br2975 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 ... all of which begs the question of how such traffic would have been handled by steam, or if it could have been handled at all? Shorter trains, more intensive service. . Before the 37s - it was pairs of Cl.25s with hoppers. . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 ... all of which begs the question of how such traffic would have been handled by steam, or if it could have been handled at all? In the 1960s 9f locos were handling imported ore in hoppers from Bidston to Shotton, so it could be done cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 In the 1960s 9f locos were handling imported ore in hoppers from Bidston to Shotton, so it could be done cheers As domestic ore production went to serve Scunthorpe and Corby, Ebbw Vale and Llanwern received imported ore via Newport Docks, the trains for the former being hauled by 9Fs. At this point, ores were largely from European sources, so smaller ships were the norm. The importation of South American, African and Australian ores meant that larger ships were needed, hence the construction of the deep-water terminal at Port Talbot. Llanwern had also been intended to have a similar terminal, but this was knocked back. The idea of block trains of ore from Port Talbot to Llanwern was always a case of making the best of a bad job; I would imagine that final fifty or so miles cost as much per ton of ore as the journey from the other end of the world to Port Talbot. And here's a link to a photo of a pre-tippler ore train at Newport:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/130150336@N07/16645853507/in/photostream/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium ColinK Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 4, 2015 Message to those with big layouts, it would be great to see the iron ore trains modelled, especially if the 3 x 37 or 2x56 are fitted with sound. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I've dragged this, with some editing, from a previous iteration of RMWeb. It gives some more detail to the story of ore importation in South Wales and the saga of Llanwerns ore dock proposals. It also gives a figure for the 'on cost' of the extra rail haul to Llanwern. 1) As with the 1950s rebuilding at Port Talbot the intention to build a high capacity wharf at Llanwern was there from day one, but the building of the works took priority. Also, the building a wharf involved a lot of other interested parties. 2) Around 1960 it was thought that carriers of around 30,000 tons were the ideal to serve U.K. needs and Newport docks could handle up to 21,000. The ideal figure soon went up to 65,000 and even later to 100,000. However, there were many other considerations around ore mix, shipping distance, number of suppliers, which also played a part in the decisions about ore wharf facilities and locations. 3) In 1956 SCOW (Port Talbot) and GKN (East Moors) had gained support to build a shared ore dock at Milford Haven, which, had it gone ahead, could also have served Llanwern, but it was not pursued to fruition. It would, of course, have added rail haul costs to every works it served. 4) Llanwern was originally served from Newport Docks, not ideal as there were no ore storage facilities at the docks, so trains were delayed in loading and ships delayed awaiting trains to unload them, then it was 2 hour rail haul around Newport to Llanwern. Some ore also came via Barry docks. 5) In 1962 RTB (Richard Thomas & Baldwins) owners of Llanwern proposed a three and a half mile jetty out into Newport Deeps capable of taking 65,000 ore carriers with conveyors right into the works. There was active and bitter opposition to this, from the British Transport Dock Board who ran Newport docks, and from every port on the south side of the Severn. Bristol Port Authority even wanted the facility built at Avonmouth, a ridiculous example of self interest. Eventually parliamentary approval was granted in March 1965. 6) However, Parliament then decided to ask the National Ports Council to review the existing and proposed ore docks at Port Talbot, Llanwern, the old combined scheme at Milford Haven and those at Cardiff. They reported back in July 1965 that both Port Talbot and Llanwern schemes should go ahead. The avoidance of the need for extra rail hauls at either works was a key factor in their conclusion. 7) Construction of Port Talbots facility had started in 1967, so it went ahead, and when completed in 1970 could take carriers up to 100,000 tons. 8 ) Richard Thomas & Baldwins and the British Transport Docks Board also looked at a joint venture for a 65,000 ton, later 100,000 ton, impounded basin scheme at Uskmouth. Again Bristol opposed it vigorously but it received parliamentary approval in May 1967, the month of Nationalisation, which put both this scheme and the Newport Deeps one, on hold. 9) In 1970 with its third blast furnace and increased demand for ore, the Uskmouth scheme was re-considered, but by then the idea of supplying all needs by rail from Port Talbot, and avoiding the immense cost of a new wharf, had entered the collective wisdom. In May 1972 a scheme for a third unloader at Port Talbot and the use of 100ton ore wagons was announced. The fifty mile haul added £0.88 to each ton of ore, or £1.50 to each ton of finished steel. Oddly, this was more than compensated for by the cheaper cost of ore to Port Talbot in 100,000 ton carriers than ore in 30,000 ton carriers to Newport, though it meant that Port Talbot was always a cheaper place to make steel. 