Nunney Castle

And so the myth continues............
The GWR burnt welsh coal because they felt it gave better economies just as the LNWR did, consequently their locos were set up to burn it (different firebars, ashpan openings etc).
Forget about the story of Henry the green engine and the special coal its just a story!!
GW locos fitted with the same grate as any other loco are no more or less accepting of dubious quality coal than any other loco! In the last few years there has been far more delays on NR attributed to bad coal on locos from other so called superior regions than there has to GW engines.....

 

I always thought Henry had to have special coal because he was a 'special' engine? Until he went to Crewe and became a Black 5!

 

The LSWR, and the SR (Western section) after them tended to use the same South Wales coal as the GWR. However, while the GWR could get the coal to their loco depots with a minimum of transhipment, much of the SR coal was first loaded in wagons that went to Cardiff docks, then offloaded onto ships which went across the Bristol Channel to Fremington, unloaded again and put into wagons that then went to the loco depots. Thus while the coal is the same, it was considerably more broken and dusty by time it reached the main SR depots. That was especially a problem at Exmouth Junction - the London depots tended to have a more widespread supply.

The SR did do some experiments to look at the problem, and also the use of mechanical handling plants. In one set of experiments, they found that putting coal through the Nine Elms coaling plant generated 19% of dust. Scaled up, it meant that of a typical 160 tons of coal used each day, only 129 tons would reach the tenders as lumps - the rest would be converted to dust, and may end up not burnt or only partially burnt. (For example, either by being carried unburnt through the tubes, or simply being blown off the tender by the wind). Nonetheless, they found that for the main depots, the loss in thermal efficiency was more than balanced by the labour saving from using mechanical plants, rather than hand coaling.

Tom

 

That's fair enough when you compare a Hall to say a Black 5, but when you get up to Castles and Kings (ie class 7 and 8), that's when many from other regions start using the pacific arrangement with it's wide firebox arrangement, why was the narrower type on a 4-6-0 suitable for the Western but not other regions ?.

 

I think several reasons.

Firstly, by the 1930s, both the LMS and LNER had non-stop runs of 300 - 400 miles. By contrast, the longest run on the GWR before the fire could be cleaned and the ashpan emptied was I think 225 miles, and only about 180 miles on the SR. So both the SR (King Arthurs, Lord Nelsons) and the GWR (Kings, Castles) could manage in the 1930s with narrow firebox locos. The extra 2 - 4 hours that the LMS and LNER ran with their main expresses put a premium on ashpan volume and grate size to cope with the inevitable deterioration of the fire after 4 - 5 hours hard steaming.

By the 1940s, the SR followed suit with wide firebox pacifics. The distances hadn't increased, but the coal had got markedly worse (and from a lower starting point than the GWR as well - see above). So a wide firebox was a big help with poor coal. And it is at that point that the conservatism of Swindom comes into play, since the GWR and BR(W) after the war had the same issues with coal but, until the Britannias came along, didn't have wide firebox locos to cope with it - hence an inevitable falling off of day-in, day-out performance.

Tom

 

I thought the LMS changed engines at Carlisle (going north anyway)?

 

That's still the best part of 100 miles further than London - Penzance though, and even more than London - Exeter, which were the longest GWR and SR routes with one engine.

Tom

 

Not only there IIRC; I used to travel from Edinburgh to Birmingham as a child between 1950 - 1956 and i recall engine changes at Carlisle and Crewe. I think that engine changes were also made at both locations on Glasgow - Euston services but the Glasgow - Liverpool / Manchester trains kept the same engine throughout but doubtless others can confirm.

For interest the distances were Euston - Crewe - 158 miles; Euston - Carlisle 299 miles and Carlisle - Glasgow 102.5 / Edinburgh 101.5 miles but I suspect that with the climbs at Shap and Beattock each of the 3 stages (Euston - Crewe; Crewe - Carlisle and Carlisle - Edinburgh / Glasgow) were considered enough for one loco given the state of locomotive maintenance just after WWII and the early days of Nationalisation..

 

I agree this does show the problem with always promoting from within you do tend to get set in your ways and closed to new ideas.
It was clear by the late 1930s that the pacific was the way to go but the western region kept on building castles it does make you think what stanier would have done if he had stayed.

 

Perhaps not if you wanted to make a profit.

Funnily enough Hawkesworth was the only GWR CME who trained at Swindon. Collett, for instance, did his apprenticeship in the marine industry.

 

I think coal consumption may not off been such an issue as completion from road transport and a need to decrease journey times.

 

Not strictly correct - A good number of Duchess turns were Carlisle - Euston including the 600 ton sleepers. Even as late as 1960, the Royal Scot was worked between Euston and Glasgow throughout by a single Coronation. Crew changes took place outside the Kingmoor (down) and Upperby (up) sheds.

 

There's another important reason and that's related to the poor chap who has to shovel the coal. The maximum width of firebox that you can get between the frames is about 3'-3" and the maximum distance a fireman can throw the coal is about 10'-0" (depending on the slope) so you reach an effective grate limit of 32.5 sq ft. If you want a bigger grate than this you have to go for a Wootten (wide) firebox and grate area is very much linked to the amount of coal that you can burn as is the amount of air you can get through the fire. You may be able to get the air through a 'small' grate if you have a high enough smokebox vacuum but the higher that vacuum, the more the coal goes out of the chimney and you eventually reach the grate limit.
So, if you want sustained power, you need a big grate and you won't get it with a narrow one and hand firing. The Kings had a grate area of 34.3 sq ft, closely followed by the Nelsons at 33 sq ft and the Scots at 31.25 sq ft.

 

On the Royal Scot the locos were changed at Kingmoor or Upperby, depending on the direction of the train. I have photos of 46229 and 46231 ready to do their bit.

 

The outlier being the Paris-Orleans 240-700 (SNCF 240A) class, with 40 sq ft narrow grates and hand firing, on (supposedly very indifferent) French coal. For some strange reason the follow-up 240P class had mechanical stokers, although that may have had something to do with trying to keep up with 4000hp worth of coal consumption....

 

But things like enclosed cabs were considered inferior on Western Region... Hat, cover, run, take, for rearrange to form a sentance, you get the idea!

 

Apparently it's been reported on the 5029 FB page that she will not be returning to steam in the near future due to the amount of work required on her boiler. 34046 & 46100 are the current priorities at Crewe. 5029 will be moving to Crewe soon but only to be stored.