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

[DY444]

2 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Classic RMWeb.

 

If "some yards and stations" south of Crewe had 6.25KV sections as suggested then class 86 would not have been able to run in those yards and stations as it was 25KV only.  I challenge anyone to provide evidence of a station or yard on the LMR electrified system where class 86 couldn't run but classes 81-85 could due to that station or yard being 6.25KV.  Bottom line is there weren't any so the assertion about 6.25KV sections on the LMR is nonsense.

 

Edit.  I've just checked the 1962 official report into the emu transformer failures in Glasgow and elsewhere and this states that the 6.25KV capability of the early AC locomotives had been permanently locked out so they would not have been able to operate in these mythical LMR 6.25KV stations and yards either.

 

Referring to the early service experience with the AC electric locomotives, Paragraph 285 of the report states:

"One incident of wrong voltage changeover occurred at Sandbach where the pantograph was allowed to rise so slowly that it drew an arc and the A.P.C. responded to the reduced voltage and threw the selection switch to the 6.25 kV position. Since then the A.P.C. equipment has been locked in the 25 kV position because the London Midland system is energised only at this voltage"

Edited May 19, 2022 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

7 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?

Don't forget that steam was active under the wires for months (in some cases) before the wires were energised.  If the detail shows a good idea is to look at the insulators on the catenary because generally these were 'bagged' with plastic (I think) sheet to help reduce carbon contamination until such time as the current was going to be switched on.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Classic RMWeb.

 

I'll consider myself nonsensically nearly right, then...

 

Bil knew that his switchgear was locked out of use, and that his efforts had been in vain, but by the time he told me the story he'd moved on to overseeing the installation of switchgear in new power stations, including Hunterston (nuclear), Dungeness (nuclear), Drax, and Didcot.

 

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Classic RMWeb.

 

I'll consider myself nonsensically nearly right, then...

 

Bil knew that his switchgear on the 81s was locked out of use, and that his efforts had been in vain, but by the time he told me the story he'd moved on to overseeing the installation of switchgear in new power stations, including Hunterston (nuclear), Dungeness (nuclear), Drax, and Didcot.  He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Classic RMWeb.

 

I'll consider myself nonsensically nearly right, then...

 

Bil knew that his switchgear on the 81s was locked out of use, and that his efforts had been in vain, but by the time he told me the story he'd moved on to overseeing the installation of switchgear in new power stations, including Hunterston (nuclear), Dungeness (nuclear), Drax, and Didcot.  He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

[melmerby]

5 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 

  He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

The politicians of today are still spouting that nonsense as a justification for "New Nuclear".

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

 

Classic RMWeb.

 

I'll consider myself nonsensically nearly right, then...

 

Bil knew that his switchgear on the 81s was locked out of use, and that his efforts had been in vain, but by the time he told me the story he'd moved on to overseeing the installation of switchgear in new power stations, including Hunterston (nuclear), Dungeness (nuclear), Drax, and Didcot.  He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by The Johnster

[30851]

 

If I remember correctly the yellow stripe engines didn't fit south of Stafford - but they said Crewe as it was much easier to replace an engine at Crewe. The difference in what was allowed was due to cost cutting on the WCML electrification project. It had got to Stafford in 1961 (I think) but then got stopped for a year as it was too expensive. To get the project going again they had to make cost cuts. One of the big cuts was to reduce the loading gauge by something like 6 inches (the WCML had a higher gauge than most lines so they could do this). This reduced the number of bridges and tunnels that need to be changed, caused some steam engines to be banned and removed the need for the 6.25KV to be used on the WCML.

 

 

Rob

[Pandora]

16 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

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,

I think you have the reason, the risk of the fireman going up into the coal space of the tender, and with the filler mounted on the top deck of the tender, how would the fireman fill the tender with water?  As part of the electrification project, were water columns removed where overhead was installed?

Edited May 19, 2022 by Pandora

[hmrspaul]

20 hours ago, BR traction instructor said:

…south of Crewe was certainly the principal instruction but then there weren’t wires north of Crewe at that time.

 

BeRTIe

Sorry that is incorrect

 

From wikipedia - but correct,  The first stretch to be electrified was Crewe to Manchester, completed on 12 September 1960. This was followed by Crewe to Liverpool, completed on 1 January 1962.

 

It was only the extension to Scotland from Weaver Junction that was done after London was reached. 

 

Paul

[Pandora]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

 

I'll consider myself nonsensically nearly right, then...

