Baldwin "Lyn" new build.

from what i can gather, the MW 2-6-2s were heavy and not prone to slipping (the L&B had the 3rd most severe gradients in the UK for a passenger line), but were under boilered (or perhaps bad proportions with a long relatively small diameter boiler giving a poor free gas flow percentage compared to the firebox size).

LYN however was better proportioned but lacked adhesion. i have a note that LEW was ordered because LYN could not cope with the 100m 4 coach schedule. the spare boiler ordered early on in L&B days is an interesting luxury! the far more prosperous Festiniog Railway never had a spare boiler for the double Fairlees or England locos! some of the Adamson FR boilers didnt fare any better in length of service than LYN's original boiler.

there is a suggestion that LYN had a new boiler when rebuilt at Eastleigh 1928/9 - if any one can add any further details i would be very interested. i do not know who built the 1907 boiler.

i think that the principle reason for the 1907 boiler would have been the original steel firebox of Baldwin manufacture.

the L&B locos had a hard time due to the severe gradients - they did not have the 'slippered ease' suggested by paul!

cheers,
julian

 

The loads for the Mannings do not compare favourably with those for the original Vale of Rheidol pair which, however, added mechanical unreliability to the mixture. There was a link between the two lines and C.C. Green suggests in his book on the V. of R. that the re-design, which produced a better proportioned machine with a drive to the third coupled axle was on account of deficiencies in the L&B machinery. Next door to Mannings, Hunslet were producing the interrelated Sierra Leone/"Russell" types, also with drive to the third coupled axle although a bit smaller. The larger boilered S.L.R. type is a magnificent steamer despite quite a small firebox. Quite capable of blowing off against both injectors at the top of a mile of 1 in 30. Compensated for the milder gradients in Devon, the loadings for the Mannings do not flatter them!

I still wonder whether anti-Americanism played a part here. If so there is a bit of an irony here because the pocket watches issued to L&B drivers were American Waltham made and definitely of very fine quality! One of these L&B Walthams was sold for a lot of money recently.

Paul H.

 

hi paul,

i agree that a comparison with the V of R is very useful. i have always thought that the money spent by the GWR on the V of R was an influence in how the SR dealt with the L&B. the GWR apparently adopted the 'Railmotor' walschaerts valvegear and cylinders for the new locos. given the now known discrepancy with with the MW Joy valve gear for the L&B locos, this gave the V of R locos a distinct advantage as they were more efficient. as you correctly state Hunslet had lots of experience building similar sized locos that were equally efficient.

when LYD was built the valve gear error was solved after much deliberation by the FR experts, and the loco is superheated which gives it a significant edge on the original boiler design.

cheers,
julian

 

Remember that railway companies had more boilers than locomotives, and thus boilers were regularly changed on locos when they were overhauled. This meant that locos could be outshopped more quickly than if they had to wait for the same boiler. Thus it's not possible to say how long boilers "lasted" on (say) GWR or SR locos at this time as they were constantly going through a repair cycle before going into the pool ready for the use on the next loco that came in. Perhaps the new boiler for Lyn was ordered as a spare to speed up overhauls.

 

What exactly was the problem with the L&B Locos valve gear?

 

From what I have read, the geometry was incorrect, leading to a performance loss. In other applications, the drilling of the connecting rods led to problems with the motion driving pin breaking or (much nastier) the con rod itself breaking. Whether these problems arose with these machines, I cannot say.

