Did yellow cab stripe on steam locos mean forbidden under the wires south of Crewe or under all wires?

[JOHNMCDRAGON]

Were yellow cab stripe steam locos forbidden under all ohle or only south of Crewe?

[BR traction instructor]

…south of Crewe was certainly the principal instruction but then there weren’t wires north of Crewe (meaning WCML to Carlisle) at that time.

 

BeRTIe

Edited May 19, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[LMS2968]

South of Crewe. Steam continued to operate under the wires around the Liverpool and Manchester areas and from the North into Crewe - but no further with a yellow stripe.

[bécasse]

The minimum permitted height (above rail level) of the contact wire was lower south of Crewe, albeit by not that much, and that was the reason for certain steam locos being banned there once the wires were energised.

[JOHNMCDRAGON]

Ok, since I remember they used to operate under the wires in the Glasgow area, so I take it there must've been a bit more restricted clearance in some parts of WCML south of Crewe or possibly  certain classes of locos , I would imagine mainly express locos.   Steam locos under wires on  Gourock/Wemyss Bay line  and north Clydeside, but I suppose mainly mixed traffic 4mt's   with lower chimneys etc.

[JOHNMCDRAGON]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up guys.

[pH]

1 hour ago, JOHNMCDRAGON said:

 Steam locos under wires on  Gourock/Wemyss Bay line  and north Clydeside, but I suppose mainly mixed traffic 4mt's   with lower chimneys etc.

Steam locos never mixed with in-service electric units on the Gourock/Wemyss Bay lines. The last steam-hauled service ran on April 28 1967 and the electric service started on June 5 1967. Presumably there was testing of EMUs before that, but it may have been done when the regular trains weren’t operating. (I believe there’s a member on here who may be able to comment on the details of that.)

[bodmin16]

I don't know about the areas that were subject to the ban, but I would suggest that it related to specification of the OLE in some areas, the loading gauge of some locomotives or a combination of both.  I am basing my assumption on the fact that there are currently preserved locos with no cabside stripes running under the wires on the mainline network, this would further suggest to me that the clearances are greater now bearing in mind things are probably more risk averse than back in the 60s.

[Steamport Southport]

48 minutes ago, bodmin16 said:

I don't know about the areas that were subject to the ban, but I would suggest that it related to specification of the OLE in some areas, the loading gauge of some locomotives or a combination of both.  I am basing my assumption on the fact that there are currently preserved locos with no cabside stripes running under the wires on the mainline network, this would further suggest to me that the clearances are greater now bearing in mind things are probably more risk averse than back in the 60s.

 

It was only a handful of locomotives that were banned. Ex LMS 4-6-0s and 4-6-2s and a few LNER Pacifics allocated to the Scottish Region. Also the LNWR 0-8-0s and a couple of the 8Fs.

 

The preserved locomotives of those classes working on the mainline have now been lowered by a couple of inches. The Princesses, Duchesses, Royal Scots and Jubilees in particular.

 

It also affected a couple of the GWR locomotive classes as well. But as they didn't work under the wires they never got the stripe.

 

 

Jason

Edited May 18, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[jim.snowdon]

45 minutes ago, bodmin16 said:

I don't know about the areas that were subject to the ban, but I would suggest that it related to specification of the OLE in some areas, the loading gauge of some locomotives or a combination of both.  I am basing my assumption on the fact that there are currently preserved locos with no cabside stripes running under the wires on the mainline network, this would further suggest to me that the clearances are greater now bearing in mind things are probably more risk averse than back in the 60s.

The clearances are just as tight, nothing significant having changed about the railway since electrification, but the values of the minimum electrical clearances have reduced over the years as understanding has improved. Similarly, the use of 6.25kV as a means for getting electrification through tight spots has disappeared entirely.

[The Johnster]

ISTR being told by my brother-in-law, who was involved with the design and build of the Class 81 locomotives as an employee of A.£.I., that the wires on the sections south of Crewe carried 6.25kv in certain station and yard areas, and to avoid rebuilding overbridges, to reduce the flashover risk.  He was responsible for the switchgear (his speciality) that allowed these locos to change between the 25kv and 6.6kv sections.  The 6.25kv sections had the wires set lower, which was the reason that some steam locos were banned south of Crewe.  North of Crewe, it had been decided that all the OLE would be at 25kv and the clearances were set accordingly, with the wires at the full height above the rail throughout.

 

If this is nonsense, blame my bil not me!  Of course, it it is correct, I claim full credit...

