quote:

---

This thread is going down an interesting track; some might say it threatens to go off the rails.

Perhaps we should have a "The Ship Railway Enthusiasts' Thread"?(note that I put the apostrophe in the right place, clever little moi.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Smith:
You know you are a nerd when someone on TV rattles off a four figure number similar to 4498, and you sit there thinking that sounds like an A4 Pacific, and trying to work out which one.

(and yes I did go and look it up)

Its more of a nerd thing when Agent Smith is a girl.

Oliver Cromwell is in Boiler licence atm, (and I have riden behind it, as well as Tornado and Sir Nigel Gresley!)

---

---

[ 02. March 2011, 20:33: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 

---

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 
So, suiting the action to the word, this thread is for all you/us railway-loving shippies, for discussion, serious or otherwise, of things that go down chuff, chuff, brrrrm, brrrrm, or just hummmmmmmmmmmm down the iron road.

I wish there were a smiley for *blows whistle and waves green flag*.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
My history as an enthusiast dates back to 1969 when my parents made the mistake of talking me to the local station (in the Sunderland area) to see ‘Flying Scotsman’ race trough northwards. I was hooked!

I then proceeded to acquire books, models and information, with a first trip behind steam on the Dart Valley Railway in 1972 or ’73, IIRC.

A landmark was a trip to the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway in about 1977 via the Settle-Carlisle line. It is not too much exaggeration to put my current West Yorks. abode down to that trip. Their 4F, 43924, hauled me.

On the main line I have ridden behind ‘Evening Star’, K1 No. 2005, ‘Green Arrow’, ‘Duchess of Hamilton’, several ‘Black 5’s’, ‘Bahamas’, and most recently ‘Leander’.

I did like diesels and electrics once as well! More later.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I'm a sort of enthusiast. I don't do the "Ooo that's a ...." but I prefer travelling by train to most other methods of transport and like doing journeys by train to odd places. As you can see from the "week in the UK" thread that gives me quite a bit of knowledge of lesser know railway routes in the North of Britain.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
Sadly I fail the test. I thought 4498 was Mallard.

AG
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Hi, my name's Marvin and I'm a HUGE rail enthusiast.

By which I mean I'm very enthusiastic, not that I'm fat.

Not that there's anything wrong with being fat, of course!

But anyway, my grandfather used to take me to the local station to watch the Peaks and 47s go past when I was but knee high to a Jinty. I saw the last ever Deltic go out of New Street. Since then I've been completely hooked.

I proudly own the title of spotter, and love both heritage lines and the national network.

I'm a keen amateur railway photographer as well

Oh, and I've not only ridden behind Tornado, I've cabbed her as well
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh, and I've not only ridden behind Tornado, I've cabbed her as well

---

Presumably firing something that size is good practice for Hell?

AG
 

---

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 
Er, me again.

I caught the train bug largely from my grandfather, who had worked as a shunter for the GWR before going off to the First World War and leaving a leg in Northern France. He then came back and was found a sedentary job by the GWR, and remained at Reading station for the rest of his working life.

My mother's first job after school was with the GWR at its head office in Paddington, where she met my father, whose first job after National Service had been with the LMS at Watford Junction station. I often think of them when standing outside the Praed Street entrance, looking up at the windows from which they once had a grandstand view of King George VI's funeral cortege arriving on its way to Windsor.

I went to a primary school that had a view of a railway line on the other side of the road running past the front gate. The trains were mainly London Transport electrics and BR dmus out of Marylebone and Baker Street, but there were a few steam engines on parcels trains.

We used to go over to Reading to see my grandparents quite often, and my grandfather would seize the opportunity to get out of the house and down to his railwaymen's club near the station. He would take me with him and leave me on the station for some time to watch the trains (still some steam in those days - this was the late Sixties) and would later collect me and take me to the club, where I, aged 10-ish, would be treated to cider as a reward for showing the old railwaymen how to work the jukebox.

