British Railway Operations

[Murphy Siding]

Could one of you mechanical types please explain to us non-mechanical types,what the difference is in a Bulleid type valve gear? Thanks

[Anonymous]

what Bulleid was aiming for with his chain drive valve gear was a fit and forget valve gear that could be entirely enclosed in an oil bath along with the conecting rod, crank and crosshead assembly for the middle cylinder. How it worked was a three throw crank shaft was connected by two quadraplex chains to the crank axle. The crank shaft had two links coming off each throw, one running vertically up to ossilate the expansion link and the other running forward to the bottom of the combination lever. The expansion link and the top of the combination leaver being connected by a short radius rod. The arranrangement formed a square with crankshaft at the bottom righ corner, expansion link top right corner and the combination link connecting the top left and bottom left corners. The best way to really explain it though is with a diagram.

Malcolm, IMHO the Merchat Navy's were much better looking before rebuilding that after.

[germanium]

OVS s - Leader -IIRC, 6 were ordered, 2 built, 2 started but not finished, other 2 cancelled. The fireman's compartment was in the middle - he probably knew what Hell would be like if he ever went there. They used sleeve valves (I have a photograph showing an old Atlantic 4-4-2 running with these valves).
. Innovative idea, but too late in the steam era to be worth persevering with, and also when the railways were taken over by the government standardised designs were favoured, small classes were not .

[Simon Reed]

There's a book by Kevin Robertson called "Leader - Steam's Last Chance."

I don't own a copy but I have another Robertson book with a photo of the second "Leader" in it.

It was 95% complete, but had never steamed, when the decision was made to abandon the Leader project. As a result it was towed almost straight from works to scrapyard, and was broken up in June 1951.

[Anonymous]

That wasn't uncommon from what I've heard - I recall reading that the frames for another batch of locos (not sure if it was the "Clan" class or the A1) got as far as the first set being built before the order was cancelled, the frames were then dumped behind the works and eventually cut up. I've also read somewhere that "Duke of Gloucester" recieved the trailing truck intended for a Clan that was never built. Not sure how accurate these are, I think they came from a copy of "Steam Railway" I read a few years ago.

[Simon Reed]

If those stories came from Steam Railway - the Enthusiast press equivalent of the Sport / Weekly World News - you can probably dismiss them....

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

If those stories came from Steam Railway - the Enthusiast press equivalent of the Sport / Weekly World News - you can probably dismiss them....

Roughly translated for our American hosts: It's like the National Enquirer

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

If those stories came from Steam Railway - the Enthusiast press equivalent of the Sport / Weekly World News - you can probably dismiss them....

Roughly translated for our American hosts: It's like the National Enquirer

Please expand on that explanation, if you could. Do they report Elvis look-a-like babies parachuting onto train platforms? I'm having a hard time visualizing a Railway publication with low credibitity(?) Thanks

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

There's a book by Kevin Robertson called "Leader - Steam's Last Chance."

I don't own a copy but I have another Robertson book with a photo of the second "Leader" in it.

It was 95% complete, but had never steamed, when the decision was made to abandon the Leader project. As a result it was towed almost straight from works to scrapyard, and was broken up in June 1951.

Not so! The first Leader WAS steamed, and undertook a number of test runs. But even if the purely technical problems with it had been over come, there were more fundamental problems. For instance the poor fireman had to work in an enclose compartment amidships, which got intolerably hot even in winter. The purely technical problems included the fact that the boiler was offset to one side of the frames and so a complex arrangement of balance weights was needed.

Although British Rail quickly scrapped the Leader project, the above problems did not deter Bulleid from persuading the Iarnrod Eireann (the Irish Republic's state owned rail company) to build a similar loco, intended to run on peat in 1955. Like the leader it was an articled loco with two power bogies - 0-6-6-0T - with each bogie having 3 cylinders and Bulleid chain valve gear. But whereas the Leader had a cab at each end, like a diesel loco, the turfer burner had a central cab with lots of windows where both driver and fireman were positioned. But the turf burner was no more successful than the Leader and after Bulleid's retirement it was scrapped in 1965. By the time it had been built IE were already buying lots of diesel locos; Bulleid being unconvinced of the advantages of diesels was making a last ditch attempt to persuade IE to stick with steam.

[Simon Reed]

A question of tautology!

The first leader certainly was steamed - my comments were a transcript of a photo-caption of leader 2.

Steam Railway Magazine tends towards the "Print first, Check the facts later" school of journalism; this has caused great embarrasment to a good friend of mine in the past, and doubtless others besides.

Having said that - there's probably far more than a grain of truth in they say in Matt's report.

Doncaster Works, to name but one, used to build two or three more loco's than were actually specified, but not erect them so there was always a set of ex-works spares. I'd be surprised if this extended to frames though.

There are also photo's from the North British Queen's Park Works showing enough drag boxes for at least SEVEN D600 series "Warship" diesels, when only five were built!

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

There's a book by Kevin Robertson called "Leader - Steam's Last Chance."

I don't own a copy but I have another Robertson book with a photo of the second "Leader" in it.

