Cornish BR(WR) Locomotive Operations largely "self-contained"?

[cary hill]

I understand from several different sources that BR(WR) locomotive operations in Cornwall were very largely "self-contained".

 

I have looked at the locomotive allocations for the Cornish depots and Laira for the '50s and very early '60s, and ,assuming that the majority of the smaller locos allocated to Cornish depots would have no reason to wander from their local duties, that would seem to leave (on average) around 10-12 Castles, 7 or 8 Counties, around 40 Halls or Granges and a handful of Manors and 2-6-0s theoretically available for Cornish mainline operations.

 

I assume any Laira allocated locos included above would have been just as likely to head east towards Newton Abbot, Exeter and Bristol as head into Cornwall.

 

My understanding is that most locomotive changes took place at Plymouth with some at Newton Abbot - would Newton Abbot tend to be the furthest East that a Cornish allocated locomotive would work under normal circumstances?

 

Heading West, I know Kings would have to come off at Plymouth but I assume that it was perfectly possible for Newton Abbot and Exeter locomotives to work regularly into Cornwall but locomotives from further "East" would be a comparitive rarity.

 

Would most of the above be broadly correct, as I can't find much photographic evidence to the contrary,other than the odd photograph of visiting "foreigners" usually accompanied with a note that it was "odd"?

 

Any comments on and corrections of the above would be most appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

David

[Kris]

What you have said is broadly correct.

Some Kings would have come off at Newton Abbot rather than Plymouth.

Summer Saturdays would have seen the "odd" locos heading into Cornwall at times when traffic was rather heavy.

[The Stationmaster]

There is of course the difference between 'normal working' and 'special working' - for instance in the broccoli season extra locos would be drafted in to work the 'broccoloes' because there simple wasn't enough resident power for the number of trains involved. BTW as far as I've always understood things the 'Manors' allocated to West of England depots were basically there as assistant engines for double-heading purposes to the east of Plymouth.

[Rugd1022]

Mike - going by Peter Gray's published output the Sou' Western Manors were often used to double up on the Newquay branch in the Summer months too.

[Taz]

Indeed. St Blazey had a manor allocated and I doubt that was solely for use assisting east of Plymouth.

 

But, most of the pictures i have seen on Manors in Devon are of them double heading expresses over the banks

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed. St Blazey had a manor allocated and I doubt that was solely for use assisting east of Plymouth.

But, most of the pictures i have seen on Manors in Devon are of them double heading expresses over the banks

On doing a bit of delving I find that at various times Penzance, Truro, and St Blazey had a 'Manor' or two on their books. We live and learn.

[Tankerman]

On doing a bit of delving I find that at various times Penzance, Truro, and St Blazey had a 'Manor' or two on their books. We live and learn.

Hi Mike,

 

I would be very interested to know when Truro had a Manor or two allocated if it wouldn't be too much trouble, thanks in advance.

 

Chris P

[Kris]

Manors at Truro 1950 - 1960

 

7814 - June 54 to Sept 54

7806 - July 55 - Sept 55

7823 - Jan 56 - June 56 + July 56 to March 59

7812 - Sept 59 - after July 60

7813 - Nov 59 - after July 60

7820 - Nov 59 - June 60

[The Stationmaster]

I would be very interested to know when Truro had a Manor or two allocated if it wouldn't be too much trouble, thanks in advance.

Chris P

Hugh Longworth's book only gives a series of 'snapshot' dates but according to that

7823 was there in 1957, and

7812/13/20 were there in 1960.

[cary hill]

I have seen photographs of Laira based Britannia Class locomotives taken in Cornwall, but does anybody know if either the Standard Class 4-6-0's, which were briefly based there(1954-56), or the 9F's, which were also based briefly at Laira(1959-60), would have worked into Cornwall?

[Kris]

The Brits were regular visitors to Cornwall, as to the others, off the top of my head I can't think of photos of them in the county.

[Karhedron]

The Brits were regular visitors to Cornwall, as to the others, off the top of my head I can't think of photos of them in the county.

I think "Great Western Steam in Cornwall" has a few pictures of Brits in it. One at Penzance and one passing one of the china clay dries.

[Kris]

Your right, there are quite a few pictures of Brits about. I can't think of pictures of 9f's or the 4mts. Brits were used on the Cornish rivera express along with other expresses. They weren't loved by their crews from memory.