Family holidays often involved trains, although neither of my parents were enthusiasts as such. At various times, I ended up going on the Bluebell Line, the Keighley and Worth Valley, and the Dart Valley railways, not to mention the main Welsh narrow-gauge ones (we once stayed in a holiday flat with a view of one of the stations on the Festiniog).

I am a member of the Great Western Society at Didcot; although I live too far away to do any volunteering, I make a point of visiting several times a year and buying stuff, incl. the home-made jams, all of which goes towards keeping the show on the road. Or rails, as the case may be.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh, and I've not only ridden behind Tornado, I've cabbed her as well

---

Presumably firing something that size is good practice for Hell?

AG

---

Ha! I drove this engine with my cousin, when I was 15...or younger, thanks to being a member of the W&LLR thanks to a family member being the ex-chairman!

I started out on the enthusiast ride as a baby when my mum forced me onto a train at the W&LLR, a decision she has rued ever since I have been known to make excuses to make long train rides...indeed I am going to Oldham at the end of the month during which I plan to travel by Pendolino, as it is a train I haven't ridden on, though I do find the Marches Line tempting, due to the Loco Hauled Stock in use!
My Father, Grandfather and Myself spent a week, last year, in N. Wales riding on the Railways. This year we went to Scotland, for a few days, where we travelled on the West Highland Line before heading to the Lake District, to ride the Ravenglass and Eskdale and Coniston Steam Yacht!

Rob

><>

[fixed code]

[ 02. September 2009, 17:34: Message edited by: jedijudy ]
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Going back a little further than you guys (above), I was bitten by the bug as the result of a trip to visit my grandfather in 1952 - steam-powered from Winnipeg to Montreal, steam-powered ship (Cunard's Ascania, for the marine equivalent of the anoraks) to Liverpool and all-steam to Burnham (near Maidenhead). GF lived three doors down from the GWR mainline, so I spent the whole month lineside, learning to trainspot. Can you guess why I might think Churchward is The Big Name?

Various trips Winnipeg-England before the jets killed proper transport confirmed this. I can still identify the various incarnations of Hall/Grange/Manor at a glance.

But steam died in Canada in 1960 (April 25, to be precise - U1d class 4-8-2 #6043 on last run - and I was there!)

And then the same happened in the birthplace of steam. Not that the Dart Valley or whichever are to be sneezed at but It. Is. Not. The. Same.

But I lucked in, and for seven happy years was a fireman and driver on a museum line in the village where I now live, 2000 miles from "home". (for the anoraks, CN #1009, CP #29 and S&L #42, as well as diesels CN 8245 and 1754 and S&L 201) Low revenue and the insurance industry killed it, but it was fun while it lasted.

I have to thank all sorts of people for putting so much on YouTube, particularly my current preference 6024 (come on, you know which King!)

[ 02. September 2009, 18:07: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hi, my name's Marvin and I'm a HUGE rail enthusiast.

By which I mean I'm very enthusiastic, not that I'm fat.

Not that there's anything wrong with being fat, of course!

But anyway, my grandfather used to take me to the local station to watch the Peaks and 47s go past when I was but knee high to a Jinty. I saw the last ever Deltic go out of New Street. Since then I've been completely hooked.

I proudly own the title of spotter, and love both heritage lines and the national network.

I'm a keen amateur railway photographer as well

Oh, and I've not only ridden behind Tornado, I've cabbed her as well

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
There are still the occasional steam trains out of Victoria.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Here in the States there's little opportunity for rail travel of ANY kind, but I try. My travel agent says that she thinks I visit the UK and Europe 'just to ride the trains.' Well, she's almost right.
Best trip ever in US: Santa Fe Chief from Chicago to the Coast in pre-AMTRAK days.
Best trip in UK: Kyle of Lochalsh (sp?) to Inverness with the rhododendrons in bloom along the way.
Best trip in Europe: perhaps Venice to Vienna (which I boarded with 45 seconds to spare because of traffic on the Grand Canal) and with a prolonged security stop at the Austrian border, which seemed like something out of 'The Third Man.'