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

South of Crewe. Steam continued to operate under the wires around the Liverpool and Manchester areas and from the North into Crewe - but no further with a yellow stripe.

The 1960 AC Electrified Lines Working Instructions make no mention of yellow stripes or restrictions on steam locomotive operation, but at that time only the wire between Crewe and Manchester were live. Liverpool was included in the diagrams, but sothwards, the electrification stopped as Basford Hall. Ergo, whatever the restriction was, it existed only south of Crewe.

 

[Dave John]

The 6.25 kV ohl was used in the Glasgow area too. Changeover initiated by a magnet similar to the aws magnet, but placed outside the rails. 

 

As has been suggested the yellow stripe seems to have only been applied to a few classes. 

[jim.snowdon]

17 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

ISTR being told by my brother-in-law, who was involved with the design and build of the Class 81 locomotives as an employee of A.£.I., that the wires on the sections south of Crewe carried 6.25kv in certain station and yard areas, and to avoid rebuilding overbridges, to reduce the flashover risk.  He was responsible for the switchgear (his speciality) that allowed these locos to change between the 25kv and 6.6kv sections.  The 6.25kv sections had the wires set lower, which was the reason that some steam locos were banned south of Crewe.  North of Crewe, it had been decided that all the OLE would be at 25kv and the clearances were set accordingly, with the wires at the full height above the rail throughout.

 

If this is nonsense, blame my bil not me!  Of course, it it is correct, I claim full credit...

 

 

You're mostly right, but the whole reason for the reduced voltage was to cope with what were then considered safe electrical clearances to both structures and rolling stock. The lower wire height was countered by the smaller electrical clearance required.

The clue will probably lie in the later editions of the AC Electrified Lines instructions that covered the full extent of the London and Birmingham electrification, but I haven't got a copy.

[melmerby]

Why an 8F was banned cannot be because of height as they are only 12' 10" at the highest point, which is less than the current max allowable height under wires. (13' 0"?)

A Princess or Coronation were 13' 3", several GWR classes were over that.

[Steamport Southport]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

Why an 8F was banned cannot be because of height as they are only 12' 10" at the highest point, which is less than the current max allowable height under wires. (13' 0"?)

A Princess or Coronation were 13' 3", several GWR classes were over that.

 

It was only a handful of the ex WD ones with different boiler fittings. It included 48773.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/48773-wd-307-lms-8233-iranian-state-rly-41-109-wd70307-wd-500-br-48773/

 

 

Jason

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It was only a handful of locomotives that were banned. Ex LMS 4-6-0s and 4-6-2s and a few LNER Pacifics allocated to the Scottish Region. Also the LNWR 0-8-0s and a couple of the 8Fs.

 

 

and 4Fs.

 

I thought it was more the height of the tender than the loco that was the main issue. 

Firemen tended to go up there to put the bag in etc,

[pH]

52 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

It was only a handful of locomotives that were banned. Ex LMS 4-6-0s and 4-6-2s and a few LNER Pacifics allocated to the Scottish Region. Also the LNWR 0-8-0s and a couple of the 8Fs.

Also LMS 4Fs:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80572914@N06/7398257432/in/album-72157630154802550/

 

Plus WD 2-8-0s (90125 and 90261 at least) and a Clan (72006) got stripes.

 

I think the LNER Pacifics were mistakes, or at least staff being over-zealous. There were certainly others of those classes around at the time on the ScR that were not ‘striped’.

 

10 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

It was only a handful of the ex WD ones with different boiler fittings. It included 48773.

 

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/48773-wd-307-lms-8233-iranian-state-rly-41-109-wd70307-wd-500-br-48773/

I seem to remember 48773 was a mistake, too. It should have been either 48774 or 48775, though I don’t know how they were different from 48773.

 

I don’t know of any other LMS 8Fs that got stripes.

 

There are several previous topics on here discussing yellow stripes and which locos got them.

[thohurst]

Although being banned south of Crewe was the general rule of thumb, I'm sure I've seen a number of photos showing some of these banned classes (Particularly the Coronations) running under the wires?

[Phil Bullock]

6 hours ago, pH said:

Also LMS 4Fs:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80572914@N06/7398257432/in/album-72157630154802550/

 

Plus WD 2-8-0s (90125 and 90261 at least) and a Clan (72006) got stripes.

 

I think the LNER Pacifics were mistakes, or at least staff being over-zealous. There were certainly others of those classes around at the time on the ScR that were not ‘striped’.

