Thane of Fife Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I have read somewhere that the Lickey Banker was originally designed as heavy freight loco, but wasn't a success, and it was switched to banking duties. The Beyer Garratts were then designed for heavy freight traffic. I know the LMS insisted on a lot of standard parts on the Garratts. I am wondering if the same boiler & firebox dimensions were used? The Lickey Banker boiler supplied four cylinders as did the Garratt's boiler. Thane of Fife Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Big Bertha was designed purely and simply to bank trains up Lickey. Later, she was trialed on heavy freights and the results, so I believe, were rather less than disappointing. She had two boilers, not identical, to speed up repair times through Derby works. I don't know the boiler codes for Big Bertha's or the Garratts, but this suggests that they wouldn't interchange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 ....she was trialed on heavy freights and the results, so I believe, were rather less than disappointing. ...those bearings again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 According to Brian Haresnape's "Fowler Locomotives", the Lickey banking engine was specifically designed to obviate the previous need for a stud of smaller engines having to be kept in readiness for use, often in twos or threes, on Lickey banking duties. A number of other types were considered: 2-10-0T, articulated 2-6-6-2T, rigid framed 0-6-6-0T before the unique 0-10-0 tender loco was decided on. The same book gives lengths for the 0-10-0's boiler barrel and firebox as 14' 0" and 10' 0" respectively; those for the 2-6-0 - 0-6-2 Garratt as 12' 0" and 8' 5". In July 1924, the Lickey banker, being considered for the Toton-Brent coal trains, made a test run from Wellingborough to Brent. E.S. Cox was one of the crew for that test, and he says in his "Locomotive Panorama" that: "Over the performance it is best to draw a veil. No record appears to remain but memory recalls that it was agreed by common consent that the engine was not -repeat not- suitable for working this kind of traffic." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffield Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Given the design of the steam chests and valves, it is not surprising the banker was unsuitable for coal trains. There was apparently an intention to preserve the cylinders after the loco was scrapped. As a warning how not to do it presumably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 21, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 21, 2014 Didn't it just have two sets of valves for the cylinders, with steam fed to opposite cylinders the same time? e.g Outside right cylinder and Inside left cylinder off one valve and Outside left and Inside right off the other valve. Keith BTW if you are ever in Bromsgrove and fancy a pint then visit the Golden Cross (Wetherspoons) Apart from a good beer selection there are some photos of the banker and some of her stable mates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 On the 0-10-0 the cylinders on the same side would have worked in opposition i.e 180 degrees to each other so.the outside cylinder valves would have fed the adjacent inside cylinder through the "crossed ports." The boiler(s) seem to have been the same 5' 3 diameter as the Rebuilt Claughton / Patriot boiler and indeed the Crab boiler but longer and with a straight instead of sloping throat plate. The Garretts had a 6' 1" diameter boiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon A Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The Garrat supplied to the LNER proved to too powerful for every day freight train use. The freight trains it could haul were longer than the passing loops on the LNER's main lines. Another test was to see how long a train it could haul. The couplings started to part company, so the engine was never stalled. The LMS Beyer Garrats were bedeviled by the the 4F standard bearings that Fowler insisted were used rather than the standard Beyer Peacock bearings used on the other Garrats. It should be remebered that Algeria had express passenger Beyer Garrats, as did I think the Spanish railways. There are two preserved 5ft 3 inch gauge Garrats preserved in Spain at Leida. The 2-8-0 freight version is/was in working order. Gordon A Bristol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Fife Posted March 22, 2014 Author Share Posted March 22, 2014 Thanks for all the replies The LNER Garratt was tried out on freight haulage over Woodhead but was a flop. I imagine firing the 56sq ft firebox for longer than the big shove up the Worsborough incline was impossible for one man. The LNER P1 with booster fitted was too powerful for freight trains, because of the short passing loops and broken couplings. Care had to be taken when starting long trains as the jerk tended to break couplings. It is more logical that the Lickey Banker was tried on freight trains, rather than a failure of freight loco being switched to banking. Thane of fife Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Turpin Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Care had to be taken when starting long trains as the jerk tended to break couplings. I've no idea what that driver's name was, but perhaps it's being a little unfair to refer to him a such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 Thanks for all the replies The LNER Garratt was tried out on freight haulage over Woodhead but was a flop. I imagine firing the 56sq ft firebox for longer than the big shove up the Worsborough incline was impossible for one man. The LNER P1 with booster fitted was too powerful for freight trains, because of the short passing loops and broken couplings. Care had to be taken when starting long trains as the jerk tended to break couplings. It is more logical that the Lickey Banker was tried on freight trains, rather than a failure of freight loco being switched to banking. Thane of fife I read recently that one of the problems of the LNER garratt was that buffering up to trains was extremely difficult, presumably because of visibility issues? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 22, 2014 Admittedly technology had moved on but once the 9Fs were being produced it's notable that Big Bertha/Emma didn't last much longer. No doubt 92079 (and others) did the job just as effectively and probably more efficiently. 2290 did exactly the job it was required to do and no more. The MR were proud of their loco and early photos show it well "bulled up" in the way a top link passenger loco would have been. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 22, 2014 I read recently that one of the problems of the LNER garratt was that buffering up to trains was extremely difficult, presumably because of visibility issues? This was a problem on the Lickey. AFAIK When it first arrived it was facing chimney up the incline, meaning the cab was miles from the back of a train. It was also tried the other way round but It still suffered from visibility problems, even when fitted with a light. Either way it didn't do a great deal of work on it's allocations to Bromsgrove shed Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 22, 2014 47972 was being banked by 69999 when it stalled and had to be rescued by 58100 Lots of driving wheels for the number of wagons involved! Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Fife Posted March 22, 2014 Author Share Posted March 22, 2014 The LNER Garratt was able to buffer up to trains on the Worsborough incline, so why not the Lickey? I have seen a pic of the rear of the train hauled by a LMS Garratt, with the LNER Garratt reversed and the Lickey Banker pushing everything. It may have been in BACKTRACK magazine. I'd love to re-enact that scene. I have a DJH model of the LNER Garratt powered by two Mashimas with the boiler full of lead that will push anything. I also have a Nucast (old Kays) LMS Garratt powered by two Mashimas. I just need the DJH kit of the Big Bertha, but would my old Gaugemaster controller (designed for 00 gauge) cope with powering FIVE motors? Thane of Fife Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 22, 2014 The LNER Garratt was able to buffer up to trains on the Worsborough incline, so why not the Lickey? Thane of Fife Maybe the operating conditions were different? Maybe there was someone on the ground to guide the driver up to the train? I assume on the Lickey it was up to the driver to buffer up. Maybe a bash up the back of a goods train would have shaken up no more than the guard. Passenger trains were another matter. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Were the bankers coupled up to the train? I thought the Lickey bankers had a device to un-couple on the move. If they were coupled, the person doing the coupling would see the engine on. When I was at Dover one of the Drivers had been at Toton. I remember him saying that the garrets really needed two firemen. They were hard work for one man, if you had a good Driver he would help out with some firing and give his Fireman a break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffield Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 It seems that Anderson (Chief of Motive Power LMS) initiated and directed the discussions with Beyers about the Garratts, not Fowler, and it was Anderson who specified the 4F axle boxes. On the face of it quite a sensible thing, too. Better to use an existing standard than another new design requiring the holding of different spares; whats more, replacements that came from the LMS rather than Beyers. Just unfortunate that the design was not up to it, although research in recent years suggests that manufacturing quality and oil specifications played a part in the 4F axle box story, and not just design. I have seen it written that in the last year the Garratts existed as a complete class (ie before scrapping started) their utilization figures were better than the 9Fs that were supposed to be replacing them. If a Garratt was available the Operating Dept would use it. What ever the engineers may of thought of them the operaters seemed to like them.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 Were the bankers coupled up to the train? I thought the Lickey bankers had a device to un-couple on the move. If they were coupled, the person doing the coupling would see the engine on. Lickey Bankers were not coupled Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebottle Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Interesting blog on the Lickey incline, compiled for Bromsgrove local historians: http://lickeyincline.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/working-lickey-incline-1949-1956.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The 9Fs replacing the Garratts included the Crostis, and the early 9Fs suffered from excessive slipping which was cured by restricting the steam flow by fitting a smaller regulator valve from a 4MT, whether tis was done before the mass Garratt withdrawals I do not know, but maybe Big Bertha's restricted ports were actually a good feature in strangling any tendency to slip rather than a handicap. As regards the LNER Garratt, at Worsborough it didn't buffer up behind trains, it acted as second banker and buffered up behind the first Banker, usually a Tiny (Q4) or an 04 or maybe an L1 (later L3) but a 60 ton plus loco not a relatively light brake van or worse passenger carriage, The Garratt pushed trains towards Penistone and would be opened right out as it topped the steep 1 in 40 part of the gradient to give the train the best possible run at the rest of the Bank as it dropped off. When two 04s were used the train had to stop as at least one and not more than two bankers were required at the rear of the train so the second O4 had to act as pilot and the train had to stop on a gradient to detach the leading O4. Had common sense and not Gresleys Ego prevailed the LNER Garratt would have used off the shelf O4 power units instead of Gresley O3 power bogies This was particularlly bizarre as at that time the War department was desperate to sell ex ROD O4s, and could have been the first of a family of heavy freight Garratts, lwhich Beyer Peacock could have cobbled up for all the uk railways Indeed it the LMS had some RODs on the LNWR section which they used until the Boilers needed repair and if they had used those second hand ROD chassis with their Garratt boiler they would have almost certainly have produced a much better loco than their 2-6-0+0-6-2 and saved vast amounts of grief. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted March 22, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 22, 2014 There was some good film of operations on the Lickey featured in Railway Roundabout in 1958. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS2968 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Multiple bankers on the Lickey: there would be a number of bank engines in the siding, which might include Big Bertha, which counted as two. The approaching train would whistle the number of engines the driver felt he needed, say two. If the next engine out was a 3F tank with Big Bertha behind it, that's what he got whether he need three or not. The bank engines did not couple up to either the train or each other. On approaching the summit, the rear banker would drop away, followed a short time later, by the next one, and then the third if there was a third, so there was a gap between each of them. When the dummy cleared to allow them through the cross over and back down the Bank, the furthest one would roll back on to the second, and then they on to the first, etc., until they were all buffered up, then they would go down together with the now leading banker using his brake to keep them together. On arrival at the bottom, they would go one at a time into the holding siding to rejoin the queue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted March 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 23, 2014 There's some super footage here of pannier tanks in operation on the lickey... and here, 92079, 94xx and 3Fs all in use EDIT - here is the railway roundabout footage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Fife Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 Thanks Corbs for some lovely pics of working the Lickey. Thane of fife Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.