---

Or possibly "The Lady Vanishes"
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
We were lucky to have Class 37 hauled trains up our valley until 2 years ago, and now Arriva have left us with DMUs
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I should not have found this but for those who hunger for steam on the mainline then this website may be useful.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Best trip in Europe: perhaps Venice to Vienna (which I boarded with 45 seconds to spare because of traffic on the Grand Canal) and with a prolonged security stop at the Austrian border, which seemed like something out of 'The Third Man.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Best trip in UK: Kyle of Lochalsh (sp?) to Inverness with the rhododendrons in bloom along the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgiaboy:
Best trip in UK: Kyle of Lochalsh (sp?) to Inverness with the rhododendrons in bloom along the way.

---

Dunno about that: we've only taken two train journeys lately. In 2007 we enjoyed Paddington to Penzance more than we liked the route from London to Bristol a week later. Next time, we'll skip Bristol and just go straight to Bath. I'll never drive in Bristol again: it's worse than LA and I was born there!

---

 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Glasgow to Mallaig beats the Inverness line I think! The real competion would come from Glasgow to Oban.

If we are sticking to Britain, yes, the East Coast Main Line is great north of York (totally boring south of that). And the line that goes along the Devon coast. And don't knock the south of England - the Arun Valley route is beautiful.

Outside Britain - well I did travel by rail from Nairobi to Mombasa once. There is something to be said for watching zebras and giraffes out of a dining car window
 

---

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
Sorry, pressed the wrong button. What I was going to say was that we went from Cardiff to Penzance by train a few years ago, and in parts, it's wonderful - I'd like to do it again.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Beautiful steam trains are wonderful.

Cattle class modern commuter trains? Arrghhhhh!

So impressed with the group who've just built the Tornado. Now that is a worthy obsession indeed. You can even download its whistle as a ringtone (preferably for a donation to the cause)
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

If we are sticking to Britain...the line that goes along the Devon coast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Glasgow to Mallaig beats the Inverness line I think! The real competion would come from Glasgow to Oban.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:
Beautiful steam trains are wonderful.

Cattle class modern commuter trains? Arrghhhhh!

So impressed with the group who've just built the Tornado. Now that is a worthy obsession indeed. You can even download its whistle as a ringtone (preferably for a donation to the cause)

---

Now I want to replicate the effort on this side of the Pond with a Canadian Pacific Class H1 Royal Hudson
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Georgiaboy , an even better trip is Vienna to Venice. That way, you get the Alps in the morning freshness. In the afternoon, when you're feeing a bit sleepy, there's the crossing of the lagoon, with Venice emerging from the haze - simply magical, and what an intoduction to Venice!

Another great trip is the Glacier Express. To cross from the Rhine to the Reuss via the Oberalp Pass, and look down to Andermatt below is stunning and never to be forgotten.

[ 06. September 2009, 04:24: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 

---

Posted by TheMightyMartyr (# 11162) on :
 
I can't say I'm an enthusiast, but my father and grandfather were both dispatchers for Great Northern Railway, which became Burlington Northern, and then Burlington Northern Santa Fe!! I've been on the Royal Hudson more times than I can count, and I have taken the Rocky Mountaineer a few times...now that is an amazing experience!!
 

---

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :
 
When I was a wee kiddie in the 70's, British Rail used to run all sorts of special excursion trains that we used to take as a family. We went from Reading to Welshpool, York (V. Early HST), Iona (+plus steam ship) and that's just what I can remember. This remains my idea of a perfect awayday.

As another poster said. I would rather travel by train than any other way. That includes the daily trek to Moorgate. You can't say Morning Prayer when you have to keep an eye on the road ahead.

To be honest, I don't really care about the steam thing. I spent a chunk of my youth firing and cleaning boilers for a steam museum. Steam means some poor soul cleaning the soot and ash. I've been there. Its not at all romantic.

The real nostalgia for me is the old style compartment coaches. They use these at the Nene Valley Railway. Bliss.
 

