Recently, there have been several programs here on British television about the history of British railway system....
I was particularly interested in he changeover from steam to to electric and diesel power, one program stated that
BR (British Rail, the final, all encompassing rail company) delayed and botched the changeover and put back the
national rail system by up to 20 years, so...
1. When was it first realised that steam technology had reached it's peak?
2. What other alternatives where tried and when?
3. Did the delays have any adverse effect on the network?
4. Was Beeching right?
.......what you you guys think?
I'm not b****y well building one of those :o
So do I detect that you are going to build a nuke sub / springer now :-)) and just think in 25 000 years some one will still be able to sail it on the same power supply :D :D no more "charging questions" {-) {-)
A few years ago there was a study to see if the old railway line, still preserved as a footpath, could be reopened as a light railway to take pressure off the roads. It was concluded that it would not make enough profit! The reality was that if it could just break even it would be a significant public benefit but it didn't fit the "investment" rules and so everyone continues to clog up the roads. <*<
Colin
I dont know how much more efficient steam engines could have become, weren't some of the last BR steamers using steam through at least triple expansion cyclinders? Is there any room tomake boilers more efficient? Then ofcourse, you have the issue of fuel used to create the steam. Our coal industry is all but gone but even then, there's the green angle of co2 from burning the coal.
Steam trains are every school boys dream (aren't they?). Maybe one day when all the oil is gone they'll make a comeback. Until then, I think they'll be limited to nostalgia runs.
All BR steam was single expansion in dual, or as in the case of the Britannia's and the Duke, three cylinders.
All BR steam was single expansion in dual, or as in the case of the Britannia's and the Duke, three cylinders.
Sir William Stanier's Princess Royal, and Princess Coronation (or Duchess) class locomotives had 4 cylinders, as did ex GWR King and Castle classes. All these classes of loco operated under BR following the nationalisation of railways in 1948.
Peter.
Sorry John, I didn't realise you were referring to the Robert Riddles Standards only which, as you say, were either 2 or 3 cylinder locos.
Peter.
Always liked to go up to the station to see the steam locos come in. With their bell ringing and that big bright light on the front.
They seemed hugh as I was a small lad at the time and you had to board them from ground level. You were looking up at them.
Always wondered how B.R. drivers managed to see it the dark without a bright light
Seaspray
For some reason rail transport companies have always been looked at in a different light than other companies involved in other forms of transport. Airlines don't each have their own airport, highway transport companies (for people and freight) don't each own their own highway system, however, railways have always been expected to own, maintain and pay taxes on their won rail infrastructure.Are we back to Gordon Lightfoot days here? With such a huge landmass compared to ours (England) complete privatisation can be the only solution, but here, as with power and water and everything being so closely knit together the state (although I hate to say it) really should have more control over the natural and strategic resources. Fobbing them all off to Johnny Foreigener (BAA comes to mind) is a sure fire way to future disaster. And then Johnny F comes up with a begging bowl. Tough (on us).
Here (Canada) the railways pay property tax on their properties and rights of way to the local municipalities, but that money doesn't come back to them in the form of upkeep of infrastructure as it does in other industry.
Consequently railways, providing a service, are always expected to make money while carrying the bulk of the financial load on fixed plant upkeep which isn't done by other forms of transport. A completely inequitable scenario.
This changed slightly during the eighties in the US. There were large scale abandonments of lines that weren't making (enough) money. Instead of tearing up the lines, the state(s) involved relieved the railroads of their deferred property tax burden in exchange for transferring over their infrastructure to be abandoned. The rails were happy to do so, the state(s) treated the acquired rail line as a private highway. They did the necessary upgrades on fixed plant then hired a contractor to run it for them. The contractor paid a nominal lease to the state, but was free of infrastructure costs, and had the opportunity to make a profit on whatever business they could russel up, as any good transport company would. It saved a lot of miles of marginal trackage.
Here in Ontario, the province allowed the municipalities to raise the property taxes on rail property to whatever level they wanted. The rail companies responded with mass abandonments during the nineties that would have made Beeching blush. Now we have very little in the way of rail infrastructure left. Indeed CP and CN each have only one line across Ontario and there are very few branch lines left.
