additional work by the crew, especially the fireman?

[whart57]

11 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

The trip in question was doing about 

15 miles on the flat from colliery to gasworks with about 30 16T minerals and booked about an hour, most of which was spent tailgating the one in front on a Permissive Goods line.

Next time I rode on it after steam finished we had real overkill - a 47 with a similar load and schedule.

Which is what I meant - workings that hadn't changed in a century. 

[Compound2632]

36 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Which is what I meant - workings that hadn't changed in a century. 

 

And hence could have been perfectly adequately worked by the 0-6-0s of the 1860s.

[rogerzilla]

17 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

If you are working loose coupled goods trains the extra brake force of the tender would help (be essential?). Not all tank engines had brakes on their leading or trailing trucks. AIUI loose coupled goods were a rather British phenomenon, at least in the later years.

The only tank engine I know of with bogie brakes is the W class, where they are very obvious, partly from the brake cylinders but also from the staining up the side of the bunker that came from the escaping steam.

[TheSignalEngineer]

7 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Did the 8F require additional work by the crew, especially the fireman?

I understand 4F grate 21 sq ft. 8F grate 28.5 sq ft.

35.7% more fire bed to keep happy?

[Nearholmer]

One of Stroudley’s earlier designs was his 0-6-0 good engine, which took a few iterations to get right. IIRC, the first version had a boiler and firebox design that produced absolutely masses of steam, but was difficult to keep working nicely at very low to nil steaming rates, and therefore consumed way too much coal when the trains were hanging about endlessly waiting for the road. That sort of expresses the duty cycle of these 0-6-0 locos on very many turns.

 

PS: the first production version, with an “ordinary” boiler and firebox had the reverse problem: poor steaming under high demand!

Edited November 20, 2022 by Nearholmer

[TheSignalEngineer]

12 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

...15 miles on the flat from colliery to gasworks with about 30 16T minerals and booked about an hour, most of which was spent tailgating the one in front on a Permissive Goods line.

Next time I rode on it after steam finished we had real overkill - a 47 with a similar load and schedule.

 

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

Which is what I meant - workings that hadn't changed in a century. 

A big change came with MAS in 1969. We took out most of the Refuge Sidings on the Midland lines worked by Saltley. Miles run per engine hour on the coal trips increased by about 50% as they couldn't be shunted for other trains to pass. The signalman could see the whole picture only let them out when they could run straight to the next yard or loop without delaying a passenger train.

Add in MGR working and the picture had changed completely. For our Didcots which started as 30 wagons in the days of Class 47s you dropped one into Bordesley Up Goods. It was let out behind the express and in front of the stopper. The latter wouldn't catch it before Leamington due to 8-10 station stops. Loads increased with a signalling tweak I did which meant you could regulate a train so it didn't get stopped on the rising gradient at Leamington then the introduction of classes 56/58/60. I think we were up to 42 or 45 MGR by then. We even modelled doing 60MGR from Washwood Heath to Didcot with two 47s in multiple, but route constraints and terminal arrangements were too expensive to overcome for producing a robust timetable. You needed to be able to get a clear run from Small Heath to Banbury and Banbury into the power station for that.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, rogerzilla said:

The only tank engine I know of with bogie brakes is the W class, ...

A number of other classes -- notably the Fowler 2-6-4Ts - started with bogie brakes ...... but I think the Ws were the only tanks to retain them throughout. ( The Ws inherited their bogies - but not the brakes - from the 'Rivers'.)

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Did the 8F require additional work by the crew, especially the fireman?

Bigger grate already mentioned so more firebars to keep covered even when not working hard.  But increased prep time for the Driver due to more to oil although oiling the valvegear was much easier than on a 4F plus longer for someone to build the bigger fire before going off shed. But the 8F had the advantage of being heavier plus better brakes and a more comfy cab

[TheSignalEngineer]

48 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

One of Stroudley’s earlier designs was his 0-6-0 good engine, which took a few iterations to get right. IIRC, the first version had a boiler and firebox design that produced absolutely masses of steam, but was difficult to keep working nicely at very low to nil steaming rates, and therefore consumed way too much coal when the trains were hanging about endlessly waiting for the road

Probably the reason why Saltley preferred the 3F to the 4F for its banking turns. Thrash for a few minutes between Landor Street and Bordesley or Camp Hill then roll back to the Pilot Siding at Washwooh Heath to get on the back of another train. Plenty of time to get the fire in order and boiler back up to full pressure even though the grate was smaller.

[Craigw]

21 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Really? In what way?

 

One very simple way.

 

The reluctance to adopt a continuous brake for all goods traffic and the very low take up of larger capacity wagons.

 

While there are valid reasons for both states of affairs, there can be no doubt that it allowed the smaller 0-6-0 locos to stay on in mainline service longer than they should have.

 

Craig W

[LMS2968]

33 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Bigger grate already mentioned so more firebars to keep covered even when not working hard.  But increased prep time for the Driver due to more to oil although oiling the valvegear was much easier than on a 4F plus longer for someone to build the bigger fire before going off shed. But the 8F had the advantage of being heavier plus better brakes and a more comfy cab

They could also stay out on the road longer before the condition of the fire and ashpan deteriorated to the point where the steaming became unreliable, only a few hours with a 4F. After that, it was far easier working the 8F!

[whart57]

55 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

A big change came with MAS in 1969. We took out most of the Refuge Sidings on the Midland lines worked by Saltley.

