WD 2-8-0 on the Cornish Riveria in late 1947 - also, other unusual engines on emergency stand-ins?

[Ponthir28]

Class 94xx. No 8499 South Wales Pullman Newport High street. Taken over a failed Castle at Llanwern .Photo in South Wales main line part two book.

[pH]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Several B1s passed into service as stationary boilers on being withdrawn, although they remained fully capable of working around the shed under their own steam. Failures on the road were so common and rescue locos so scarce that these were often sent out to worked the failed train. Instructions from on high not to do this made little difference, so in the end all the drawhooks were removed; the loco could still move around the depot but could no longer work a train.

I had thought that the removal of drawhooks was done immediately on withdrawal, in preparation for their use as stationary boilers. Are there any known pictures of these early, steam-powered thunderbirds” in action?

Edited August 15, 2023 by pH

[KeithMacdonald]

3 hours ago, Barclay said:

I remember reading that one of the MSWJR Beyer Peacock 2-6-0s, knocking around the vicinity of Swindon in its final years, was used to deputise for a failed Castle on an express - not for very far I think! Given that this was in the vicinity of Swindon you'd think they might have had a more likely stand-in, but perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time. 

 

Elsewhere (while researching the M&SWJR) I'd read that the Beyer Peacock 2-6-0 was used for heavy freight trains down to Southampton docks. So it might have had decent pulling power, at lower speeds? Knocking around in Swindon after the GWR closed the M&SWJR's shed at Cirencester, perhaps usually relegated to menial duties around Swindon? But (as you say) just in the right place at the right time. 

 

Galloping Alice MSWJR 2-6-0 GWR Rebuild

https://www.roxeymouldings.co.uk/product/293/4l4-galloping-alice-mswjr-2-6-0-gwr-rebuild/

[LMS2968]

10 minutes ago, pH said:

I had thought that the removal of drawhooks was done immediately on withdrawal, in preparation for their use as stationary boilers. Are there any known pictures of these early, steam-powered thunderbirds” in action?

No, it came later as an act of desperation. If you think about it, it could make things rather awkward on shed: if the thing was in the way and out of steam, there was no way to shift it.

[Wickham Green too]

21 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

No, it came later as an act of desperation. If you think about it, it could make things rather awkward on shed: if the thing was in the way and out of steam, there was no way to shift it.

Indeed - the purpose of the things was simply to make steam ( Wasn't one used for the North British Hotel for a while ? ) so removal of the motion would have made more sense.

[The Lurker]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The pedia of wiki states maximum speed 75mph for the BR 4MT tank, which had a lineage dating from the 1927 Fowler loco, but with 5’8” drivers I have no doubt that your observations are correct, and they were capable of more than that.  Some of those Glasgow suburbans were pretty heavily loaded as well.  The Southern withdrew it’s 2-6-4T ‘River’ class despite having a lot of work for which big fast tank engines were ideally suited.  The Rivers had 6’ drivers but their stability at speed was called into question after a series of incidents culminating in the Sevenoaks derailment, which resulted in the engines being withdrawn from service immediately and a ban on tank engines for fast work imposed for the rest of that railway’s existence.  There is some evidence that the loco was not the root of the problem and the use of Dungeness shingle ballast was at least a major contributing factor, as one was tested at over 80mph on the GN main line (with Maunsell and Gresley on the footplate) and found to ride perfectly well.  
 

It is significant that on Nationalisation a batch of Fairbairns was ordered from Brighton, which went on to design and build the Standard 4MT tanks, both designs which served the Southern Region well in steam days. 
 

 

The Southern had inherited big tanks from the LBSCR as well and the River Class were used in the Brighton main line too. I don’t know if the instability of the Rivers manifested itself on those runs but I do know that the Baltic tanks had well tanks fitted to reduce the effect of surging - the side tanks were retained for cosmetic purposes. All of course superseded by electrification.

