Best & Worst Locos to Drive

Quite. Like many of PH's views, we've been through this before...

 

"Economically" needs to become a priority increasingly as the years go on. Additionally a machine where the fire can be dropped by pulling a lever rather than shovelling it out through the cab and with a self-cleaning smokebox may well be more attractive to potential volunteers increasingly unused to domestic coal fires.

I don't necesssary agree with all the individual quoted had to say but I am 100% in agreement with him in thinking that some people in railway preservation need to be more realistic.

PH

 

Please see post 102. It would have done you good to have listened to this guy who, as I said before, makes me seem a starry eyed optimist!

PH

 

Agree to an extent, but not sure one class of loco is the right way to go about it, what's the point in having a economically good loco when your struggling to get people to crew it and run the railway for the day ?, if some railways alreadt struggle in this field, then taking away plenty of the interest is not going to help in that respect, you could employ more paid staff, but that defeats the economic point in the first place.

 

Agree 100% - however, the economic impact made by having a largely volunteer workforce dwarfs the impact of whether a particular locomotive is slightly more or less economic to run and maintain. I think in your utilitarian outlook about motive power, you tend to underestimate the importance of keeping a large body of volunteers motivated to keep turning up each day: part of that is having interesting and varied locomotives to work on.

I have some experience of the above, and can offer a comparison between 73082 (a Standard 5, but with basically all the labour saving gizmos you like) and 847 (pretty much identical in size, but from a 1920s school of design rather than a 1950s).

From a fireman's point of view, the rocking grate on 73082 is definitely easier to clear first thing in the morning than the conventional grate on 847. However, it doesn't obviate the need for fire irons, since you still need to clear the ash that collects in a 4" strip down each side and down the middle, and any clinker on the bars. Nonetheless, I'd chalk that up as 1-0 to the Standard. Once the fire is alight and you need to go underneath to rake out the ashpan, I'd say 847 gets an equaliser. 73082 has a hopper ashpan that ought to be easy, but in practice it is quite heavy, and the ash has a tendency both to hang up in it and - if you are unlucky - to jam the mechanism. Either way, it is a two man job to clear (one underneath with a rake and hose, and one up top operating the hopper as instructed). By contrast, on 847 it is a simple matter of open the dampers wide, get underneath and rake out. My view is that the perceived labour saving of the hopper doors doesn't really exist to the extent you might think.

At the smokebox end, BR Standard smokebox doors seem poorly designed to me: they are heavy and have a kind of slide they rest on which, with the weight, can be too stiff to open easily. 847 has six dog clamps, which in practice can be undone very quickly. I definitely think the Maunsell arrangement is far superior to the Standard.

Finally, self cleaning smokeboxes: I haven't got any experience, as our Standards don't have them, so you have to shovel out the ash on either loco. Does anyone have a self-cleaning smokebox these days? I can't imagine they are especially neighbour-friendly, which is another consideration.

All in all, there isn't much difference in prep time between 847 and 73082, but for preference, I'd choose 847. (That's the fireman's view: drivers may perceive the relative merits differently).

With regard the comment about new generations of footplate crew being less willing to do the dirty jobs: I'm not sure I see much evidence of that; in any case there are other hard dirty jobs (such as cleaning out pits); preparing the fire each day is only one small task. My experience is that some people turn up and find out pretty early that the job isn't for them (no shame in that), but if you last long enough to understand what you are letting yourself in for, I haven't heard anyone then wish for more labour-saving devices. Early starts seem to be a much bigger issue, but not much you can do about that!

Tom

 

Not solely on "utilitarian" grounds but on"authenticity" ones as well. Only a minority of tourist lines turn out the sort of train which would have been experienced "in the day" with any regularity.

(Sorry for thread drift)

Paul H

 

Often the case as folk get older.

 

It is a fallacy that outside valve gear removes the need to go "under" the engine. There are still springs to be examined, axlebox underkeeps to be checked/filled and a general examination to be made & signed for. So oiling the inside valve gear of 2 outside cyl locos is really not a chore.

 

A fact not unrelated to frequently having to deal with train loading 50 times higher than were experienced "in the day"!

Tom

 

and wiser.

PH

 

Churchward, his successors & by total accident Dai Woodham actually gave us a good answer to the standardisation/variety dilemma!
Same fittings, limited standard range of boilers, wheels, axleboxes, valve gear etc etc from 0-4-2 tanks through to large 4-6-0's with plenty of very suitable heritage line types in between.

 

Come on now! You are not really telling me that a 4MT could not handle anything which could be accommodated in the platforms available at 25mph tourist railway speeds.

Paul H

 

Very true, and those tasks are far easier to complete when you aren't struggling past connecting rods and valve gear, as indeed is the oiling around process itself. The tasks are therefore more likely to be done more thoroughly.

The ascertion, by the way, was Mr Jacks', not mine.

 

"Accommodated in the platforms" is different from "experienced in the day". In our case, if you want 1950s authenticity, a C2x and a single carriage run four times per day would suffice. A C2x doesn't exist, and four trips of one carriage won't hold getting on for a thousand passengers.

So it seems you don't want authenticity, but cost effectiveness. That means pulling the passengers. In our case, an 80xxx tank would do pretty much anything we wanted - we'd probably need five in traffic at any time to cover the service. The SVR up thread said they could run with six. So eleven down, four to go - do you draw lots as to which amongst the hundreds of other heritage railways gets them?

Whatever the merits of your argument, you fatally weaken it every time you start from the standpoint of "what we need is x" rather than "what we actually have available is y - now how do we use that to best effect?" If a railway has a Bulleid, it's pointless to keep on repeating "they would be better off with an Ivatt tank". Instead, you need to suggest how they could market themselves so the bigger loco becomes an asset (in terms of attracting funding, volunteers and passengers).

Tom

 

I don't particularly wish to be Bluebell specific but you and I both know a picture exists of a 2MT leaving Horsted Keynes for East Grinstead hauling six bogies. The railway actually does possess a 2-6-4T which is out of use. Instead of renovating this eminently practical machine it chose instead to overhaul a light pacific which promptly exhibited terminal firebox problems. Sounds as if big choo-chooism prevailed once again.

PH

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Blackmore Vale not actually owned by a society separate to the railway? And therefore the bearing on what gets overhauled is not quite as straightforward as you would have us believe?

 

Yes, I believe so but I was thinking of Sir Archibald Sinclair which is a "rebuild"

Paul H

 

The Bluebell is a good case in point on the interest/keeping volunteers motivated front, plenty of places can offer a standards 4,5 and Bulleid Pacifics, how many can offer a C, O1, H, Dukedog, E4, Adams Radial etc ?, that unique selling point of the Bluebell is a powerful one for many, living in Birmingham, if I wanted to see a Bulleid then Taw Valley or Keith Park are more likely to get the nod than Blackmoor Vale and Sir Archie.

Why would I travel over a hundred miles to see a type that is 45 mins down the road ?.

 

Of these only two are currently working and one of those is, so I understand, rather sickly. I don't want to be seen as knocking the Bluebell so will say no more.

PH

 

I remember talking with Nelly on the KWVR years ago when the Webb Coal Tank was in service after its first post-Dinting overhaul, and asking him what it was like to drive and fire.
"It pulls well, but it's a right humpty-backed bugger, no room in the cab" was the reply. I'll always remember that description!

Richard.