[The Stationmaster]

92XXX were not permitted over the Royal Albert Bridge so shouldn't ever have been seen in Cornwall.

 

'Brits' were very unpopular at Laira although this was no doubt not helped by one senior Driver who wrote extremely rude letters about them direct not only to Regional management but also to the British Transport Commission. Laira was probably the Western shed where the Class got its worst reception but they weren't particularly popular on the Western - full stop - for a combination of reasons ranging from their propensity to slip, smoke coming down and obscuring the view forward, left hand drive, and sundry other moans. Hence their ultimate concentration at Canton but that only occurred because the then District Motive Power Superintendent was at a meeting where all his colleagues were heartily condemning the locos and he took his chance and volunteered to take the lot; even then they were not universally popular among Canton men (who latterly much preferred 9Fs it is said by some who worked there).

[Tankerman]

Hugh Longworth's book only gives a series of 'snapshot' dates but according to that

7823 was there in 1957, and

7812/13/20 were there in 1960.

 

Mike and Kris,

 

Thanks for your replies, a great help in thinking about a future layout, which is a bit nebulous at present.

 

Chris P

[Karhedron]

They weren't loved by their crews from memory.

I have always wondered whether the poor reception of the Brits on the WR was simply due to the fact that they were "not great western". The GWR had a somewhat dismissive attitude to the locos of other companies and they felt they had been forced to take in locos that bore resemblance to something from the LMS.

 

I have heard they were rather better received by shed staff due to the ease of cleaning and maintenance.

[The Stationmaster]

From the odd half remembered conversations with old hand drivers (who no doubt had similar chats way back when) I get the impression that it was very much a mixture of "Its not Western, what do we want that rubbish for?" and as Mike points out they were Left Hand Drive, which on a railway designed for Right Hand Drive is a bit of a pain in the xxxx to say the least.

Sorry to wander off OP but as Mickey has picked up one of the important points it might be worth going through the whole catalogue of why the 'Brits' attracted such a poor response on the Western.

1. They were left hand drive and that meant that men who had spent many years on the footplate had to almost re-learn the road from the other side. But even worse left-hand drive also meant left-hand firing which was almost totally alien to many Western men and more than a few tried to fire them right-handed which apart from upsetting the Driver could make things even worse if their overalls were caught on the blower valve.

2. They were not at all sure-footed on starting which came a bit hard to men well used to 4-6-0s and 4-4-0s etc - hence a prevalence to slip, which was not a common event on the Western (= poor engine).

3. There were complaints about drifting smoke although some of that was bound up with the Milton derailment as was the question of the smoke deflector handrails obscuring the view ahead.

4. They had to be fired in a different way from what Western men were used to but that doesn't seem to have provoked much moaning.

5. The cabs were draughty (after a 'Castle'??!!!).

6. I have heard some mention of injectors but don't know anything more about that.

7. They had a peculiar lack of popularity at some sheds for a reason most folk wouldn't even think about - they were regarded as 'big' engines but came with hopper ashpans and self-cleaning smokeboxes so were originally given shorter disposal times than 'Kings' and 'Castles' and this provoked a row over bonus rates at at at least one depot when the Standard Times for disposal work had to be considerably increased due to threats to 'black' them.

 

The odd thing however - apart from the firebox - was that many Western men subsequently took to the 9Fs with much greater enthusiasm than had greeted the 'Brits'.

[cary hill]

92XXX were not permitted over the Royal Albert Bridge so shouldn't ever have been seen in Cornwall.

 

 

Were they "banned" because of axle-weight restrictions over the Tamar Bridge( I would think this was 15/16T for a 9F? which I thought was acceptable) or were they perceived as generally unsuitable for the switchback nature of the Cornish mainline and the work available?

[The Stationmaster]

 

Were they "banned" because of axle-weight restrictions over the Tamar Bridge( I would think this was 15/16T for a 9F? which I thought was acceptable) or were they perceived as generally unsuitable for the switchback nature of the Cornish mainline and the work available?

I suspect that it was probably something to do with total engine weight and the way it spread and worked out on a Bridge Curve (as used for assessing weight loadings on bridges). 47XX were also banned so it might have been something to do with wheelbase but I think the Bridge Curve analysis was the most likely cause.

[cary hill]

Thanks for the replies and I have no problem with "tangential" replies when they add to my store of knowledge or suggest further areas of exploration