Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I think that he means that MW had an off-the-shelf design that had its gauge reduced without much in the way of sophisticated modifications.

 

From what ive heard (and alot of this is from people at the railway but ive not seen it physically written down anywhere) is that the Lynton and Lynmouth area are all for the idea of the park and ride between blackmoor and lynton as they can see the benefits of less traffic but more visitors in the area.

I've also heard (again nowt writen down) that Barnstaple council and those in charge are up for the line being returned to Pilton as it would be a 30 second walk into town and help increase business

But I think Parracombe is going to be the hardest part of the build with the objections from certain individuals. but whatever we think . everyone is allowed there own opinion. no matter if we see it as right or wrong. I just hope an agreement is reached between all partys involved.

 

Were there any similar MW locos of wider gauge?

 

Thanks for the post about issues with Lyd. Very interesting.
Most of the issues seem to be simply that she is not a typical FR loco and e.g. needs an ash pit and coaling from the other side. Presumably the LBR would be set up for these locos? And/or some of the suggested mods could be done?
The poster doesn't suggest the loco is inadequate for FR or WHR use. So presume would be fine for revived LBR?

 

The thinking behind this was that A) Manning Wardle was in to supplying a lot of Colonial 2ft 6in gauge lines at the time, B) that these three locos where a cancelled order (Hence the cheap price for a loco of that size at the time, C) it was impossible of Manning Wardle to provide a forth locos to the same design as their order books where full and it would have been at least two to three years before they could have done that, D) they could not get the axle loading weight down enough for the lightly laid rail with a tank design, I guess we may never know the real reason why three 2ft gauge steam locos where built almost on spec, when the operation of a line like the L&BR would have required four locos from day one.

Once again I refer to Paul Gower and his research who has come across a lot of these sort of things surrounding the L&BR, he is convinced that the L&BR was built to fail, so as to stop the GWR from building the Lynmouth Branch from South Molton.

The next question was why did the SR then build a fourth 2-6-2? simple Lyn was due to have a heavy overhaul and as the L&BR had a spare boiler for the 2-6-2T's it would have been possible to maintain three of the Manning Wardle's in steam at any one time with the fourth in the workshop. Also we must not forget that at the time there was a decision by the locomotive building industry to cut production and a number of locomotive company merged into big groups, I am sure the SR was aware of this and jumped at the chance to get another loco at possibly a good discount before the company was wound up (I think I am right with 'Lew' being the second to last steam loco built by Manning Wardle's.

The funny thing is until the line closed I have not seen a photo of the spare boiler around Pilton, which makes me wonder if it was kept at Eastleight in a state of readiness, we know that the locos went away for any heavy work to be done, but it would have been possible that the boiler work could have been done at Eastleight and it could have been prepared before the locos arrived, also to my way of thinking Eastleight would not have wanted to have keep a non standard loco in the works that long as it took up space, unlike SR standard designs which could be brought in at one end stripped down and re assembled and out at the other end of the workshop in lets say a month, an L&BR loco was a static rebuild which got in the way of production lines of the time.

Like I have said elsewhere there are more questions that logical answers to the L&BR, the deeper you go the next can of worms is opened.

 

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. Remember that even by the mid 1930s, the majority of SR locomotive stock was still pre-grouping designs in mostly relatively small class sizes: there were few types that ran to more than, say, 50 or 100 examples even at that time (and plenty of classes that, either by initial build or withdrawal, were down to a handful by then: the Beattie Well Tanks; Adams Radials; Brighton J class tanks and N15x rebuilds; the Stroudley/Maunsell E1R rebuilds; the various PD&SWJR tank engines etc) . Repairing locomotives in "foreign" workshops was not uncommon, which was why by that time you start to see former LBSCR locos with distinctly Ashford features, such as smokebox doors. All of which suggests that the Southern workshops were still in part closer to cottage industry than automotive production lines. As such, the bespoke nature of any overhaul of a narrow gauge 2-6-2T was probably less out of the ordinary than you might suggest. With regard timescales, you'd have to do a systematic trawl through workshop records, but I doubt an average of a month was every achieved, even if you just restrict yourself to the modern classes - Eastleigh was modern when it was built, but it wasn't Crewe.

