Bluebell Motive Power

Tom, what is actually wrong with L150, ? Has it just taken a particular dislike to the type of coal used on the Bluebell?

46118

 

Well, I haven't seen anything first hand. But it sounds to me like there is nothing objectively wrong with the loco, just that it has been shy of steam. Whether that comes down to unfamiliarity or possibly poor coal, or maybe a combination, I'm not sure. Tales at the weekend of the fire being cleaned at HK rather suggests to me that it had clinkered up, which could be coal or could be technique I guess.

When we had 5199 (a bigger loco I know) I remember that it was either loved or loathed, according to how people got on with her. Certainly my memory from a few trips was that she was a lot less forgiving of the wrong firing technique than, say, a Standard tank or 1638. Get the fire the right shape, get it really hot before departure, and then work the engine hard so that there was plenty of air flow, and she ran very well and steamed easily. But if you got into trouble - especially if you were late getting a good fire in at SP - and she could be cantankerous all the way up the line. I suspect L150 might be similar, but with the added complication of being smaller, so having less in hand if things start to go wrong.

I don't know what load limit we have set, but worth remembering that in TE terms, she's not much bigger than the E4, so I guess even a five coach load is quite a lot. She also has a smaller water capacity than the E4 (source: Wiki...) so I think is quite tight for water, especially with a heavy load.

I'm sure that as crews become more familiar with her, she'll settle down to being a useful loco.

Tom

 

I remember similar problems being encountered last year with the pannier, although not to same extent.

 

On the WSR a small prairie can handle 6 Mk1s with ease,and on occasions taken 7.

 

Correction ! The E4 is a Class 2MT while the 4575 is a Class 4MT. In practical terms this is actually quite a big difference.

 

What I said was "she's not much bigger than an E4", not "she's the same size as an E4".

But a 4575 being classed as a 4MT?

BR standard class 3MT - Tractive Effort 21,490lbs
GWR 4575 class - TE - 21,250lbs
BR standard class 4MT - TE 25,100lbs.

So a 45xx has a lower tractive effort than a BR standard class 3, and a smaller boiler. Someone at Swindon was having a laugh at Derby's expense if they got away with calling a 45xx a class 4!

Tom

 

Yes, but without the sustained 1:75 / 1:55 gradients...

Gradients matter - Fenchurch is recorded as shifting 70 loaded or 110 empty goods wagons - on the flat, at Newhaven. I doubt it would shift that many up to Holden summit...

Tom

 

There are similar sustained gradients on Paignton to Kingswear and there is footage showing a 45 hauling seven. Of course it all depends on the condition of the machine and the quality of the fuel.

When filling ones car at the pump, the quality of the fuel is not considered for a nanosecond!

PH

 

Hand on heart, I've seen 4555 leave Kingswear with 9 on

If your having trouble with 6 or more, you need more practice

You are correct in that Swindon loco's are less forgiving mind, they'll make you day hell if your anything less than on top form with them.

 

Good news is 592 was on light engine test today and all seemed fine, Thursday is the likely day that 592 and L.150 shall both be on test...double heading the service train, of course that's if all goes to plan.

 

Strange indeed - most SVR & WSR crews hold exactly the opposite view when faced with some of the alternatives!

 

Yes but they are well versed in handling Western types, so it comes more easily to them, Bluebell crews probably already start off in a bad mood when having to stand on the correct sides of the footplate

 

Yes, but at least on a Southern engine, it's possible for the driver to look out and reach the brake at the same time, and you don't need to put the loco into full forward gear in order to exit the cab... As I recall on 5199, braking and observation were either / or: the driver could either look where they were going, or operate the brake, but not both simultaneously. Maybe Western men had longer arms...

More seriously, of the locos I've fired, I'd say the Chatham ones (and I'd include the U-Boat in that group as it is essentially an SECR-derived design) are easily the best steamers - they'll make steam on the proverbial candle.

Tom

 

As far as I recall, 4566 on the SVR is restricted to five coaches, wherever possible.

46118

 

I think it's 6

 

Checking the SVR gradient profile, as far as I can see, the steepest gradient is 1:100. 6 * 35 tons + 61 tons of loco gives a gravitational load of 6000lbs up that gradient.

On the Bluebell, 5 equivalent coaches up a 1:55 gives a gravitational load of 9600lbs - in other words, the loco is working more than 50% harder even with one coach less. Even on the 1:75, the engine is working harder with five coaches than it would be with six on a gradient of 1:100.

Tom

 

Considering 5521 has done 50-60mph running in two countries... and was recently running in the 40-50mph range during steam on the met..
I'd suggest it's quite capable of Bluebells line. It's capable of quite some distance between water also... far longer than Bluebell.

I suspect familiarity is the issue.

 

The BR Load Limits Table limited 45/55xx (and 82xxx and 77xxx) to 182 tons from Machynlleth to Talerddig. I guess that is 5 plus passengers - or possibly 5 plus a van.

If they could take that up Talerddig, I'm surprised they should struggle on the Bluebell - maybe Bluebell crews don't get enough practice on GWR locos.

 

I suspect 4566 is limited to 6 normally with it's longevity in mind than what it can physically pull, considered 47383 and the Panniers have taken 8 regularly in the past, I'd be surprised if 4566 coulden't if asked.