 

Bil knew that his switchgear on the 81s was locked out of use, and that his efforts had been in vain, but by the time he told me the story he'd moved on to overseeing the installation of switchgear in new power stations, including Hunterston (nuclear), Dungeness (nuclear), Drax, and Didcot.  He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

We remain in-waiting for the cars we were promised, powered by  a nuclear generator engine under the bonnet  requiring  only a grain of uranium fuel, and the grain of nuclear fuel lasts  for twenty  years of motoring!

[Steamport Southport]

12 minutes ago, Pandora said:

I think you have the reason, the risk of the fireman going up into the coal space of the tender, and how would the fireman fill the tender with water?  As part of the electrification project, were water columns removed where overhead was installed?

 

So why didn't other locomotives with Fowler tenders get banned?

 

Crabs, Stanier Moguls, other 8Fs, etc.

 

 

And the answer to the last bit is no. Other locomotives would still need water as would some of the diesels.

 

 

Jason

Edited May 19, 2022 by Steamport Southport

[jim.snowdon]

40 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

As part of the electrification project, were water columns removed where overhead was installed?

No, and the 1960 AC instructions include a whole appendix listing locations where the contact wire was raised sufficiently to permit safe access to the tops of tenders for the purpose of using water columns. Worth remembering is that the standard LNWR water column did not involve over the top delivery. Delivery was by means of a leather hose (ie 'bag')  that was fixed horizontally to the top of the column and dragged across the top of the tender until the free end could be dropped into the filler.

 

 

[MyRule1]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

He claimed at the time that nuclear power would be so cheap to produce that it would not be economically viable to print the bills, which may or may not be an indication of his gullibility and readiness to believe what he'd been told.

 

When the Queen opened Calder Hall as the worlds first nuclear power station, in1956,  for "civil" us the line that it produced electricity "too cheap to meter" was certainly part of the official message. However some believe that this was just part of the wider cover story to hide the fact that the main use of Calder Hall was not the peaceful generation of electricity but the production of weapons grade uranium.

 

I know of a couple of buildings that were constructed around that time with full electric heating which was specified due to this promised new era of cheap electricity,

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, MyRule1 said:

When the Queen opened Calder Hall as the worlds first nuclear power station, in1956,  for "civil" us the line that it produced electricity "too cheap to meter" was certainly part of the official message. However some believe that this was just part of the wider cover story to hide the fact that the main use of Calder Hall was not the peaceful generation of electricity but the production of weapons grade uranium.

 

I know of a couple of buildings that were constructed around that time with full electric heating which was specified due to this promised new era of cheap electricity,

My dad was there.  The giant "eletricity meter" seen in the last few seconds of this clip was actually powered by a man behind it pedalling a bike.  

 

[The Johnster]

4 hours ago, Pandora said:

We remain in-waiting for the cars we were promised, powered by  a nuclear generator engine under the bonnet  requiring  only a grain of uranium fuel, and the grain of nuclear fuel lasts  for twenty  years of motoring!

 

And come to that, where are the rocket boots I was promised on Tomorrow's World?

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, MyRule1 said:

When the Queen opened Calder Hall as the worlds first nuclear power station, in1956,  for "civil" us the line that it produced electricity "too cheap to meter" was certainly part of the official message. However some believe that this was just part of the wider cover story to hide the fact that the main use of Calder Hall was not the peaceful generation of electricity but the production of weapons grade uranium.

 

I know of a couple of buildings that were constructed around that time with full electric heating which was specified due to this promised new era of cheap electricity,

 

As The Queen has never stated anything to the contrary, one must assume that she knew she was lying through her teeth and would prefer us to forget the incident!  Certainly bil was sincere about it, though even  when I was 11, when he told me the Class 81 story, I was somewhat sceptical, and my dad was derisory of the idea!

[Trog]

I believe that I have been told that it may have been originally intended for the south end of the WCML from just north of UB41 on the south side of the 11MP to be 6.25Kv, certainly there is a disturbance in the layout of the OHL masts there to this day with several extras that don't appear to have ever done anything useful.  Perhaps they were intended for a voltage dropping 'neutral' section, that never came to pass.

[Tom Burnham]

21 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...

 

 

I seem to recall reading something (possibly in a conference paper) which said it had originally been expected that the southern end of the LM electrification would use 6.25kV, but in the end it was possible to reduce clearances with 25kV.  So appropriate switchgear would very likely have been provided on the earlier AC electric locos.

