Light railway standard gauge locomotives, were tender engine necessary?

[kingfisher9147]

Hi all, been talking with a few friends about light railways of standard gauge, and on about the locomotives used. Were tender engines a necessary for the railway to continue to function or a waste of money than the company buying big tank engines? 

 

Mike

[Wickham Green too]

Light Railways were - er - light .... but big tank engines weren't.

[Mol_PMB]

Often, a tender engine would have lower axleload than a tank engine of equivalent power. This would make it more suitable for lightly laid track. 
Small tender engines were probably more widely available second-hand too. 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

What do you mean by necessary?

 

Light railways (whether under the 1868 Act or the 1896 Act) were limited to 25 mph and were mostly built on the cheap, with light materials, sharp curves and minimal standard formations, and ran over short distances. Locomotives were usually the cheapest available, with no need for lots of water or coal capacity, and almost all light railways used tank engines. Small tank engines, mostly - what work are you thinking of that would need big tank engines?

 

I suppose that if a large engine was needed, then a tender engine would offer a lower axle weight than a tank engine, but I can't think the situation often arose. The Kent and East Sussex bought two 0-6-0 Ilfracombe Goods from the LSWR before the First World War and seemed to get on well with them, which is more than could be said for the large Hawthorn Leslie 0-8-0T that they bought new in 1904.

Edited February 13 by Jeremy Cumberland

[Paul H Vigor]

 

[Paul H Vigor]

https://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/the colonels railways/shropshire %26 montgomeryshire light railway/

[Rivercider]

The Ilfracombe Railway was originally built as a light railway, and remained so until 1887. The Ilfracombe Goods 0-6-0 tender engines were built by Beyer Peacock to their standard light 0-6-0 design, which was why they were found suitable for later use on other light railways.

Barnstaple Junction to Ilfracombe is about 15 miles, and with steep gradients, so the additional water capacity of a tender engine would be useful. 

 

cheers

[Steamport Southport]

24 minutes ago, Paul H Vigor said:

https://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/the colonels railways/shropshire %26 montgomeryshire light railway/

 

Well, you have linked to Colonel Stephens whose railways did have large 0-6-2Ts and even 0-8-0Ts!

 

 

https://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/locomotive notes topics/hawthorn leslie.html

 

 

 

Jason

 

[Paul H Vigor]

10 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Well, you have linked to Colonel Stephens whose railways did have large 0-6-2Ts and even 0-8-0Ts!

 

 

https://colonelstephenssociety.co.uk/locomotive notes topics/hawthorn leslie.html

 

 

 

Jason

 

The OP did ask about the usage of tender locomotives?

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, Paul H Vigor said:

The OP did ask about the usage of tender locomotives?

 

And big tank engines!

 

1 hour ago, kingfisher9147 said:

Hi all, been talking with a few friends about light railways of standard gauge, and on about the locomotives used. Were tender engines a necessary for the railway to continue to function or a waste of money than the company buying big tank engines? 

 

Mike

 

 

Jason

[JeremyC]

Then there was the Lauder Light Railway in the Scottish Borders which was operated by J67 tank engines coupled to ex NBR tenders so they could run with empty tanks to reduce their axle loading.

[Paul H Vigor]

1 minute ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

And big tank engines!

 

 

 

Jason

I'll leave the big tank engines to you. Fill yer boots!

[Wickham Green too]

Now, of course, the Swilly was a light railway and had BIG tank engines ...... AND BIG tender locos !

[Michael Hodgson]

6 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Now, of course, the Swilly was a light railway and had BIG tank engines ...... AND BIG tender locos !

"Light railway" was a legal framework, there was no requirement that trackwork would be done on the cheap using lightweight rail and/or low-powered locos - just that it was all that was needed for many of them.