[pH]

26 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Indeed - the purpose of the things was simply to make steam ( Wasn't one used for the North British Hotel for a while ? )

I don’t know about that, but D11/2 62685 was used as a stationary boiler at the Caledonian Hotel in Edinburgh:

 

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/67/918/

[Wickham Green too]

Ah ......... right city, wrong railway hotel !

[Hesperus]

In the late 90s me and a friend often used to watch the trains at Durham after school.

 

One day we weren't heading there but when he checked an early internet message board from his house the plan changed and we ran to the station and bought a couple of cheap day returns to Newcastle.

 

The only loco hauled passenger service* we usually saw was a Virgin XC that was usually hauled by a 47/8.  On this occasion the 47 failed at Crewe and another engine had derailed on the entrance to the diesel depot.  The only loco available was D9000 that was parked in the electric depot.

 

It was a very good trip to Newcastle and back, well worth the £4.50!

 

* Not counting the 125s and 225s

[jim.snowdon]

On 15/08/2023 at 16:22, The Johnster said:

 

Possible, but not really likely; that's a long way and, more to the point, a long time, to run without an air compressor to keep the train brakes from leaking on. Train brakes are not a sealed system and there are inevitable losses of air pressure at pipe joints and the hoses between carriages, as the air pressure is employed to keep the brakes off; they will apply if pressure is lost in order to be 'fail safe'.   If you were lucky, you might just make it from about Harrow & Wealdstone if you were doing line speed...

 

Perfectly feasible with some sort of partial loss involving traction power but enabling the compressor to keep running, though (I am not any sort of authority on the workings of 25kv electric locomotives, though I do know a little about train brakes). 

 

All the main London termini north of the river are approached down gradients, (not 100% sure about Fenchurch Street), and employ the dodge of slight uphill gradients as you approach the buffers, in order to assist stopping trains and give departures as much of a boost as you can at their standing start.  Paddington is the easiest, with the longest gradient, all the way to Swindon...

It is an event that I had told to me by a now-deceased but very senior BR signalling engineer who was not known for telling tales.

 

[jim.snowdon]

On 15/08/2023 at 20:52, The Lurker said:

The Southern had inherited big tanks from the LBSCR as well and the River Class were used in the Brighton main line too. I don’t know if the instability of the Rivers manifested itself on those runs but I do know that the Baltic tanks had well tanks fitted to reduce the effect of surging - the side tanks were retained for cosmetic purposes. All of course superseded by electrification.

The problem was probably not caused by water movement in the side tanks, but may well have been exacerbated by water surging about in the tanks if the natural frequency was close to the dynamic oscillation of the locomotive, for which hunting, coupled with a lack of lateral damping in the bogies, was more likely to have been the cause.

[Tom Burnham]

I've read (citation needed) that even on the SE and Central Divisions of the Southern, the run from London to the coast was approaching the range of the Rivers and the large Brighton tanks without taking on more water. It had been decided to build further River class locos as U class tender locos even before the Sevenoaks derailment for this reason. The 4MT tanks used in BR days were used on semi-fast and longer distance stopping trains where there were opportunities to fill up with water en route. Plenty of photos of that happening. And an awful lot of Meldon granite had been put under the track over the previous 20 years 

[Wickham Green too]

The Rivers had 2000 gallon tanks - and 'J' class very similar - while the 'L' class had 2,700 gallon initially and a little less when modified ....... even the 3500 gallon tenders of the 'U' class rebuilds gave a comfortable increase. ( Perhaps a little surprising that the - very non-standard - 'J' class survived so long ...... and their SECR namesakes, for that matter.)

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

It is an event that I had told to me by a now-deceased but very senior BR signalling engineer who was not known for telling tales.

 

RIP Richard.  He was however known to occasionally slightly exaggerate things.  But in that case he definitely didn't as the story was confirmed by former LMR Senior Traction Inspector who happened to work with both of us at one time and I don't think the loco was a complete failure from what he said.

