Lickey Banker and Beyer Garratt

[kevinlms]

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

For which it apparently failed to meet the specifications. Lickey Incline required more than 2 smaller engines. If it was considered a success, surely the Midland would have built some more, to replace completely the 0-6-0Ts, except perhaps in emergency (failure)?

Interesting was the fact that MR/LMS/BR had trials at different times and never increased the load for which bankers weren't required. Fact was this section of line was busy enough that a breakdown caused chaos, so better to have a low limit and the mainline free of trouble.

[Corbs]

Thanks Corbs for some lovely pics of working the Lickey.

 

Thane of fife

No problem, I just found them on youtube and thought that you guys might be interested

[bluebottle]

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

 

 

For which it apparently failed to meet the specifications. Lickey Incline required more than 2 smaller engines. If it was considered a success, surely the Midland would have built some more, to replace completely the 0-6-0Ts, except perhaps in emergency (failure)?

Interesting was the fact that MR/LMS/BR had trials at different times and never increased the load for which bankers weren't required. Fact was this section of line was busy enough that a breakdown caused chaos, so better to have a low limit and the mainline free of trouble.

 

“surely the Midland”? You kidding, Kevin? To misquote William Cowper, “The Midland moved in a mysterious way / its wonders to perform ...”

I quoted Haresnape in response to the prior suggestion that “Big Bertha” was originally intended for heavy freight haulage (I try to quote from published sources where I can, but I don't mind such as yourself demurring; the word “obviate” was poorly chosen in trying to paraphrase the late Mr Haresnape's writings). I suppose that the main reason for the continued use of 0-6-0 tanks was the flexibility this allowed when operation was intense. From Whitehouse and Thomas's “LMS 150”: “Summer Saturdays were an enthusiast's paradise with trains coming up every few minutes – no sooner had one cleared the summit than another set off from Bromsgrove.”

 

PS: I resisted the temptation to add "And don't call me Shirley" - whoops, I just didn't!

[Pugsley]

I thought the Lickey bankers had a device to un-couple on the move.

That only came about in EWS days, when they introduced wagons with only knuckle couplers.  Several 66's were modified with a swing-head coupler that could be operated remotely from the cab, they also have an inspection light on the front, so the driver can see that the coupling has disengaged.

[jonny777]

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

 

I found this statement in the April 1950 Railway Observer -

 

"On 1st March, Garratts from Toton commenced working through to Westerleigh sidings near Bristol on an evening mineral train. Previously they have rarely penetrated west of Birmingham, usually only as far as Kings Norton, to return light immediately afterwards, although there was one occasion in January 1948, when one got to Redditch.  The engines run light from Westerleigh to Bristol (22A) returning early the following morning on the 6.20 a.m. freight or the 7.25 a.m. mineral empties. The first to arrive was 47967 on 1/3/50, followed by 47996 (2nd), 47989 (3rd), 47995 (4th), 47977 (6th) and 47975 (7th). On 11/3/50 47970 failed at Bristol where it was stopped until 15/3/50."

 

I have often wondered why a LMS Garratt might have been in the Lickey area, and I believe the above may have provided the answer.

[melmerby]

Has anybody mentioned the GWR 8-coupled tanks?

 

When the line passed to the Western some were used on the Lickey incline.

I would have thought they would have been pretty good, lots of power, lots of grip!

 

Anybody any info about them?

 

Keith

[bluebottle]

Has anybody mentioned the GWR 8-coupled tanks?

 

When the line passed to the Western some were used on the Lickey incline.

I would have thought they would have been pretty good, lots of power, lots of grip!

 

Anybody any info about them?

 

Keith

 

Just a passing mention in Whitehouse & Thomas's "LMS 150": 2-8-0T No.5226 spent just the summer of 1958 at work on the Lickey.

One would think there must be plenty of personal memoirs of such a dramatic place for train watching, though. Come to think of it, Mrs bb's uncle has lived in that area most of his life, within what would have been earshot of Big Bertha when he was a boy. Must ask him what he knows.

[TheSignalEngineer]

Has anybody mentioned the GWR 8-coupled tanks?

 

When the line passed to the Western some were used on the Lickey incline.

I would have thought they would have been pretty good, lots of power, lots of grip!

 

Anybody any info about them?

 

Keith

Banker power on the Lickey was based on Tractive Effort, rated in the number of Jintys. Bertha or a 9F was rated as two, but 5228 was rated as one and a half, so didn't fit the pattern. 

[Corbs]

Has anybody mentioned the GWR 8-coupled tanks?

 

When the line passed to the Western some were used on the Lickey incline.

I would have thought they would have been pretty good, lots of power, lots of grip!

 

Anybody any info about them?