[Trog]

4 hours ago, Pandora said:

We remain in-waiting for the cars we were promised, powered by  a nuclear generator engine under the bonnet  requiring  only a grain of uranium fuel, and the grain of nuclear fuel lasts  for twenty  years of motoring!

 

Did the prototype Mr Fusion powered car not display strange behaviour at 88MPH?

[MidlandRed]

22 minutes ago, Tom Burnham said:

I seem to recall reading something (possibly in a conference paper) which said it had originally been expected that the southern end of the LM electrification would use 6.25kV, but in the end it was possible to reduce clearances with 25kV.  So appropriate switchgear would very likely have been provided on the earlier AC electric locos.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the second pantograph on the AL1-5 locos was for 6.25 kv operation - really not sure that’s correct - however as a child my logic suggested they ought to trail rather than lead (fuelled by experience with my Hornby Dublo E3002) and at that time, that’s why I understood they had two!! 

 

As the second pantographs were removed from the locos from the mid 60s onwards, presumably this reflected the lack of requirement for them. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by MidlandRed

[Trog]

If you reduce the voltage to a quarter of the normal, to get the same amount of power I would assume that the current would have to increase by four fold. Higher currents tend to require larger cross sectional areas in the conductors. If running on 6.25Kv would the loco raise the second pantograph to reduce the electrical load at the point of contact between contact wire and pantograph  carbons?  Thus once the clearance tolerances were reduced and the sections of 6.25Kv were no longer required, would the second pantographs now also no longer be required, and follow the 6.25Kv sections into oblivion.

[rodent279]

On 19/05/2022 at 21:37, MidlandRed said:

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the second pantograph on the AL1-5 locos was for 6.25 kv operation - really not sure that’s correct - however as a child my logic suggested they ought to trail rather than lead (fuelled by experience with my Hornby Dublo E3002) and at that time, that’s why I understood they had two!! 

 

As the second pantographs were removed from the locos from the mid 60s onwards, presumably this reflected the lack of requirement for them. 

No, the voltage changeover was internal, and did not involve changing pans.

 

On 19/05/2022 at 21:16, Tom Burnham said:

I seem to recall reading something (possibly in a conference paper) which said it had originally been expected that the southern end of the LM electrification would use 6.25kV, but in the end it was possible to reduce clearances with 25kV.  So appropriate switchgear would very likely have been provided on the earlier AC electric locos.

My dad was BR's engineer for the Roade-Euston section. He worked on the electrification more or less from the start, moving south from Lancashire in 1957. I asked him several times about 6.25kV, and he was adamant that it was never used on the WCML, and was in fact dropped quite early on in the planning. Some tests were done at a bridge with low clearance, with steam locos stood directly under a live 25kV contact wire and insulator, and it was found that there was no flashover until well under 4" clearance (not sure whether that was between loco & contact wire, or contact wire & bridge).

That allowed minimum clearance to be revised from 10" (I  think) to either 6" or 4".

Regarding locos with yellow cab stripes,  the "south of Crewe" restrictions may have been in recognition of generally tighter clearances in some structures on the southern WCML- Linslade single bores, Hatch End & Primrose Hill for example.

Edited May 21, 2022 by rodent279

[Michael Hodgson]

On 19/05/2022 at 21:56, Trog said:

If you reduce the voltage to a quarter of the normal, to get the same amount of power I would assume that the current would have to increase by four fold. Higher currents tend to require larger cross sectional areas in the conductors. If running on 6.25Kv would the loco raise the second pantograph to reduce the electrical load at the point of contact between contact wire and pantograph  carbons?  Thus once the clearance tolerances were reduced and the sections of 6.25Kv were no longer required, would the second pantographs now also no longer be required, and follow the 6.25Kv sections into oblivion.

Locos on the 1500v DC lines ran with both pans up.  I've always understood the higher current to be the reason for this.

[rodent279]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Locos on the 1500v DC lines ran with both pans up.  I've always understood the higher current to be the reason for this.

I've read somewhere that it wasn't strictly necessary due to the higher currents on the 1500 v D.C. system (typically 1000A), it was more to even out pan head wear. Single pans are the norm in Holland, and on the 1500V D.C. lines of SNCF. NS & SNCF electric locos are considerably more powerful than either class of Woodhead loco, peak current draw from their ohl would easily be north of 3000A.

Edited May 20, 2022 by rodent279