10) The ideal, of course, was ore delivered in 100,000 ton carriers direct to Llanwern. A key influencing factor in building Llanwern on the coast in the first place!! Llanwern, a superb plant and layout, had its full potential hamstrung by this lack of it's own ore wharf (and also by the haggling with Scottish interests over it's strip mill, but that's another, equally complex, issue). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrushVeteran Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Triple headed 37's were also used on the Mossend Yard to Ravenscraig iron ore trains until the steelworks shut in 1992. The trains would arrive at Mossend from Hunterston Ore Terminal with two 37's in multiple and the third would be added in Mossend Yard but would be seperately manned. They would then await a clear passage and...............................literally thrash their way up the bank to the steelworks. It would normally be the same pilot locomotive on each train daily. It would be good to see this in model form with each 37 sound fitted!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 In the 1960s 9f locos were handling imported ore in hoppers from Bidston to Shotton, so it could be done cheers The problem with the Port Talbot ore trains was not about getting them moving, it was getting them moving quickly so as not to delay HSTs. In other words they needed the power to accelerate the train to 60mph as fast as possible, and keep it there, even on the uphill grades. A 9F may well have been able to haul the train single handed, (as indeed a class 37 or 56 might) but it would not be able to avoid significantly delaying the 125mph service behind it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Triple headed 37's were also used on the Mossend Yard to Ravenscraig iron ore trains until the steelworks shut in 1992. The trains would arrive at Mossend from Hunterston Ore Terminal with two 37's in multiple and the third would be added in Mossend Yard but would be seperately manned. They would then await a clear passage and...............................literally thrash their way up the bank to the steelworks. It would normally be the same pilot locomotive on each train daily. It would be good to see this in model form with each 37 sound fitted!!! why were they separately manned? could the multiple working not cope with 3 locos together? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 4, 2015 why were they separately manned? could the multiple working not cope with 3 locos together? Blue star multiple working officially allows three loco's in multiple but I'm assuming as this was a fairly short distance of three loco working it was quicker to put just the coupling and the air pipes on. Also there appears to be another driver who brought the third loco along Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure I've seen pics of a cl. 26 subbing for the 3rd 37 on the ravenscraig train. I'm not quite so sure of reading somewhere that they tried having the 3rd loco on the back but, for whatever reason, it was decided that it had to go on the front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The problem with the Port Talbot ore trains was not about getting them moving, it was getting them moving quickly so as not to delay HSTs. In other words they needed the power to accelerate the train to 60mph as fast as possible, and keep it there, even on the uphill grades. A 9F may well have been able to haul the train single handed, (as indeed a class 37 or 56 might) but it would not be able to avoid significantly delaying the 125mph service behind it... Yes of course. I was assuming a steam solution to a steam era problem but I take your point that the heavy trains would need to mix-it with express services, albeit not with the frequency or speed of the diesel era HST services. A double headed 9f working would have been impressive cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure I've seen pics of a cl. 26 subbing for the 3rd 37 on the ravenscraig train. I'm not quite so sure of reading somewhere that they tried having the 3rd loco on the back but, for whatever reason, it was decided that it had to go on the front. I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of a Class 20 being the third loco too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure I've seen pics of a cl. 26 subbing for the 3rd 37 on the ravenscraig train. I'm not quite so sure of reading somewhere that they tried having the 3rd loco on the back but, for whatever reason, it was decided that it had to go on the front. 