---

Posted by Low Treason (# 11924) on :
 
Like so many Brits of a certain age, I could claim the railways are in my blood. A grandfather spent all his working life of the GWR (of Blessed Memory) ending up as station master of a very minor station on an even more minor branch line. (More of a twig line, in fact)

Also an uncle who became something big in the civil engineering side and built bridges and suchlike and strived to instill a suitable fascination with all railway things mechanical.

However I have to say that any love of railways I ever had has been thoroughly beaten out of me by 10 years of daily commuting on slow, packed, filthy trains for the 'priviledge' of which I pay a fortune....
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 
I'm not so much an enthusiast, as an appreciator of rail travel. While in England last year, our party traveled almost exclusively by rail, and enjoyed it so very much!

My favorite train, however, is the Alaska Railroad. What a great way to see parts of that majestic state! Traveling between the mountains, we were treated to glimpses of Dall Sheep, moose and bald eagles. And bears. Oh, my. We also saw Denali in all its glory!

When you get to Alaska, I very much recommend the Alaska Railroad as an easy, and pleasant way of getting around.
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 
From my early years, I've loved the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway. 13 miles or so on 15" gauge and wonderful Pacific locomotives. Whereas these days the steam engines on most railways don't have to work particularly hard, on the Romney they are worked seriously, and at respectable speeds. Small is beautiful, at least in this case.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
My earliest "train memories" are of the branch line to the ferry over the Humber to Hull and of the three-foot gauge on the Isle of Man. I also remember the sound of trains on the mainline into Hull drifting across the river on summer evenings. Deltics were immediately identifiable, as were Class 20s "Whistlers."

Personally I think decent trains disappeared in the early 1990s. I have found memories of runs from the time frame 1987-1994

1. My first trip to Inverness in a steam-heated Mk1s hauled by a MacRat
2. Slogging over the S & C in a rake of twelve Mk 1s hauled by an ailing class 45.
3. An absolutely smoking York to Hull run behind another "Peak."

My all-time favourites were a run behind a Peak on the ECML in which the peak had eleven on the hook and a HST on its tail. A "Peak" in reasonable nick is good for 102mph south of Thirsk according to my stop watch! The other was "cabbing" a grossly overloaded Cl.31 on a Scarborough-Liverpool train sometime in the late 80s. We went over Stanedge at 11mph with just about everything overloaded! The only other locos I knew that would stand that level of abuse were the old re-engined Metro-Vicks on CIE.

PD
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Which is your favourite ‘preserved line’ (you may call them ‘heritage railways’,: I prefer not to)? And do say ‘why’.

Mine would be the North Yorkshire Moors Railway: 18 miles long, plus on most days a further six into Whitby; scenery of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and Esk Valley; the line dates back to 1835; 1 in 49 gradients particularly between Grosmont and Goathland; probably the best collection of ex-LNER locos (including Sir Nigel Gresley and an NER 0-8-0) and coaches on any preserved line; stations like Goathland and Pickering…

Beat that!
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Mine would be the North Yorkshire Moors Railway: 18 miles long, plus on most days a further six into Whitby; scenery of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and Esk Valley; the line dates back to 1835; 1 in 49 gradients particularly between Grosmont and Goathland; probably the best collection of ex-LNER locos (including Sir Nigel Gresley and an NER 0-8-0) and coaches on any preserved line; stations like Goathland and Pickering…

Beat that!

---

How about the Severn Valley? 16 miles through the wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside, two banks (Highley and Erdington) that tax the locos even now, a fabulous selection of GWR and LMS motive power, a full set of Gresley teak coaches as well as full rakes of GWR, LMS and BR ones as well, beautifully restored and kept stations including Arley, Highley and Bewdley, two tunnels, six viaducts, and a safari park - if nothing else, it must be the only standard gauge preserved railway in the country from which you can guarantee to see gazelles, bison and elephants!