PH

 

hi john,

the valve gear envelope was rather compressed for the L&B MW locos so wasnt optimum, plus a few vagaries in dimensions from what ought to have been. all led to an exaggeration of the latter with the former and unequal and poor valve events. the FR staff will be able to tell you exactly what and where. Joy valve gear does not produce as good valve events anyway as Walschaerts, so the GWR were one up on using the Railmotor valvegear for the V of R locos!

cheers,
julian

 

Latest Lynformation http://762club.com/762lynformation37.php

 

To this and a few previous posts may I clear up one or two points.
Firstly, there is no evidence that the L&B was built'as a tax loss' or that the route chosen was to deter day trippers.
Secondly the L&B Trust had a full set of Manning Wardle SR plans, copies of which were sent out with tendering documents to potential constructors. I would be wary of taking any credence from the late Colin Pealling about there ever being 'Brighton Modifications' - I can still remember him solemnly telling me in 1992 that Lew had been found and was on a ship in mid-Atlantic!
Lastly, much has been made of how good or bad the L&B locos were. This is why Yeo was to be built in 1935 condition, to provide a definitive appraisal. Without such a programme we can only use circumstantial evidence - mileage records, for instance - to determine how effective individual locos were. As to the GW's choice of valve gear, by 1925 Walshaerts was well proven in narrow gauge locos. It must be presumed that possible performance improvements for Lew were outweighed by commonality of spares.

 

Nice photo, but was summer 1933 or later - note steam heating is fitted with hoses removed for the summer ( a Southern practice I believe)

 

£85k is a lot still to raise

 

The version I'd heard was not so much that the route was chosen to deter day trippers, as that by building a line from Barnstaple, it would undermine the viability of a proposed line from the GW Taunton - Barnstaple Victoria Road line, and hence help maintain the exclusivity of the resort by stopping it being too easy to get to.

 

One of those theories that may sound plausible until thoroughly examined. I know Paul Gower promulgated this theory as to the route, but when you examine the alternatives it's pretty obvious there was no alternative!
The Minehead route would have required a fearsome climb and earthworks from Porlock as well as a less-than easy section between Porlock and Minehead. The Lynmouth terminus would have been close to the BlueBall/Sandpiper Inn and required a lengthy funicular connection.
Likewise the only other possible Barnstaple connection, to the GW station would have required a steep climb up to the saddle at Goodleigh to meet the formation as built around concrete bridge, just south of Chelfham.
The idea that the L&B was built not to be successful reads too much into a line constrained by topography into its eventual route. The subsequent route and service were immeasurably superior to the horse coach service that preceded it in both timings and capacity; it sufficed until motor transport supplanted it.
All in all, the L&B was generally well-engineered, generally well-equipped and run but suffered from one irredeemable drawback - too small a market. Lynton and district were really too small to support a railway and Sir George did not want a pier. In the same way today the district is too small to support another sizeable steam railway.

 

Thank you. The version I've heard wasn't from Barnstaple but the GWR route across (I may have heard Wiveliscombe but I wouldn't swear to it). I agree that the engineering wouldn't have been much easier whichever way you attacked Exmoor.

 

So was there ever a viable GWR option for going to Lynton/Lynmouth (This is way off topic now, sorry)

 

Well yes, after the L&B had been launched a proposal for a narrow gauge scheme from Minehead was put forward by directors of the Barry Railway (with tacit GW support?). It was to be a light railway and applied for compulsory purchase powers under that scheme but as a tourist line connecting with steamers and rail borne excursion traffic at Minehead was deemed of no agricultural use to the district.
It was another Jas Slzumper scheme neatly sandwiched between the L&B and the VoR!

 

Ah that is interesting. Anyone ever mapped out a proposed route?

 

Well Spud , the proposed route will have been presented to the Light Railway Commissioners, I do remember it started at Minehead Station, ended on Countisbury Hill and had a ruling grade of 1in 40. That's about all I remember!

 

It is worth pointing out that in the 1900's the Barry Railway ran a fleet of paddle steamers on the Bristol Channel. These ran, in the summer from Barry Pier to Ilfracombe & other destinations n the Bristol Channel. Barry Railway trains took passengers to the pier.

See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Barry-Railway-Steamers-Michael-Tedstone/dp/0853616353/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

P&A Campbell took over the Barry operations and the service survived, with rail connections latterly via Penarth until the 1970's

The smaller Barry steamer, PS Barry is thought to have been designed for year round use, primarily between Barry & the S&D Pier at Burnham on Sea however as far as I am aware no such service was ever operated on a regular basis by The Barry Railway