John
Was that the locomotive that Jeremy Clarkson was shoveling coal?
Hi Martin,
Yes that is the very same loco JC was firing on Top Gear.
Just a thought on triple expansion locos- considering compound engines have a volume of expansion of roughly 35-45% that of simple cylinders, meaning in laymans terms a high pressure cylinder @ 20" X 30" would step down to a cylinder roughly 32" X 30"- thats hard enough to fit into a loco- but imagine then having to step down to a third expansive cylinder (giving you triple expansion) using a rather conservative volume of expansion of 30% would give you a cylinder of roughly 40" X 30- even to a non steam person i'm sure that seems stupid! {:-{
Greg
Hi Martin,
Yes that is the very same loco JC was firing on Top Gear.
Just a thought on triple expansion locos- considering compound engines have a volume of expansion of roughly 35-45% that of simple cylinders, meaning in laymans terms a high pressure cylinder @ 20" X 30" would step down to a cylinder roughly 32" X 30"- thats hard enough to fit into a loco- but imagine then having to step down to a third expansive cylinder (giving you triple expansion) using a rather conservative volume of expansion of 30% would give you a cylinder of roughly 40" X 30- even to a non steam person i'm sure that seems stupid! {:-{
Greg
Don't forget, the Norfolk and Western Y class articulated compound locomotives used 39 x 32" low pressure cylinders.
John
Hi Martin,
Yes that is the very same loco JC was firing on Top Gear.
Just a thought on triple expansion locos- considering compound engines have a volume of expansion of roughly 35-45% that of simple cylinders, meaning in laymans terms a high pressure cylinder @ 20" X 30" would step down to a cylinder roughly 32" X 30"- thats hard enough to fit into a loco- but imagine then having to step down to a third expansive cylinder (giving you triple expansion) using a rather conservative volume of expansion of 30% would give you a cylinder of roughly 40" X 30- even to a non steam person i'm sure that seems stupid! {:-{
Greg
Don't forget, the Norfolk and Western Y class articulated compound locomotives used 39 x 32" low pressure cylinders.
John
Hi John,
Yes your absolutely right about that, but thats a COMPOUND, not a TRIPLE EXPANSION- a third phase expansive cylinder on that loco would be roughly 5ft Dia.!!! Thats wider than the tracks on GB rails!
Greg
Hi John,
Sorry, I mistook your point- I meant that on a triple expansion to have at least 3 cylinders with at least one at 40" X 30" would be stupid, not the size of the cylinder.
The cylinder arrangement would be thus;
3 Cylinder-Intermediate Expansion - Second Expansion - High Pressure
As you can see this would give a very hard to manage engine and uneven power spread, the other options of 5 and 6 cylinders would improve on this point, but imagine trying to fit them onto the front of a loco!
Greg
HI ,
I am only a decky, but did not the Midland Railway have a successful 3 cylinder compound 4-4-0 loco class 1000 in BR numbers 41000. Of which I believe No 41000 is in the National Collection. Perhaps it is another type of compound system, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
David.
HI ,
I am only a decky, but did not the Midland Railway have a successful 3 cylinder compound 4-4-0 loco class 1000 in BR numbers 41000. Of which I believe No 41000 is in the National Collection. Perhaps it is another type of compound system, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
David.
You're right, it had a compound and not a multiple expansion (triple or more). The outside cylinders were high pressure and the center low pressure. There were numerous compound locomotives built, but as fas I know, no triples.
John
One of which is they are the dirtiest, fillthiest and most awkward and uncomfortable machines ever devised by man but we love them. At 5.30 am on a freezing December morning when you crawl underneath to rake out the ash pan and do the lubricating you can understand why it became ever more difficult to recruite young strong men to do such work.
Glad to see the 'Tornado' on the tracks.
Found two more new build's under construction :-
6880 'Betton Grange' - the 81st GWR Grange - http://www.6880.co.uk/wp/
72010 'Clan Hengist' -- http://www.72010-hengist.org/
Anyone know of any more?