What is the maximum "range" a 3,500 gal tender without a "top-up"?

[cary hill]

I'm asking more out of curiosity than anything else, but what is the effective range of a locomotive coupled with a 3,5000 gallon tender without the opportunity of a "top-up"?

 

I was reading about the reluctance of Newton Abbot division to despatch Granges with 3,500 gallon tenders on London jobs or long nonstop runs because their tenders had insufficient water reserves where troughs failed to fill between trains with tight headway margins.

 

The only" information" I have to hand is that 40 gallons of water are used per mile and that it takes 1lb of coal to boil a gallon of water - I've no idea if this is right.

 

If the above is reasonably accurate, and Newton Abbot to Paddington is a bit under 200 miles, this suggests that the Grange and it's train would do very well to get half way.

 

This that a broadly correct conclusion or are there too many variables being ignored in reaching this conclusion.

 

Any light shed on dark places would as always be much appreciated.

[coachmann]

The cynical in me would say it depends on the drivers use of steam, the firemans use or miss-use of the injectors plus the number of leaks!

 

But in all seriousness I just don't know from an operational viewpoint. I do know the LMS Jubilees on the Standedge route could operate with small Fowler 3.400 gallon tenders because of water troughs. I don't know if this is relavent to how BR operated in steam days, but mainline steam locos from Crewe always take water at Llandudno Junction before proceding to Holyhead with 4000 gallon tenders and same coming back. Maybe I should dig out my old books.

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect it might be slightly more complicated than that! Starting from the situation where it was not unknown for 'Castles' and 'Kings' to 'come off for coal' at Newton on Down Londons 'on a rough trip' or to reach Plymouth 'with a few shovels of dust left in the tender'. you can immediately realise that not every day was the same and some were much rougher than others. Thus the smaller tender, on a hard worked loco would most likely have been regarded as too near the limit if things weren't going well so not the sort of thing to chance in terms of coal consumption.

 

As far as water was concerned there were some long distances between troughs enroute from Newton to London via Castle Cary and Lavington with a bit over 50 miles between Fairwood Jcn and Aldermaston and quite a long distance between Creech and Fairwood as well leaving well under half a tender full of water in consequence of the gradients on even a good day. But troughs weren't everything as a train could still stop for water - as indeed they had to when the troughs were defective, frozen, or under repair. Not the best practice to make extra stops of course but I wouldn't be surprised if coal was the bigger concern.

[Stormbringer]

I would also suspect that the skills etc of driver and fireman could have an effect on how far 3,500 gallons of water might last.

 

Pete

[MarkAustin]

W A Tuplin reported (in "Great Western saints and Sinners") a run by a "Saint" - 3,500 gallon tender - where it knocked 15 minutes of the "Down Limited" schedule in the '20s. This invoived some pretty hard thashing, but, presumably there was enough coal. It did take on water at the water troughs.

 

Presumably the engine was in good condition. If it wasn't, this would be a different matter. Also remember GWR engines generally used less coal per mile than other lines, as Welsh steam coal was better in terms of calorific output per ton.

[coachmann]

coachmann :

The cynical in me would say it depends on the drivers use of steam, the firemans use or miss-use of the injectors plus the number of leaks!

 

I would also suspect that the skills etc of driver and fireman could have an effect on how far 3,500 gallons of water might last.

I wonder how far 3,500gallons of invisible ink would go........

[cary hill]

I don't know if this is relavent to how BR operated in steam days, but mainline steam locos from Crewe always take water at Llandudno Junction before proceding to Holyhead with 4000 gallon tenders and same coming back.

 

I suppose I might infer from the above if Crewe to Llandudno is 65 miles or so and a round trip to Holyhead from Llandudno Junction is 80 miles that my "theoretical" Grange could cover 65-80 miles without running dangerously low on the water front, although I accept in the real world it would make stop for water, if the troughs hadn't refilled, somewhere between Newton and Paddington, assuming it enough coal, which also appears doubtful from earlier posts.

[The Stationmaster]

 

I suppose I might infer from the above if Crewe to Llandudno is 65 miles or so and a round trip to Holyhead from Llandudno Junction is 80 miles that my "theoretical" Grange could cover 65-80 miles without running dangerously low on the water front, although I accept in the real world it would make stop for water, if the troughs hadn't refilled, somewhere between Newton and Paddington, assuming it enough coal, which also appears doubtful from earlier posts.

GW water troughs were approximately 50 miles apart, water columns were a lot more frequent of course and some station stops were plenty long enough to take on water especially taunton where Firemen had a regular turn on the station 'coal pulling' on engines on long distance trains; time to pull coal means manpower and time to take water.

[Karhedron]

Granges were fitted with both 3500 gallon and 4000 gallon tenders in their lives. I recall that the 3500 gallon ones were regarded as having the longer range due to the greater coal capacity. Presumably the Granges tended to get through coal slightly faster than water. Or the alternative is that refilling with water (at a trough) was considered easier than recoaling.