Throw in some fabulous real ale served in the buffet cars and the new Engine House which holds the line's reserve collection of locos in a museum-like environment, and I think it beats the NYMR into a cocked hat
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Eeh lads - what abaht t'Keighley and Worth Valley? Not as impressive in length or pretensions to mainline status, I agree: but heroic gradients, atmospheric stations, and a lot of weather. Not to mention the literary associations. Branwell Brontë yet liveth.

But for curiosity value it's hard to beat the Isle of Wight. Idiosyncratic steam engines and ancient rolling stock on a preserved line running through an archetypal English countryside, together with a 'main line' served by pensioned-off Bakerloo line tube trains which are nearly as old as me. And a terminus half way across the Solent.

[ 07. September 2009, 14:53: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
I love the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway - the scenery is wonderful and the Locos are made to work hard, just like on the Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway! Sorry for the shameless plugs, as I am a member of both lines

I love the Isle of Man Railways (Steam and Electric) and Snaefell Mountain Line.

Whilst it is not a preserved railway, the Pecorama Miniature Railway/Beer Heights Railway is well worth a visit. The Brecon Mountain Railway is nice though a bit short - I know it fairly well as it is the closest Steam Railway to home!

I agree with Marvin, regarding the Severn Valley....though one has to go into Bridgenorth to ride the Funicular to gain all the thrills

Rob.

><>
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Can we include Street Railways, er, Streetcar Lines in this? My favorite is Halton County Radial Railway. They have a wonderful collection of old streetcars from across Ontario, in particular Toronto Transit Commission Peter Witt's and PCC Cars.

I streetcars.
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:

I love the Isle of Man Railways (Steam and Electric) and Snaefell Mountain Line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Mine would be the North Yorkshire Moors Railway: 18 miles long, plus on most days a further six into Whitby; scenery of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and Esk Valley; the line dates back to 1835; 1 in 49 gradients particularly between Grosmont and Goathland; probably the best collection of ex-LNER locos (including Sir Nigel Gresley and an NER 0-8-0) and coaches on any preserved line; stations like Goathland and Pickering…

Beat that!

---

How about the Severn Valley? 16 miles through the wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside, two banks (Highley and Erdington) that tax the locos even now, a fabulous selection of GWR and LMS motive power, a full set of Gresley teak coaches as well as full rakes of GWR, LMS and BR ones as well, beautifully restored and kept stations including Arley, Highley and Bewdley, two tunnels, six viaducts, and a safari park - if nothing else, it must be the only standard gauge preserved railway in the country from which you can guarantee to see gazelles, bison and elephants!

Throw in some fabulous real ale served in the buffet cars and the new Engine House which holds the line's reserve collection of locos in a museum-like environment, and I think it beats the NYMR into a cocked hat

---

Marvin, I only went to the SVR once, back in about 1987, and it was very good (it was on an enthusiasts’ weekend, so a lot was running, including ‘Black 5’ No. 5000). Its stations were actually better than the NYMR’s, though the latter have improved since. But it didn’t have the steep gradients, or the wild scenery. It didn’t have any NER locomotives! It had lots of Brunswick green things with copper and brass bits stuck on top! So not the BEST preserved line, maybe runner–up (if it has a Stanier or Ivatt 2-6-0 running on my next visit!).
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Oh, and I’ve just noticed you refer to the ‘wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside’. Shurely you mean ‘Worcestershire/Shropshire’?
 

---

Posted by Tea gnome (# 9424) on :
 
Much like Jengie Jon above, I prefer to travel by train rather than being what you might call an enthusiast. Although I do like all the madeness of them, especially the old machines where it feels as if even the tiny parts have been made with pride and care.
This websites getting me all unnecessary at the moment - planning! I loves it!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I, too, love streetcars - or trams as we call them here in Britain. As a student I lived in Lisbon, Portugal during the late 1970s/early 80s and they had a magnificent, if slightly decrepit system, all on the narrow gauge. Some of the cars were nearly 80 years old, complete with cut glass in the clerestories and proper lampshades.