It was 95% complete, but had never steamed, when the decision was made to abandon the Leader project. As a result it was towed almost straight from works to scrapyard, and was broken up in June 1951.

Not so! The first Leader WAS steamed, and undertook a number of test runs. But even if the purely technical problems with it had been over come, there were more fundamental problems. For instance the poor fireman had to work in an enclose compartment amidships, which got intolerably hot even in winter. The purely technical problems included the fact that the boiler was offset to one side of the frames and so a complex arrangement of balance weights was needed.

Although British Rail quickly scrapped the Leader project, the above problems did not deter Bulleid from persuading the Iarnrod Eireann (the Irish Republic's state owned rail company) to build a similar loco, intended to run on peat in 1955. Like the leader it was an articled loco with two power bogies - 0-6-6-0T - with each bogie having 3 cylinders and Bulleid chain valve gear. But whereas the Leader had a cab at each end, like a diesel loco, the turfer burner had a central cab with lots of windows where both driver and fireman were positioned. But the turf burner was no more successful than the Leader and after Bulleid's retirement it was scrapped in 1965. By the time it had been built IE were already buying lots of diesel locos; Bulleid being unconvinced of the advantages of diesels was making a last ditch attempt to persuade IE to stick with steam.

Are there any photos of the Leader available on-line?

[:)]

[Anonymous]

Try these http://www.semg.org.uk/steam/leader_01.html

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Try these http://www.semg.org.uk/steam/leader_01.html

Thanks for posting the link Matt. A fascinating story. They were obviously pushing the envelope, to use an aerospace expression.

[:)]

[Murphy Siding]

On a fair number of the threads on this forum, there is news of yet another train hitting yet another car at a grade crossing.[V] As I understand it, level grade crossings (for autos over railroad tracks) are much less common in Britain(?) Could one of you Brits expand on that subject a little? Thanks

[Tulyar15]

Yes, for a picture of the first Leader on one of its outings, see:-

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/leader/leader.htm

With regard to the D600 Warships, some time ago there was a letter from a former North British employee which suggested that originally 30+ D600's were to have been ordered. But problems with the first one and the fact that the D800 Warships had a much better power to weight ratio resulted in the order for D600s being cut to 5 locos and instead NB got an order for some D800's using the MAN engines originally ordered for the D600's.

Talking of North British , I understand most of the MAN engines used in the diesels they built were built by NB themselves under licence. But I read somewhere that after NB went bust the Scottish Region bought some genuine German MAN engines to try and make the D6100 class more reliable. Can anyone confirm this? In due course some of the D6100's were rebuilt with the same Paxman engines that had been tried out in D830. But I believe the D6100 that got into to Barry scrapyard was one that was not re-engined.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Yes, for a picture of the first Leader on one of its outings, see:-

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/leader/leader.htm

With regard to the D600 Warships, some time ago there was a letter from a former North British employee which suggested that originally 30+ D600's were to have been ordered. But problems with the first one and the fact that the D800 Warships had a much better power to weight ratio resulted in the order for D600s being cut to 5 locos and instead NB got an order for some D800's using the MAN engines originally ordered for the D600's.

Talking of North British , I understand most of the MAN engines used in the diesels they built were built by NB themselves under licence. But I read somewhere that after NB went bust the Scottish Region bought some genuine German MAN engines to try and make the D6100 class more reliable. Can anyone confirm this? In due course some of the D6100's were rebuilt with the same Paxman engines that had been tried out in D830. But I believe the D6100 that got into to Barry scrapyard was one that was not re-engined.

I just checked my copy of "The Diesel Impact on British Rail" by R M Tuffnell, published by MEP (the Institution of Mechanical Engineers) regarding NBL and MAN. It doesn't actually say that the ScR bought German engines but it does say that they had much more difficulty with corrosion than the WR, so it follows that they would need new crankcases which would only be available from MAN themselves. Whether they bought complete engines or assembled them from German parts the result is the same. It is indicated that the Blue Pullmans always had German built engines. NBL built 33 D800s. This was easy because the original V200 had been designed to take either the Maybach or MAN engines interchangeably.

The D6100s rebuilt with the Paxman Ventura (An official Royal Navy report said the best feature of the Ventura was that the Admiralty hadn't had to pay for its development) were fitted with central four character headcode panels, so it would be easy to tell if the Barry loco had been rebuilt.

M636C

[Anonymous]

Level crossings are not uncommon here - the main difference is that all main line ones here have to have lights and barriers, so ending up on the tracks is difficult. There's an interesting situation near me where a narrow-gauge steam railway has just the flashing lights while the standard gauge main line next to it has both lights and barriers. I'm not sure that it's a cultural thing - I see plenty of idiots who take no notice of their surroundings when on foot or in a car so I suspect the barriers prevent a higher accident rate.

The particularly sad part is that narrow gauge lines don't have to have barriers but face the same risks. The difference being that a full-size loco will usually shrug off an impact while the narrow gauge will be seriously damaged along with the crew. The Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway (they use 15in gauge large-scale replicas of full size locos) have lost two loco drivers in recent years due to people ignoring the crossing lights.

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Isambard

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Try these http://www.semg.org.uk/steam/leader_01.html

Thanks for posting the link Matt. A fascinating story. They were obviously pushing the envelope, to use an aerospace expression.

