Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Sadly I don’t recognise that prediction. Climate scientists (including the Met Office) have consistently and for many years predicted climate change in the UK would produce a trend towards (a) warmer wetter winters; and (b) hotter, drier summers. Overlayed on that would be normal variability of weather. So we could still expect some deluged, stormy, flood prone summers - and/or snowy winters, as in the past. The point is though that the probability of those sort of extremes, at those seasons, was declining; while the probability of extreme weather of any kind would tend to rise, due to more energy in the warmer atmosphere.

The only thing that seems to have changed recently is a growing realisation that the caution in scientists' predictions may be leading to the actual speed of change having been underestimated. Hence we are getting more weather records being broken, years earlier than expected, as with the sudden “flash drought” this summer.

All this adds to the uncertainty about the future of heritage railways. More extremes of weather will add to costs. Then there is the state of the economy - and unknown changes in what holidaymakers in a few years time will want and be able to afford. Some railways will possibly close. Smaller ones like the L and B with great scenery in a holiday area may end up in a good position and even be able to get cheap and suitable locomotives, etc from lines that close.

That is one scenario; but none of us can know what the future holds. It is sensible to make plans and debate options. But as with military plans, it is also important to stay flexible and not pursue plans blindly. Good commanders know that even an excellent plan may lose all validity once there is contact with “the enemy"- who may well do something completely unexpected.

 

Well, I guess we will never know for sure how the weather will react over time. The other day I was browsing YouTube and came across one about dinosaurs. According to the guy who was presenting it reckons that we have had these heat spells before; then came the meteor killer and wiped out 90% of all dinosaurs, and the burning of what plant life was still about caused a pollution bubble, which in effect was a thick cloud cover. This stopped the sun from reaching the Earth, and the world was plunged into a cooling period (no one for sure knows just how long it lasted) until plant life started all again.

This was compared to the Industrial Revolution, and as he said, since we have had various clear air controls in place, the weather has been getting hotter each year, as the level of pollution becomes smaller each year. How many of you remember the scare tactics when they started to say we were losing the ozone layer?

I have concluded that we will always need some air pollution, though not at past levels, but just enough to have a shield against any extreme temperatures. If you take a look at China were is still a lot of pollution, then they suffer from storms and heavy rainfall

 

A man on youtube said...
Possibly not that credible...

 

It's a subject which is not really for here as it hasn't much to do with the L&B except for any arguements of pollution and it calls for long posts too exploring so many complex systems.

In truth, when you compare the L&B against the massive global output from manufacturing and commercialisation, energy production, the resources being used by the big corporates, the materialistic way in which society lives now, and the more recent phenomena of building huge data centres to 'digitalise' everyone's life and create endless rubbish by AI, any pollution by the L&B is infinitely and incredibly small.

I attached a document which I have been compiling over the past few weeks to be posted elsewhere for anyone who is interested, and it is an exploration of what I think you saw in the YT video.

It's still being edited so may have spelling and grammar mistakes.

(Edit: I've been a member of one of the leading Weather and Climate forums in the UK for over 20 years, where there are topics on many aspects of Climate Change, Ice Cores, Pole Ice, weather teleconnections, El Nino/La Nina, storm tracking, stratospheric systems, oceanic systems, and endless scientific studies and papers as they are published, although I haven't been quite as active in recent years I do read them to keep up to date.)

 

Sorry I have missed bits of the thread, I didn't have time to go through over 800 pages! I can agree the L&B can avoid corridor, as I also mentioned the IoWSR that is a good model for catering (though they didn't choose No Mark 1s that much, they do not fit. With what they ruin I'm not sure how much effort it would be to alter the infrastructure to get them to, but they are similar to Sothern Railway Restriction 0 Tunbridge Wells Grove Junction to Battle Loading gauge). Also if they journey gets longer on the L&B they can advertise, train will be at station X for however many minutes for toilet stops and staff check the loos before departure. I do think the Woodland Wandered journey time can be a partial red herring as if I had issues that needed a toilet you'd book onto one of the trains that has a toilet. I do think diversity of options is good but if it has been discussed and discounted, fair enough.

With the train length discussion, two parts, a low heigh L&B platform is not the same as a modern mainline one, and ruining the atmosphere may be a little overstated (sorry I can't find the post to quote what was said exactly). Also if they are only needed at termini (though obviously not with non-corridor stock, back to Jamessquared point on everything being linked) as the railway extends it would not be hard to return them to normal ground. The other part was I though Lyn was made (and maybe the planned Manning Wardle Replicas were planned to be?) more powerful in a few ways (not just a more modern boiler at higher pressure). Was this not to allow longer trains or was it a, we don't know if required so do it like this to be sure? The original locos could take 4.5 coaches to Blackmoor solo and 5 beyond if I remember correctly, so a minor update would allow this (or just avoiding the 1 in 29 on the new route if it gets that far as I think that bit is part that will be bypassed to get around Wistlandpound Reservoir).