 

 

Incidentally, when did Saltley stop producing gas? Conversion to natural gas had already started in the mid-60s and coal gas had surely been phased out by the mid-70s. Saltley was a coal store in 1972 when the miners and government clashed and when I worked for West Midlands Gas in the early 80s Saltley's gasholders were still in use for winter storage of North Sea gas but there was no longer production there.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Add in MGR working and the picture had changed completely. For our Didcots which started as 30 wagons in the days of Class 47s you dropped one into Bordesley Up Goods. It was let out behind the express and in front of the stopper. The latter wouldn't catch it before Leamington due to 8-10 station stops. Loads increased with a signalling tweak I did which meant you could regulate a train so it didn't get stopped on the rising gradient at Leamington then the introduction of classes 56/58/60. I think we were up to 42 or 45 MGR by then. We even modelled doing 60MGR from Washwood Heath to Didcot with two 47s in multiple, but route constraints and terminal arrangements were too expensive to overcome for producing a robust timetable. You needed to be able to get a clear run from Small Heath to Banbury and Banbury into the power station for that.

 

Ah yes, I remember those trains - with 56s at the time (mid-late 80s) - thundering through the centre roads at Oxford. 

[Compound2632]

57 minutes ago, Craigw said:

While there are valid reasons for both states of affairs, there can be no doubt that it allowed the smaller 0-6-0 locos to stay on in mainline service longer than they should have.

 

I would have given that an "agree" were it not for those last words "should have". They remained in mainline service just exactly as long as it was right and appropriate for them to do so given the conditions you mention. A tool that looks old-fashioned may still be fit for purpose.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Incidentally, when did Saltley stop producing gas? Conversion to natural gas had already started in the mid-60s and coal gas had surely been phased out by the mid-70s. Saltley was a coal store in 1972 when the miners and government clashed and when I worked for West Midlands Gas in the early 80s Saltley's gasholders were still in use for winter storage of North Sea gas but there was no longer production there.

I'm not sure of the exact dates but I think all of the Birmingham works had stopped town gas production by 1974. The sites stayed in use for a long time for storage and distribution of narural gas, so much so that Windsor Street gas holders have only been dismantled  in the last couple of years.

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

They could also stay out on the road longer before the condition of the fire and ashpan deteriorated to the point where the steaming became unreliable, only a few hours with a 4F. After that, it was far easier working the 8F!

 

Wandering into Imaginary Locos territory, what about a thoroughly modernised inside cylinder 0-6-0.  Roller bearings throughout, including big ends, Caprotti valve gear, grease lubrication everywhere, simple but modern boiler with GPCS to get round the ashpan size issue and Lempor front end.  Cheaper and better than a BR standard?

[kevinlms]

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I would have given that an "agree" were it not for those last words "should have". They remained in mainline service just exactly as long as it was right and appropriate for them to do so given the conditions you mention. A tool that looks old-fashioned may still be fit for purpose.

'May still be fit for the purpose'.

 

But that goes against much of the LMS's in particular ideas. The LMS under Stamp had proved to themselves than it was cheaper to reduce the number of classes and build new locomotives, than keep many, many different classes in service and try to keep spare parts available for them.

IIRC by the outbreak of war, the LMS had made considerable inroads into reducing the fleet, both in overall numbers and the number of classes.

The 4F's were still comparatively recent compared to some other 0-6-0s of late BR days of steam, so not surprising lots were still around.

 

LMS2968 has given some good reasons, why the 8F was a good tool, even though a 4F could do the job as well.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

... by the outbreak of war ... The 4F's were still comparatively recent ...

... so recent, in fact, that the last ones still hadn't been built !

[Artless Bodger]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

a more comfy cab

One reason why the 2251 and Q were not bad locos - crew comfort compared to the Dean Goods or C / Adams / 700. And, come the war, easier to blackout the cab at night.

 

 

[Artless Bodger]

I may be remembering this wrongly but, in the PECO book on LNER loco development (blue dust cover) I once had there was a Gresley proposal for a modern loco to replace 0-6-0s, a mogul or iirc, a sort of 2-6+4-4 articulated with a booster truck between the tender and loco (a bit like the NER atlantic rebuild). However the board vetoed it in favour of the J39 due to cost.

 

Or am I just confused.....

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

One reason why the 2251 and Q were not bad locos - crew comfort compared to the Dean Goods or C / Adams / 700. And, come the war, easier to blackout the cab at night.

 

But in the 19th century, there was considerable resistance from the men to more enclosed cabs. One issue was the more restricted view when shunting - hence the Midland's so-called "half-cab" 0-6-0T shunting engines, which provided the same visibility as the tender engines they replaced.

[Darryl Tooley]

38 minutes ago, Artless Bodger said:

Or am I just confused

Slightly.

 

There was a proposal in 1924 for a 5’ 2” three-cylinder Mogul, to replace various pre-grouping 0-6-0s, but what eventually materialised, doubtless for reasons of cost, was the J39.

 

There was a proposal in the early 1930s for an ‘improved K3’ with an articulated tender, in the manner of the two ex-NER Atlantics so rebuilt.  Unlike them, however, a booster was not envisaged, the object of the exercise being to provide a better-riding vehicle than the K3.

 

(Sources: RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Vols 6A and 10A, LNER Locomotive Development (J Armstrong, Peco Publishing) and Nigel Gresley Locomotive Engineer (F A S Brown, Ian Allan Ltd)

 

D