26005 on the front here https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/5844905023 cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The problem with the Port Talbot ore trains was not about getting them moving, it was getting them moving quickly so as not to delay HSTs. In other words they needed the power to accelerate the train to 60mph as fast as possible, and keep it there, even on the uphill grades. A 9F may well have been able to haul the train single handed, (as indeed a class 37 or 56 might) but it would not be able to avoid significantly delaying the 125mph service behind it... Was there a reason for not going via the coast (Aberthaw) route to keep out of the way of HSTs? Weight restriction, or adverse gradients perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Was there a reason for not going via the coast (Aberthaw) route to keep out of the way of HSTs? Weight restriction, or adverse gradients perhaps? If they only used the Vale-of-Glamorgan from Bridgend, there'd be no gain, as they'd still have to climb Stormy Down Bank, between Pyle and Bridgend, which is the bit where the speed really dropped off. To gain anything from using the VoG, they'd really have to use the Ogmore Vale Extension from Margam to Tondu, run round there, then run down to Bridgend, briefly rejoin the SWML, then branch off towards Llantwit Major. The running round would considerably extend journey times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 4, 2015 If they only used the Vale-of-Glamorgan from Bridgend, there'd be no gain, as they'd still have to climb Stormy Down Bank, between Pyle and Bridgend, which is the bit where the speed really dropped off. To gain anything from using the VoG, they'd really have to use the Ogmore Vale Extension from Margam to Tondu, run round there, then run down to Bridgend, briefly rejoin the SWML, then branch off towards Llantwit Major. The running round would considerably extend journey times. Exactly so - the problem was Stormy Bank, no doubt a pair of 37s could have managed quite well over the rest of the route but Stormy was the killer. Going via the Vale wouldn't have been on at all - not so bad from Bridgend to Barry but the mixing it with the local service and having to crossover the Downside at Cardiff General r thread through the awkward bit off Platform 6 at the east end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 4, 2015 Found more info on the Ravenscraig trains on Jim Howie's 'Lowland Locomotives' site (via the Wayback Machine' as the main site doesn't seem to work) http://web.archive.org/web/20100129190539/http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/contents.htm(main page) http://web.archive.org/web/20090323054849/http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/mossend.htm(mossend page with link to ore trains) "The loaded trains were routed via the Rutherglen and Coatbridge line to avoid the 2 miles of 1 in 70 that is the Bellshill bank, but the trains still had to negotiate gradients of between 1 in 77 and 1 in 93 between Mossend and Holytown....The initial method of assaulting the Holytown bank was to attach a banker, usually a class 20, at Rosehall Junction in Coatbridge. This method was reviewed following an incident when several coal hoppers were derailed on Mossend north curve due to the banking locomotive failing to react quickly enough to a brake application by the leading locomotives." This lead to the 3rd loco going on front and would seem it wasn't just the ore trains which got one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Thanks for that Keefer!! I thought my site was totally lost to the internet. I had to take it down completely as somehow a virus got into the files on the server and visitors, including unfortunately some on here, were getting viruses transferred to their computers. Jim Howie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium keefer Posted November 4, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 4, 2015 No problem Jim, so sorry to hear of your troubles with it - it's certainly been one of my bookmarks for years. Apologies for not mentioning you were on here, I meant to, but was having so much bother copying links on this tablet that I forgot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail-Online Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 When Shotton closed down there was a stockpile of imported Iron Ore so pairs of 37s were sent all the way up to Shotton with the bogie tippler wagons in order to bring it down to Llanwern. I wonder if the waited for loading or there was a spare 'set' of wagons? Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckymucklebackit Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The same thing happened when Ravenscraig closed, don't know where the ore went, but the trains worked down the ECML Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The same thing happened when Ravenscraig closed, don't know where the ore went, but the trains worked down the ECML Jim Some, at least, ran to Llanwern; after they'd exhausted the stocks at Ravenscraig, some of the wagon bodies were to be seen stacked by the reception sidings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 By the time Ravenscraig closed the only plants with blast furnaces, were Redcar, Scunthorpe, Llanwern and Port Talbot so any ore went to one, or more, of those. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Re the triple-heading of Ravenscraig trains from Mossend; Between Holytown Jc and Ravenscraig is the Calder Viaduct, over which 3 (or more) locos coupled are prohibited. If this restriction was in force when the steelworks was still open (which I think it was) the additional (front) loco would have had to be detached before the Viaduct, which would explain the need for the additional driver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium ColinK Posted November 5, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 5, 2015 I know the Llanwern trains were long as I saw them several times. But how many waggons were on the Ravenscraig ore trains? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.