[DCB]

I think the K&ESR 0-8-0T was bought to operate heavy goods on an extension which was never built, the SR swapped a saddle Tank and spare boiler for it I understand.   Tender engines had a bit of a drawback in that they really needed turning at journeys end and turntables not  common on light railways.  Conversely they were ideal as they could be kept in steam for hours without running out of water while the  crew jacked and heaved them back on after a derailment, where a tank would have had its fire thrown out to avoid dropping a plug.

There were not many suitable locos available new in the 1895-1905  Light Railway Mania era, and fewer second hand, Railways were scrapping small large wheeled tender locos out classed by heavier stock,  too feeble for goods or shunting  while redeploying, often rebuilding small goods locos for shunting, which was a popular and entirely  wasteful revenue wise UK fetish.   Without wasting effort on having bespoke designs drawn up the standard shunting locos from Beyer peacock, Manning Wardle et al  were the obvious choices,  The light and otherwise suitable colonial export designs tended to be out of gauge, too high and wide, but there were surplus suburban locos available for sale down south, Brighton Terriers and Adams 4-4-2Ts were snapped up, the MSWJR tried to get rid of a couple of its 0-6-0Ts and I believe a couple of 2-4-0Ts but no on was daft enough.   . Some LSWR Ilfracombe Goods were also used by light railways but this was later I believe.
Railway companies were not allowed to build new for other organisations but could sell second hand surplus stock.    So it was not what was wanted but what was available at an affordable price, they wanted a BMW 320i  and got a Ford focus 1.0 Egotech.   to use a motoring analogy, then again traffic levels hovered around 20% of estimates so  no new stock was generally required to cover additional services and  once Col Stephens was in charge he was able to swap locos around when  the supply of bodgable motive power on one railway ran out while another had a surplus power.   For a modeller we are stuck with basically Terriers maybe Hornby Pecketts, and not much else even if going freelance really it only adds the Adams Radial.
I have a horrible feeling if the Isle of Skye line which I hope to model had been built it would have inherited HR 2-4-0 or 4-4-0 tender loco from across the way at Kyle which were being withdrawn around 1895/9 and scratch building them is beyond me.

[adb968008]

Light railways are still among us…

 

is this considered light ?

 

Not mine, flickr url.

 

many preserved railways are light railways relying on a light railway order.

 

 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

many preserved railways are light railways relying on a light railway order.

All of them, surely, except possibly the Snowdon Mountain Railway, although now I am wondering about the Vale of Rheidol (built under an Act of Parliament rather than an LRO, even though it came after the Light Railways Act 1896) and the Ravenglass and Eskdale. Did the new station at Aberystwyth and the change of terminus from Boot to Dalegarth require LROs? The Ffestiniog has LROs for Dduallt to Tanygrisiau and Blaenau LNW station to Central. The Talyllyn presumably has an LRO for Abergynolwyn to Nant Gwernol.

[CKPR]

Also, some of the standard gauge lines that always used very small engines and lightweight rolling stock,for example the North Sunderland that was running trains of two or three 4w and 6w coaches headed by a Y7 0-4-0T (!) into the early 1950s, were not actually light railways in the sense of being built under the 1898 Act.

,

Edited February 14 by CKPR

[Hal Nail]

Didn't the SECR class 01 stick around for use on light railways with their lower axle loading?

 

https://sremg.org.uk/steam/o1class-mob.shtml

[Wickham Green too]

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

... many preserved railways are light railways relying on a light railway order.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

All of them, surely, except possibly the Snowdon Mountain Railway, ...

A fully commercial enterprise, I think, and not 'preserved' in any sense !!?!

[bécasse]

Locos got swapped around between the various "Stephens" light railways because the gentleman(?) concerned personally owned them and profitably rented them out to the railways he managed. Those railways where he specified the civil engineering requirement usually had under bridges which were of rather lighter construction than was required to keep costs adequately low, such bridges with their low permitted maximum axle weights being very useful to the hire fleet side of his personal business.