[:)]

PS: Was the leader hand fired or mechnaically stoked by that poor blessed fireman?
How did the driver and the fireman communicate - electro-mechanical telegraph?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure, but one of the pages on the Semg website talks of blow-back being a risk which would suggest to me that it was hand-fired, as a mechanical stoker would usually have a cover plate of some sort surely? As for how the crew communicated I have no idea - something like a ship's telegraph would seem to be in order but there's no mention of such a thing. They may have relied on hand signals or whistle signals to co-ordinate.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Yes, for a picture of the first Leader on one of its outings, see:-
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/leader/leader.htm

Any particular,mechanical reason that this locomotive took on this sort of bread loaf shape,instead of a more traditional steam locomotive look? Thanks

[Hugh Jampton]

Bullied was trying to disguise it as a diesel as he could see that steam was on the way out and wanted something modern looking..

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

The D6100s rebuilt with the Paxman Ventura (An official Royal Navy report said the best feature of the Ventura was that the Admiralty hadn't had to pay for its development) were fitted with central four character headcode panels, so it would be easy to tell if the Barry loco had been rebuilt.

M636C

I'm fairly sure the D6100 that got in to Barry scrapyard still had the discs, so it would have been an unrebuilt.

Ah the Blue Pullmans - I remember seeing them at Paddington when I was very young. We also had two Tri-ang OO guage models - one in the original Nanking Blue and one in the later BR Corporate Pullman livery (ie reverse blue and grey).

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

The D6100s rebuilt with the Paxman Ventura (An official Royal Navy report said the best feature of the Ventura was that the Admiralty hadn't had to pay for its development) were fitted with central four character headcode panels, so it would be easy to tell if the Barry loco had been rebuilt.

M636C

I'm fairly sure the D6100 that got in to Barry scrapyard still had the discs, so it would have been an unrebuilt.

Ah the Blue Pullmans - I remember seeing them at Paddington when I was very young. We also had two Tri-ang OO guage models - one in the original Nanking Blue and one in the later BR Corporate Pullman livery (ie reverse blue and grey).

I have a set of model Blue Pullmans in the later scheme. I remember seeing them in storage at Old Oak Common, and riding in the prototype HST in those colours. I prefer the original colours, particularly before the yellow ends, but I never saw them like that. They were the first "modern" train, at least the first after the late 1930s.

M636C

[John Bakeer]

Re. Leaders.
My memory was awakened by the article re-produced by the SR group. I believe the shape was inspired by the early ppost war electric main line loco's.
Their power to weight ratio was phenominal, but unreliability and their tendency to cook the fireman and melt his shovel (they were hand fired) meant extended trials did not happen nor were any conclusive results achieved.
John B.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by John Bakeer

Re. Leaders.
My memory was awakened by the article re-produced by the SR group. I believe the shape was inspired by the early ppost war electric main line loco's.
Their power to weight ratio was phenominal, but unreliability and their tendency to cook the fireman and melt his shovel (they were hand fired) meant extended trials did not happen nor were any conclusive results achieved.
John B.

John: I don't quite understand the statement about th enfiremanand his shovel. Can you explain? Thanks

[Tulyar15]

Murphy Siding - I think I can explain. On the Leader loco the fireman worked in a central cab, and had to hand fire. Even in winter the fireman's cab got intolerably hot. During a summer heatwave the crews simply refused to work the Leader. As for communication between driver and fireman, I do not know how this was meant to be done.

On the turf burner built in Ireland, both driver and fireman worked in a central cab which took advantage of the more generous loading gauge in Ireland (Which results from their wider gauge, 5' 3") which had lots of (openable!) windows.

Thought was given to converting the Leader to oil firing (it could have used waste oil out of automobile gearboxes etc) but this never happened. Mechanical fiiring was also consider and a mechanical stoker was fitted to a Merchant Navy Pacific loco. But this needed finely ground coal and the dust from this got into passenger cars and upset passengers, particularly Pullman cars (which the Southern had a lot of!) so this was soon abandoned too.

[Simon Reed]

This communication riddle is interesting and all I can immediately assume is that it was done by bells, in the same way that Autotrains, Railmotors etc. used to work.

Was the fireman totally enclosed? A fireman needs to either know the road or be guided by the driver, so how did the fireman know where he was?

[Simon Reed]

Ah. No, the fireman was'nt totally enclosed and we can see him in thrash position in Matt's link.

Posted first, checked later. Sorry chaps!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Try these http://www.semg.org.uk/steam/leader_01.html

Interesting read, thanks for the link. If i read that correctly, the driver was in front, then the boiler,firebox, fireman and the tender. What would be the advantage of putting all this into one unit, verses a locomotive and a tender? Thanks

[John Bakeer]

Hi Myrphy,
The leader was able to utilise its entire weight for adhesion hence its great power.
Simon answers most of your question and you have hit the rest with yiur note of the 17th. cooking the fireman and melting the shovel was due to my use of the English SOH to illustrate the point about the very high temperature endured by the poor tallow pot.
Now the communication? I wonder? My curiosity is aroused, more later!