The system still exists; even as a shadow of its normal self it is well worth a visit. When, about 10 years ago, they decided to replace some of the cars in the Old Town with newer ones, I believe there was an outcry. Result: the cars are brand new mechanically but reuse bodies which are now over 70 years old - great stuff. (There are some new ones as well).

There was also an interurban system running from Sintra, near Lisbon: it lay closed and decaying but has now been revived as a tourist line.

For real tram heaven try Budapest in Hungary - a large system expanding again after some years of contraction.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Oh, and I’ve just noticed you refer to the ‘wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside’. Shurely you mean ‘Worcestershire/Shropshire’?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I, too, love streetcars - or trams as we call them here in Britain. As a student I lived in Lisbon, Portugal during the late 1970s/early 80s and they had a magnificent, if slightly decrepit system, all on the narrow gauge. Some of the cars were nearly 80 years old, complete with cut glass in the clerestories and proper lampshades.

The system still exists; even as a shadow of its normal self it is well worth a visit. When, about 10 years ago, they decided to replace some of the cars in the Old Town with newer ones, I believe there was an outcry. Result: the cars are brand new mechanically but reuse bodies which are now over 70 years old - great stuff. (There are some new ones as well).

There was also an interurban system running from Sintra, near Lisbon: it lay closed and decaying but has now been revived as a tourist line.

For real tram heaven try Budapest in Hungary - a large system expanding again after some years of contraction.

---

Time for a rant: why, o why, did British local authorities close down so many magnificent tramway systems in the 1950s? It's taken half a century for us to realise that they are the most efficient method of urban transport, and though a few places have managed to re-invent their tramways (and technologically they are vastly superior) they are all much smaller in extent than their ghostly predecessors. And several cities have been refused funding by our short-sighted government to build new systems.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
True, but not all schemes are good ones. The West London tram project would have caused huge disruption with little gain. After spending zillions on planning it, it was (in my view rightly) scrapped. What it really needed was an underground line but that is even more expensive!
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
I believe that parts of the SVR are actually in Staffordshire....in particular the bit around Arley, though whether I am correct or not I have yet to find out!
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Thanks to Toronto the Old Fashioned, the TTC kept most of its system intact. In fact that's a problem now. The TTC is a true Street Traction system, not a Light Rail line. Streetcars are about the same size as buses and negotiate the same curves. The tight radii mean that the next generation of streetcars which Toronto is now buying have to be customized. In particular Toronto uses trolley-pole lines rather than pantographs.

St. Clair Ave. and Spadina Ave. have received streetcar upgrades, and the city plans to expand the system. In fact a traffic study showed that King St. is actually a streetcar route that happens to have automobiles on it, rather than a public street with tracks down the middle.
 

---

Posted by Lilly Rose (# 13826) on :
 
I enjoy riding on a train pulled by a steam engine, but I'd much rather stand on the platform watching the engine living and breathing. As a photographer, I love taking photos of steam engines.

Some enthusiasts only seem to like one type of engine, usually the local one that they knew as a child, but I like all sort of shapes and sizes.

I went to Leicestershire to see Oliver Cromwell when he was back in steam after restoration. Wow! He seemed so huge!!

My very favourite engine is 7802 Bradley Manor. I've had the priveledge of being invited onto the footplate while she was at Arley station. It was fascinating! (and hot!)

It's when I'm taking photos that the drivers start talking to me, and then they invite me up into the cab. My camera club friend says it's because I'm a woman and they're just flirting with me! Who cares, as long as I get to climb up into the cab. My friend's just jealous because he didn't get invited!!


 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Oooo! You said big.

I therefore introduce you to Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger #3895. She's the largest operational steam locomotive in the world.

Her sister, Union Pacific 4-8-4 Northern 844 is the only steam locomotive in North American never to be retired by a mainline railroad. She has remained operational as property of the Union Pacific Railroad in revenue service since 1944. She is been part of the company's Steam Program since 1960.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
As a matter of interest, SPK, how active is the preservation movement on your side of the Atlantic?