Tom

 

Is there anywhere you can point to where this research has been shared - online or in print?

 

In another post by Paul Martin on NGRM, he also mentions the following:-

"I am reminded of one further enhancement being considered for Lyd - a screw reverser.

The reason being that in deep Joy valve gear the reach rod is under load from the valve gear and when the engine is working hard it can be a real struggle to notch up. In addition it only has three notches for each direction and its not unusual to find you really want it in notch 2.5. A screw would take the load and give infinite `notch' positions. I'd like to see it fitted with a combination lever/screw as a pure screw will become tiresome very quickly when shunting."

I seem to remember him also saying, elsewhere, that the Joy valve gear is more susceptible to wear than other gears. Perhaps any future "replicas" would be better with Walschaerts?

 

I will have to ask him, most of what I have said has been verbal, but I think he has had a couple of articles printed in the L&BR Trust Magazine over the years as for going on line, Paul does not do the internet, but I will see what I can get him to do, you could always ask him to do a slide show for you where he expands on all this and more of his theories.

 

Thank you - any article references would be of interest.

 

Don't get me going on this, I agree with you, logic suggests that any new loco should benefit from the mistakes from the past and a new L&BR 2-6-2T should do the same, but there is a fine line between what I call the heritage side of things and pure outright commercialism.

Both are part of the same pie and both need each other, just how much of a balance you have will depend on those making the decision and also those who are prepared to fund the build, if the railway enthusiasts fund it, then it will be more traditional, however if let say a lottery winner or a commercial venture was to fund it whose is to say that they would not want to see a modern version of these locos.

 

Thanks Tom, I am not sure if anyone has done that level of research as far as the L&BR is concerned, I will have to ask, I think it is a bit vague at best, this comes back to my comment of opening up new routes of information and never getting to the bottom of it all.

 

As other railways are discovering, there is no point in building a replica where the importance given to authenticity is such that design faults of the originals are faithfully reproduced. Felix Holt's wonderfully detailed account of the practical problems encountered on the Ffestiniog show what needs to be done. Most obviously put all the lubrication points where they are accessible and pivot the pony trucks so as to minimise flange wear. The merits of different valve gears are beyond me; at least no-one is suggesting Caprotti! As for the dirty footplate from the coal, this rather suggests that a rear bunker should be used. Of course it needs to be big enough: 2-6-4 anyone?

 

John, not my comments, but report of those of Paul Martin

 

Out of curiosity how does Lyd compare with the Vof R Loco's?

 

That may be difficult to compare, but there is one guy who works for the V of R that might be able to help, I will drop him an email to see if he can help out.

 

Remember the Rheidol railways locos are GWR built adaptations of the originals. The original locos were full of faults in valve gear design, coal capacity. Again it was a Szlumper who specified the locos, but they were built by a company who never before built a loco or built another one after the order was complete, Davies & Metcalfe of Romiley. They were a constant source of work for fitters and until the cambrian tweaked them the coal capacity was poor. On the plus side they had a shorter wheelbase and bigger water capacity.

 

I think you have hit the nail right on the head, and the main reason why the L&BR could not get hold of a forth loco before they opened, as there was a shortage of locomotive builders in the UK at the time, as we all know Davies and Metcalfe went on to just produce injectors and other boiler fittings.

Now as for comparing the GWR build locos to that of LYD you should also take in to consideration the number of modification the V of R locos have had over the years.

 

Personally I'd like to see a new build Rheidol tank....

 

The fundamental differences that would improve performance between the L&B 2-6-2's and the original V of R locos are that the V of R locos had a larger diameter boiler (2'9"/2'6") & heating surface (425 sq ft/383 sq ft) slightly larger cylinders (11"x17"/10.5"x16") and smaller wheels 2'6"/2'9" .Whilst the V of R locos had their faults, on paper they should steam better and be stronger . . . . (Info from C.C Green book on V of R)