West Somerset Railway General Discussion

back in the early days 5572 seemed to be able to cope rather well running full line...

I recall the Minehead drivers seemed happy after the running gear had been "run in"

 

1986 & 1987 I think according to a search on Google. The search also found that 5572 worked on the Main Line in 1985 when she went to an open day at Reading Depot under her own steam. Never knew about that before.

Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

Ah, apologies, I had the wrong "too heavy" loco, I meant 9466, however, @ruddingtonrsh56 has made that point for me.

 

If only there were still watering facilities at Williton.

 

It was said earlier that a few years ago when the WSR 'Front Line' motive power was a 45XX & a Standard 4 Tank that while the 45XX could do the job, the maintenance bills were rather high as it was being flogged to the limit.

Also when the Tysley 57xx was on the WSR, it seemed to handle the Ex Minehead diagram which doesn't require as large a train as the ex Bishops Lydeyard ones. Oh and nice though it was, it did have to stop for a long breather at Washford when I went

 

For the record the Modified Halls ( i.e.6959 onwards ) are marginally heavier.

At the risk of teaching how to suck eggs ;

I note the postings re. tractive effort. TE is not a measure of power ( it is based on
an arbitrary formula that arguably equates to torque ). It is at its maximum at the first
instant of movement. Simplistically the higher the TE the greater the load that can
be started.

( TE formula has coupled wheel diameter below the line. As a example of how TE
was used for promotional purposes in the past the GWR wished, using accepted
nomenclature, for the King Class to have a TE > 40,000, so the coupled wheels
were non standard 6 ft 6 inches diameter , rather than 6 ft 8 inches as per the
Stars and Castles. ).

it is the power of a loco that defines a loco ability to maintain schedule (on the
larger Heritage Railways. to attain and sustain 25 mph on the ruling gradient ).

Stating the obvious: it is the ability to boil water that characterises a loco; a function
of grate area and boiler evaporation area. ( inter alia boiler pressure, that is
saturation temperature, degree of superheat and how efficiently the steam is
then used effect the ultimate power developed )

The 55 xx 2-6-2 tanks have a reliable maximum sustainable equivalent drawbar
horse power of c.550. During August 2002, when loco resources were restricted
on the WSR to Nos 5542, 5553 and 80136, the 2-6-2 tanks maintained schedule
with seven coach trains, but there was little to spare and crews had to be very
much on the ball.

As comparisons: max sustainable EDHP for a 51xx large Prairie is 800-850 EDHP
and for a 49xx Hall c.1100. Working locos at maximum power, apart from wear and
tear, does not represent an efficient use of water or coal.

The ability to accelerate quickly to 25mph is critical to timekeeping on the WSR
with 10 stations.

Michael Rowe

 

Considering that the board members have collective responsibility, that board member would have had the choice of going along with the decisions or resigning. If you have gone along with them and accepted responsibility, it's hardly surprising that you would defend them, regardless of what the rest of us here think of them.
Edit: Inserted the missing "us".

 

Indeed; I've had to learn that in the course of induction as a trustee/director in a CIC recently. The real eye-opener was that my accountability remains even if I am on the losing side in a debate, and vote against a measure carried.

 

5199 is still at the railway. Economical on both 2 and 8 coach trains.

 

After I worked out you were on about 9466, the loco has handled gala trains on it's own across several visits across multiple decades. Safe to say it can be used all year around.

 

Where on the line are the watering points ? and does the working timetable allow crews time to fill the tanks right up, It doesn't matter if the engine has the potential TE to haul 6, or 7 coach trains, if it is going to run short on water and not be able to refill the tanks, on each trip, without running late and holding up the service , Its from this point that i would say that 4561 may proove to not be suitable for the full season, compared to say the Mogol , if there are only limited opertunities to take water, an engine with limited water capicity will be at an disadvantage , especially if its held up en route and uses more water than normal, if theres a very fine margin between having enough water to arrive safely, so you can use your injectors, and be about to run out.

 

Not really, I just have more important things to worry about right now, regarding 4561, according to yourself I believe you were quoted as saying 4936 would be back in action 2 years ago so forgive me if I’m rather sceptical of your latest prediction.

 

I think you need to read what @Jamessquared said about water capacity and @Maunsell907 said about boiler power. In any case I wasn't impugning 9466's capabilities, I was only comparing them to 4561's, which other people have said is too small for handling peak season trains.

 

The past is proof though. You'd think they'd had hired in an industrial 0-4-0. No pleasing some people it seems.

 

Locos aren't ready until locos are ready.

 

Something you maybe need to remember before telling the rest of us what will and won’t be in traffic by a certain date perhaps?

 

Afraid you might learn something?

 

As a member of the WSRA, I look forward to our loco handling seven and eight coach trains throughout the peak season. There I was, thinking it was a bit small.