[tangent]I do think the statement of reduction in capacity by a third to half is overly pessimistic however, an open 3rd will loose one quarter for the corridor in the vehicle, then 2 more to get the central gangway on the ends (so 7 compartments goes from 7*4=56 which may not be achievable as people are larger to 5*6 + 2*5 = 40. The Observation Brake Composites (Numbers 1 & 2) could only loose two 3rd class seats and 1 first. Obviousy tables complicate this as doors and tables clash, but you don't need all seat to have tables and one compartment on the train would be lost to a toilet potentially. Also kitchens may not bee needed, at my railway all the food is done off the train and any last minute things like plating up is Roasts is done on Tables in the Brake Coach, so maybe a third is getting close. But this is off track if it isn't going to be done.

 

Just quickly picking up in this part, the internal dimension of the carriages is 66 and one sixteenth inches. Although originally the seats were marked up, "To seat four", very rarely do we see the seats sitting four today. We do have the centre open thirds which have a small single seat one side of the door into the open section and a very small double on the other side, but they are incredibly cramped and mostly only one person sits on the double. Thus the reduction of one third in modern three per carriage wide seat standards, and half going by original "To seat four" standards.

 

Fair enough, I was thinking bigger modern people probably didn't sit 4 across and was going to put something in, then forgot. But I was trying to be pessimistic with the loss number, however on the FfR though I do see 2 people sitting in the 2 seats on the coaches that have 2+1 seats that I believe are very comparable to L&BR coaches. Though they do seem to be a, if enough are in the party/train is full enough rather than by default.

 

Some of Ffestiniog's carriages are wider. When they obtained the L&B carriage 15 to create their Snapper Bar they moved the walls out to roughly where our running boards are which gives I think it's 6'8' maybe a bit more? So the larger internal dimension, let's say around 75" as the walls are about 3" thick, allows a 2+1+gangway, approx 40" double seat, 16" gangway, 19" single seat....something like that.

By the way, I noticed you are a new member, welcome

 

My understanding is that primary difference between Lyd and the original Manning Wardles is that the boiler is superheated (which acts more a steam dryer) and the boiler works at a higher pressure. I believe that some minor adjustments were made to the Joy valve gear as well as minor changes to cab profile so it could fit up the Ffestinog.

 

I'm surprised about the superheating, it's always struck me as largely just an additional complication without much practical benefit for heritage line running. With a very few exceptions, the duty cycle of a typical heritage line loco is akin to a shunting engine, and there was a reason why by and large shunting engines weren't fitted with superheaters! (I can see there may be some small advantage for narrow gauge where the cylinders are small and so the surface area to volume ratio is high, leading to bigger heat losses). In any case, it will make no theoretical difference to haulage capacity, whereas the increased boiler pressure will - in theory.

Tom

 

It makes a difference to the water consumption particularly on Linda, Blanche and Prince where the big cylinders and small grate put you at a disadvantage. The FR is 12 miles uphill and the locos work flat out. The superheating is quite modest although some engines have more than others. The demands are quite different to a Black 5 pottering along a flat branchline and the margins are tighter so every little helps.

Lyd has a big grate but the water volume in the boiler is quite small. So if you're not feeding it in continuously while working hard it disappears very quickly.

 

That description of duty cycle may be true of most standard gauge lines particularly in the flatter parts of the country. It’s not true of many of the Welsh Narrow Gauge, and won’t be true of a reconstructed L and B.

 

Thank you for the Welcome (I had lurked for a bit and kept thinking I wanted to add something so I joined and did ) and thank you for the info on the widening, I didn't know that!

I was more thinking of Lyn as I believe it in addition to superheat and other 'normal' (as in standard late steam on UK mainlines) modifications has an alteration to the firebox something like a Gas Producer Combustion System? I may have got my wires crossed though

 

No, you don't have it wrong; the only problem is the run is not long enough to make use of the GPCS, so over time it has been removed or modified. I do hope that once we have a decent run, it can be refitted. Also, don't forget that rail grip is important; I believe LYN was fitted with the Porta Wheel profile when new. I am not sure if she still has it or not.

While I wasn't there myself, I have heard stories about her performance on the WHR; at one point, she was hauling not only 10 up but also pulling LYD. I have been told that she has been, up until that point, the most powerful loco other than the NGG16s on the WHR.

The story goes that certain people on the WHR were so impressed with her performance that they wanted to keep her. If you want to find out more, you can read it here:-

https://advanced-steam.org/books-for-sale/762 Lyn Design Calculations/

It is Ian Gaylor's notes, and the design engineer behind her building. But then, being a bit of a Baldwin fan, I would think it is great.

I will also point you to this other website's address if you are interested in such stuff: https://advanced-steam.org/projects/the-revolution-project-a-new-concept-in-steam/

As you can see, there is still life in the old dog yet, and advance steam technology still has a part to play

https://advanced-steam.org/

 

I had heard that she did amazingly well on the WHR too.

As such, if the MW new builds are going to be just as good, why keep looking at locos from other railways which may need extensive restoration after initial purchase costs, may not be totally suitable for the L&B and could turn out to be just a pain in the backside or left as a project rusting away somewhere possibly in the future.

I don't know the specs and what advances will be built into the MWs compared to Lyn, I do carriages, but isn't it better to throw all support behind the 762 club in their efforts to build the MWs which tick the boxes for authenticity, should be capable of serving the railway well, and are absolutely in line with the recreation of the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway.

Indeed, in time and if needed we could build another Lyn, we have the patterns, we have the design, we have the experience from her running on the line and anything which may be useful to alter in any further build.