I have always tended to assume that the vastly grander scale (and therefore cost) of North American locomotives would have made amateur preservation almost impossible ~ goodness knows, it is enough of a problem financing repairs to UK locomotives, trying to repair something that weighs in the region of 300 tons must present difficulties of a sort that only ship enthusiasts encounter in this country.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Despite Canada being collected together in order to have a railway that went coast-to-coast (or, as it later turned, three of them), the preservation movment is barely visible. There are no operating tourist lines east of, I think, Ottawa, although the Orford Express diner run might qualify, since it uses vintage diesel cars.

The Maritimes, in the steam era, had nearly one-third of CN's locomotive stock, but the opening of the Seaway and the demise of the ocean liners effectively killed most of the work at just about the time of the end of steam. I can think of three actual railway museums in New Brunswick, none with operation, and a few miles of track deep in the woods where a few of the guys with "speeders" (work trolleys) play. PEI has a couple of display pieces. Nova Scotia also has three railway museums, plus a motel which uses several cabooses as accomodation and a a dining car used for meal service.

There is an operating Swedish (inside-cylinder!) 2-8-0 operating near the Nation's Capital (our tax dollars at work?) and an operating line just west of Toronto, with a CP 4-4-0 and a CP 4-6-0. Static museums at Smiths Falls and just south of Montreal, and incidental display pieces scattered lightly around.

Not much better out west. The Prairie Dog Central has operated just west of Winnipeg for decades, the Central Western operates near Stettler in Alberta and there are a couple of operating lines in BC, no longer including the Royal Hudson run.

The Montreal museum has the best collection - about 45 locomotives in various states of repair - but is poorly located and has very little usable space.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The problem, as Horseman Bree alluded to is the fact that North America has such a diversity of railroad companies that market forces made preservation very difficult. Preservation of each class from each road is impossible.

This is worse in the US than in Canada since we only have two national railways: Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. The US had 30 or so Class I or mainline carriers, each with different management, operating philosophies and financial circumstances. Bankruptcy was extremely common for US railroads until 1980. Each locomotive class for each road was custom-built.

Dieselization began in the 1930's and was seen as the future, but the railroads didn't begin wholesale scrapping of their steam locomotives until after 1945.

For example, the Southern Railway was a prosperous road covering most of the South-East. It dieselized early in 1953 and a number of its locomotives are well-preserved. It had a popular steam excursion program until 1994. However the Louisville & Nashville and the Atlantic Coast Line, the two other main roads in the South left almost no locomotives to preservation.

The situation is worst with the Northeastern mainlines, the Baltimore & Ohio, the New York Central, the Erie and the Pennsylvania Railroad. All faced deep financial difficulties after 1945 and every line except the B&O collapsed into bankruptcy by 1970 and had to be nationalized under Conrail. There are almost no preserved locomotives at all from the New York Central and nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy.

The western railroads were generally more prosperous, dieselized later and have the best-preserved examples. The Union Pacific still owns two of its own locomotives for steam excursions, and 844 has been operational since 1944 without retirement. The Western US has the best mainline fleet with the two UP units, a Southern Pacific Daylight GS-4 Northern, a Santa Fe Northern and a Milwaukee Road Northern.

Most preserved locomotives are static displays. Typically there are at most five engines from each road. Only 10 or so mainline, post-1930 "Superpower" locomotives are operational. These are the Hudsons, Mountains or Northerns that most people think of when you mention steam locomotives. Of the huge compound or Mallet locomotives, only the UP Challenger is operational. The rest are static displays, including the Big Boys. The other compounds of note, the

Aside from a few 10-mile loops, the best preserved operational railways are the Durango & Silverton and the Cumbres & Toltec Senic RR, both narrow-gauge lines which are fully operational. SP Cab-Forwards, only 1 survives in static display.