 

Keith

In one of the videos I posted on the previous page, there is footage of the 2-8-0T on the incline with commentary

[Sam*45110*SVR]

IIRC a GW 2-8-2t (7239 ?) was also trialed on banking duties but didn't last long because it was out of gauge ! I think another 52XX had another stint of banking in 1960, maybe 5226 again or 5239  ( XX39 rings a bell )

 

Sam

 

Edit, just found this on the lickey incline blog http://lickeyincline.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/large-engines-on-lickey-incline-1956.html

 

"In February 1958 a change in regional boundaries took place so that the line to the south-west of milepost 52½. (Including Blackwell, the Incline, and Bromsgrove) came under Western Region jurisdiction. It was probably this fact that caused the visit to Bromsgrove of two ex-GWR tank locomotives 2-8-2T No.7235 and 2-8-0T No.5226."

 

7235, April 58

 

"Another influence was that the regular large banker 92079 was away at Crewe Works and perhaps the authorities were looking for some powerful temporary substitute. Whatever the reason, 7235 arrived in mid-April for banking trials, but when she was tried on 18 April she fouled the platform edges at Bromsgrove. A few days later she was noted on Bromsgrove shed out of use, the test being deemed a failure because of the clearance problem and 7235 was sent back to Worcester. This engine had been specifically transferred to 85A Worcester in April from 87F Llanelli, to be available for trial purposes. It was fairly rare for this class of locomotive to be shedded outside South Wales, and after a brief stay at Worcester and Gloucester she returned to Llanelli in March 1959."

 

5226, May 58-April 60

 

"The next move was to try 5226, which arrived in May 1958, being officially allocated at the time to 85C Hereford. As a matter of interest this engine was another of the few heavy freight tank locomotives to 'escape' from South Wales when it was allocated to 82C Swindon in July 1952, being moved to Hereford in October 1955. This engine did not have any clearance problems, presumably associated with its shorter frame and wheelbase compared to 7235, and was passed for use at Bromsgrove. If she had come as a temporary measure (and the fact that she was not officially transferred to Bromsgrove 85D until November 1959 lends credence to this view) she was obviously thought by the authorities to be worth an extended stay, because she remained at Bromsgrove until April 1960, then being re-allocated to 85A Worcester."

[melmerby]

IIRC a GW 2-8-2t (7239 ?) was also trialed on banking duties but didn't last long because it was out of gauge ! I think another 52XX had another stint of banking in 1960, maybe 5226 again or 5239  ( XX39 rings a bell )

 

Sam

 

Edit, just found this on the lickey incline blog http://lickeyincline.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/large-engines-on-lickey-incline-1956.html

 

"In February 1958 a change in regional boundaries took place so that the line to the south-west of milepost 52½. (Including Blackwell, the Incline, and Bromsgrove) came under Western Region jurisdiction. It was probably this fact that caused the visit to Bromsgrove of two ex-GWR tank locomotives 2-8-2T No.7235 and 2-8-0T No.5226."

 

7235, April 58

 

"Another influence was that the regular large banker 92079 was away at Crewe Works and perhaps the authorities were looking for some powerful temporary substitute. Whatever the reason, 7235 arrived in mid-April for banking trials, but when she was tried on 18 April she fouled the platform edges at Bromsgrove. A few days later she was noted on Bromsgrove shed out of use, the test being deemed a failure because of the clearance problem and 7235 was sent back to Worcester. This engine had been specifically transferred to 85A Worcester in April from 87F Llanelli, to be available for trial purposes. It was fairly rare for this class of locomotive to be shedded outside South Wales, and after a brief stay at Worcester and Gloucester she returned to Llanelli in March 1959."

 

5226, May 58-April 60

 

"The next move was to try 5226, which arrived in May 1958, being officially allocated at the time to 85C Hereford. As a matter of interest this engine was another of the few heavy freight tank locomotives to 'escape' from South Wales when it was allocated to 82C Swindon in July 1952, being moved to Hereford in October 1955. This engine did not have any clearance problems, presumably associated with its shorter frame and wheelbase compared to 7235, and was passed for use at Bromsgrove. If she had come as a temporary measure (and the fact that she was not officially transferred to Bromsgrove 85D until November 1959 lends credence to this view) she was obviously thought by the authorities to be worth an extended stay, because she remained at Bromsgrove until April 1960, then being re-allocated to 85A Worcester."

Strange that a 72XX was foul of the gauge whilst a 52XX wasn't!*

 

As I understand it the most likely problem with platform faces is the rather bulbous outside cylinders on many GWR 2 cylinder locos, which in the 52XX and 72XX are the same and as such should have the same gauge requirements.

 

Keith

 

EDIT *there is more overhang at the front than there is at the rear even on a 72XX and they are the both the same width.

[John_Miles]

The comments about the 4F axleboxes are more based on myth than fact. Adrian Tester has shown that before the LMS started using cheaper oil the performance of 4F axleboxes was good and even afterwards they were far better than ex-LNWR locos. The man responsible for putting about the false news is E.S. Cox who thought that if something didn't originate from Horwich it was rubbish.