[Oldddudders]

The North Devon & Cornwall Junction Railway, another Stephens enterprise, opened in 1925, and closed to passenger traffic only 40 years later, freight traffic, ball-clay, continuing on part of the line until 1982. In its later years it was home to Ivatt 2MT 2-6-2 tanks, and BR Standard Class 2 tanks. Neither class is exactly big, but neither are they puny. 

[Nearholmer]

The term Light Railways, as applicable in Britain (things get complicated as regards Ireland) I think first came into use under the 1868 Regulation of Railways Act, and that very definitely put a limit of 8 tons on the axle-loadings of locomotive and stock:

 

The 1896 LR Act didn’t include prescriptive of proscriptive requirements about construction or working, it enabled (actually perpetuated the enabling from the 1868 Act) the Board of Trade to make 

Regulations about these matters. It also didn’t repeal the 1868 Act, in fact it cited specific safety-related clauses from it in an Appendix. Without a half-day reading fine print in multiple documents, I think it left the “8 tons, 25mph” formula from the 1868 Act standing.

 

So …… the axle-loading of rolling stock, and hence the design criteria for structures was, in theory at least, limited, as was speed. But, and it’s a big but, two important things came into play: a sense of risk proportionality, which the BoT Railway Inspectors “had in spades”, and the detailed requirements stated in particular LR Orders, which were granted by the LR Commissioners after hearing submissions from people with local knowledge, and with the advice of the BoT inspectors, often included a range of particular limitations, or what amounted to permissions. Added to which, the LRs Act was revised later, and the published BoT Guidance relating to LRs evolved over time.

 

Upshot: many LRs started out with very tight axle-load limits and infrastructure that could barely take more, so had to use very light locos, some using tender engines to spread the weight where tank engines were a nuisance due to limited water capacity, but some were less restricted from the outset, and some were later upgraded, and some weren’t.

 

And, even after the 1896 Act, some LRs were authorised by individual acts, rather than by LR Orders made under the 1896 Act.

 

The delight of LR’s is the local and particular!

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14 by Nearholmer

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, CKPR said:

Also, some of the standard gauge lines that always used very small engines and lightweight rolling stock,for example the North Sunderland that was running trains of two or three 4w and 6w coaches headed by a Y7 0-4-0T (!) In thnto the early 1950s, were not actually light railways in the sense of being built under the 1898 Act.

,

There was a "light railway" provision in the Regulation of Railways Act 1868, with a 25 mph maximum speed and 8 tons maximum axle load. Light railways under the 1868 Act are often difficult to identify, because they generally still needed an Act of Parliament for land purchase and raising of capital, and the 1868 Act only really assisted with removing some of the requirements for operating the railway. The Culm Valley and the Southwold Railway were both light railways under the 1868 Act.

 

The 1898 Light Railways Act does not appear to define a light railway. Although it refers to the light railway clauses in the 1868 Act, they appear not to be mandatory. Surely the KESR must have been permitted more than 8 tons axle load, for them to have bought Hecate (53 tons on 4 axles), and most modern heritage railways clearly don't have an 8 ton limit. However, I don't know of any light railways that were permitted to run at more than 25 mph (cue discussion about the present day Great Central). Each light railway had its own individual conditions stipulated in the Light Railway Order.

 

As well as the North Sunderland, the Vale of Rheidol is another railway that might be expected to have been built under the 1898 Light Railways Act but was not. I wonder how common this was.

 

The Snowdon Mountain Railway did not require any authorising legislation at all, being wholly on the owner's property.

[Nearholmer]

And, if you think LR legislation and guidance is complicated, try tramways, as in passenger-carrying, usually street, tramways. The legislation relating to them managed to fill a 600 page textbook!

 

The first part of the KESR, incidentally, was authorised not under the LRs Act 1896, but it’s own Rother Valley (Light Railway) Act 1896, which cited the 1868 RoR Act as definitive. The initial act was abandoned and permission obtained to apply the LRs Act 1896 as soon as that was enacted.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14 by Nearholmer