[The Stationmaster]

On 15/08/2023 at 20:52, The Lurker said:

The Southern had inherited big tanks from the LBSCR as well and the River Class were used in the Brighton main line too. I don’t know if the instability of the Rivers manifested itself on those runs but I do know that the Baltic tanks had well tanks fitted to reduce the effect of surging - the side tanks were retained for cosmetic purposes. All of course superseded by electrification.

There were no problems at all with the 'Rivers' when they were running on the Central Section just as there hadn't been problems with them on their original routes on the Eastern Section.

 

Colonel Pringle's exhaustive Inquiry included tests of 'Rivers' conducted by Nigel Gresley on both the LNER (presumably GN?) mainline as well as on the Eastern Section of the SR including comparative trials with a 'King Arthur' 4-6-0.   The 'Rivers ran at speeds up to 85mph on the LNER with no problems at all but rolling was experienced on the Eastern Section route used and the riding of the 4-6-0 was also found suspect.

 

Colonel Pringle concluded that the poor state of the sub-formation and ballast together with the softer springing of the 'Rivers' compared with the 'Arthurs' was what started the rolling and didn't then do anything to stop it.  So flange climb on the driving wheels followed when the the engine rode onto a soft spot or where the cant was not correct.  In other words the engines were  track sensitive and once they got onto poorly ballasted formation or track that was not maintained in top condition the risk of fkange climb and subseuent derailment increased considerably.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Colonel Pringle's exhaustive Inquiry included tests of 'Rivers' conducted by Nigel Gresley on both the LNER (presumably GN?) mainline

 

LTC Rolt in 'Red For Danger' (which should be required reading for anyone working on the railway) states that the tests were carried out on the GN main line. 

[The Lurker]

As were tests on the Hastings units following the Hither Green accident in 1967

[mac1960]

Two I can think of from steam era. Woolston Grange turned up in Huddersfield on a working from the south coast to Bradford after failures of replacement. It was taken  off in Huddersfield as it had damaged some platforms on the route from Sheffield via Penistone. It was returned light engine via Stalybridge and Crew after a stay of a few days.

The other was A3 Limburg which worked a Newcastle to Liverpool relief into Leeds on Christmas Eve. The locomotive on had failed and the Liverpool crew taking wanted to go home and took the A3. Not sure what happened when control found it in Lime Street but it was returned as a special working like the Grange via Calder Valley which had better clearance as occasional V2 went that way. 
Both those were in 60,s and I didn’t witness them personally, but both well documented especially the Grange.

I did see a number of 50,s in Sheffield when a student there in late 70,s when they were still Blue all over running to York after issues with locomotives In Birmingham.

[OnTheBranchline]

On 15/08/2023 at 09:13, bécasse said:

Back in the late-1980s I worked for Passenger Marketing Services and we shared the fourth floor at Euston House with InterCity. I often used to travel to work with Mike who was responsible for overseeing InterCity's rolling stock, although it was a strategic role, he was treated almost as if he were the sector's chief controller during business hours and was therefore always up-to-the-minute with anything that was going wrong on InterCity's network.

 

Around lunch time one day the driver of an up West Midlands train apparently advised at Birmingham International that he was having problems (probably a shifted tyre) and that the AC loco would have to be replaced at Coventry. The only loco available at Coventry was a 58 but that was readied to take over when the train arrived which it did. The original plan was for the 58-hauled train to be switched fast to slow south of MKC and then placed in Tring Goods Yard to await the arrival of an AC replacement from Willesden, apparently a fairly routine procedure (been there, done that!) but one which had the disadvantage of throwing the route's stock-working out of balance for the rest of the day with a Euston arrival at least an hour late.