 

I seem to remember 48773 was a mistake, too. It should have been either 48774 or 48775, though I don’t know how they were different from 48773.

 

I don’t know of any other LMS 8Fs that got stripes.

 

There are several previous topics on here discussing yellow stripes and which locos got them.

48773 - 5 were ex WD locos and originally had a different clack valve cover fitted …. Best seen in the photo on Parkhead shed in July 63 on the above link. There are two spindles extending out of the cover …. Shut off valves possibly…. That can be seen to increase the height. 
 

By the time 48773 received its yellow cab side stripe it no longer had this feature so clearly in error ….. but made her a bit of a celebrity 

48775 retained her WD clack valve cover post Sept 64 - minus the spindles, see photo of 48775 - but never got the stripes.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Phil Bullock

[LMS2968]

6 hours ago, pH said:

Also LMS 4Fs:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80572914@N06/7398257432/in/album-72157630154802550/

 

Plus WD 2-8-0s (90125 and 90261 at least) and a Clan (72006) got stripes.

 

I think the LNER Pacifics were mistakes, or at least staff being over-zealous. There were certainly others of those classes around at the time on the ScR that were not ‘striped’.

 

I seem to remember 48773 was a mistake, too. It should have been either 48774 or 48775, though I don’t know how they were different from 48773.

 

I don’t know of any other LMS 8Fs that got stripes.

 

There are several previous topics on here discussing yellow stripes and which locos got them.

Yes and No. First point: the yellow stripe first appeared on 1 September 1963 so presumably there was no prohibition prior to that. Second point: I've done a lot of research into 8773/74/75 regarding the first's being given yellow stripe but the other two didn't. All these ex-WD locos carried a shut off valve above the clack valve to deal with feed water impurities while in the Middle East. Engines brought back from there in the 1940s had these removed on return but these three were sold to BR in 1957 and retained the additional valves and enlarged covers. There was a pair of vertical spindles protruding from the top and it was these which took the engines above the maximum height. However, 8775 had had hers cut down while at Polmadie so was below that height limit, but 8773 and 8774 retained theirs so were over height and 8773 got the yellow stripe. In June 1966, 8773 had a heavy intermediate overhaul at Crewe and received normal top feed, bringing her below the height limit. The paint shop though reapplied the stripe, probably because it was there previously and no-one from high up gave instructions to delete it. That leaves 8774 which certainly had the spindles in 1964 and probably to withdrawal but never received the stripe. This is especially strange as it was for a time allocated to Speke Junction shed alongside the Liverpool area OHLW.

[DY444]

8 hours ago, The Johnster said:

ISTR being told by my brother-in-law, who was involved with the design and build of the Class 81 locomotives as an employee of A.£.I., that the wires on the sections south of Crewe carried 6.25kv in certain station and yard areas, and to avoid rebuilding overbridges, to reduce the flashover risk.  He was responsible for the switchgear (his speciality) that allowed these locos to change between the 25kv and 6.6kv sections.  The 6.25kv sections had the wires set lower, which was the reason that some steam locos were banned south of Crewe.  North of Crewe, it had been decided that all the OLE would be at 25kv and the clearances were set accordingly, with the wires at the full height above the rail throughout.

 

If this is nonsense, blame my bil not me!  Of course, it it is correct, I claim full credit...

 

 

 

It is nonsense I'm afraid.  There were no 6.25KV sections anywhere on the LMR.  The 6.25KV sections were to be found in the Glasgow area and on sections of the routes out of Liverpool St and Fenchurch St.  The AL1-AL5 electric locomotives were built with the capability to operate on 6.25KV but this was not used on the LMR and was locked out very early on.  The AL6 was 25KV only.

Edited May 19, 2022 by DY444

[Clan Mcadder]

3 hours ago, thohurst said:

Although being banned south of Crewe was the general rule of thumb, I'm sure I've seen a number of photos showing some of these banned classes (Particularly the Coronations) running under the wires?

yes I agree being from the next mainline stop down the line , ive seen pictures of locos with the yellow stripe on going through ..... 

[BR traction instructor]

The removal of some of the long metal tools used around the footplate has been suggested as a measure to allow restricted locos to work under the wires when necessary…can’t recall where I read it though.

 

BeRTIe

Edited May 19, 2022 by BR traction instructor

[Hal Nail]

9 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

You're mostly right

 

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

It is nonsense

 

Classic RMWeb.