 

By chance, Mike can just been given access on his desk computer to the then new TRUST and he thought that this would be a good opportunity to see how it could be used to monitor out of course workings. It very soon became clear to him that the 58 wasn't exactly hanging about, and after discussions with control (and the assurances that HQ would back the course of action), it was decided to allow the 58 to take the train through to Euston, for which it would be given priority, and to take it into platform 1 there which (with the adjacent gates into Eversholt Street) offered better ventilation for diesel fumes than the rest of the station.

 

Mike didn't keep this information to himself and it was soon suggested that the enterprising 58 driver should be given an appropriate reception when he arrived. Consequently, not overly more than an hour later, a fair number of people from IC and PMS, including a good sprinkling of SMGs, gathered by the stops at platform 1 and as the train ran in the driver was given a hearty round of applause. Meanwhile announcements apologised for the late arrival and lack of air-conditioning.

 

How fast is "not exactly hanging about" for a 58? And please don't say how long is a piece of string... 

[bécasse]

2 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

How fast is "not exactly hanging about" for a 58? And please don't say how long is a piece of string... 

From memory, and bear in mind that this was around 35 years ago, I think that the train came into Euston less than 30 minutes down. The train probably left Coventry after the loco change at least 10 down, so it lost rather less than 20 minutes on AC electric schedule. I seem to recollect that at the time we discussed likely speeds en route and that it was clear that the driver took every possible advantage of gradients to maximise the 58's speed, ignoring the book limit for the loco in the process and probably by a fair bit. Doing so with an air-braked passenger train behind, and inevitably travelling at less than the allowed line speed (except for the final approach into Euston), that wouldn't have been unsafe. Clearly this particular 58 was a "good 'un" and the driver knew it. Ironically, the first he would have known of the appreciation of his efforts was when he wasn't turned on to the slow south of MKC.

 

Euston, having been warned, had readied themselves to give fast turn rounds to the train set (and the sets of trains delayed behind it), so, although there were slight delays to subsequent down trains, there was nothing like the disruption that the original Tring goods yard plan would have wrought.

[Rivercider]

In 'SR 150 A Century and a half of the The Southern Railway' there is an account of a run by an elderly 39 year old X2 4-4-0 'Highflyer' No.595, which was recounted by Patrick Stevenson.

 

The down ACE was a failure at Woking, a Lord Nelson with a burst steam pipe had arrived with a load of thirteen coaches. At Woking X2 No.595 was station pilot, facing west, with a driver who knew the road to Salisbury.  

Arrangements were quickly made for No.595 to work to Basingstoke where something more suitable would replace it.

Approaching Basingstoke they were running well and the driver fancied his chances through to Salisbury, the Inspector on the footplate whistled up when they saw the distant against them. The distant came off so they raced through, to the surprise of the loco foreman waiting with the replacement engine. Downhill to Andover Junction they reached about 74 mph, then struggled up to Grateley, and finally arrived at Salisbury with a flourish, but most of the bearings running hot. No. 595 was withdrawn soon after (in 1930),

 

cheers 

 

 

[Rivercider]

On 15/08/2023 at 07:35, Hal Nail said:

One of my books has a photo of a class 58 dragging a failed HST somewhere down in the west country.

 

A photo from Flickr by Carl Brunnock of 58002 passing Dawlish Warren.

The 12.12 Liverpool Lime Street to Penzance passing Dawlish Warren behind 58002, 1/9/84. Carl Brunnock,

 

cheers

 

[OnTheBranchline]

1 minute ago, Rivercider said:

 

A photo from Flickr by Carl Brunnock of 58002 passing Dawlish Warren.

The 12.12 Liverpool Lime Street to Penzance passing Dawlish Warren behind 58002, 1/9/84. Carl Brunnock,

 

cheers

 

The 58: “Look at me, I’m the HST now”

 

🤣

[Siberian Snooper]

Once past Exeter, sheer grunt is more important than, top end speed and more so west of Newton.

 

 

[Matt37268]

7 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The 58: “Look at me, I’m the HST now”

 

🤣

Has someone been re-reading ‘Gordon, The High Speed Engine’ again! 😜