There really is no equivalent of the National Collection or National Railway Museum.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
To read what Horseman Bree and SPK have written regarding the preservation situation in the USA and Canada makes me realise how lucky we are in Britain. I have main line steam running past my back garden three days a week in summer, for goodness sake (not that you can see it very well due to the amount of trees and bushes in the cutting)!

I found SPK’s ‘…nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy’ amusing as Pacifics are pretty much the largest locos preserved in Britain (apart from BR 9F 2-10-0s of course).

In Ireland there’s nothing larger than a 3-cylinder 4-6-0. This is No.800 Meadhbh from the Great Southern Railways, and despite her working life being spent between Dublin and Cork, she is preserved at Cultra near Belfast in N. Ireland! Sadly it is unlikely she will steam again as her axle loading would preclude her working over most of the routes where steam is allowed in Ireland. I would dearly love to ride on Irish main lines behind any of their preserved locos, but a Great Northern Railway 4-4-0 in blue livery (it would have to be 171 ‘Slieve Gullion’ as the ‘V’ class compound, ‘Merlin’, is no longer operational AFAIK) would be particularly nice.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger #3895.

---

Gorgeous . I can only dream of seeing beasts like that running over here. I bet it could take the Lickey with 20 on, full and standing.

Backwards.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Only if you demolished the platforms at Bromsgrove first ...
 

---

Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent Smith (elsewhere):
You know you are a nerd when someone on TV rattles off a four figure number similar to 4498, and you sit there thinking that sounds like an A4 Pacific, and trying to work out which one.

---

Just browsing, thinking "Look, trainspotters!". Then realised that I knew 4498 is Sir Nigel Gresley's number without having to look it up.
(Mitigation: That fact comes from having travelled on a BR-run special up the Cumbrian coast, not long after it was restored, and living near Carnforth. Honest.)

One of the scariest evenings (in the paranoid sense) I ever spent was at Warrington Bank Quay station, waiting for Dr-Mrs-Spouse-to-be to arrive on a delayed train from Euston. There were a couple of people on the Northbound platform doing the same thing but lots of people on the opposite platform. Then some goods train thundered into view and out came the sound recorders and video cameras. Like I said, very, very scary. Though I did almost feel sorry for the guy who missed 'his' train because it got re-routed through a different platform!

I do like train travel, though. Especially modern long distance trains, having just come back from circumnavigating Sweden and Denmark courtesy of InterRail. I would much rather sit on Eurostar or TGV at 300Kph than rattle along at a tenth of that speed going nowhere in particular. Though older trains do sometimes have their appeal - Paris to Rome by sleeper was fun, with compartments that would not look out of place in scenes from a spy thriller.

Favourite heritage railway? Well, for family reasons I have to get in a plug for the Corris Railway in mid-Wales. Keeping the mid-Wales theme, Vale of Rheidol has the best views and Talyllyn is the most unpronounceable to an English speaker.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
Ting a ling is easy to pronounce! Try Dduallt or even Cyfronydd. Glyndyfrdwy, Llanuwchllyn and Penrhyndeudraeth are just us Welsh taking the mick out of English speakers

Rob

><>

PS. My Railway atlas came in handy in this post!
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
OK, wiseguy. But if it's unpronounceable you're after, try "Ynysybwl". Granted, the station there is long gone ~ maybe Enlish inability to pronounce the name is why it has gone ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Who'd want to be a train announcer at Shrewsbury, calling out all the station names for the Central Wales line? (It's presumably easier for the folk at Swansea making the announcements for the return journey).
 

---

Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
OK, wiseguy. But if it's unpronounceable you're after, try "Ynysybwl". Granted, the station there is long gone ~ maybe Enlish inability to pronounce the name is why it has gone ...

---

At the risk of perpetuating this tangent (I know I started it ), England also has its share of local dialects at places like Mytholmroyd and Slaithwaite...

(And no one's mentioned Pwllheli or Llwyngwril!)
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
...I found SPK’s ‘…nothing larger than a Pacific from the Pennsy’ amusing as Pacifics are pretty much the largest locos preserved in Britain (apart from BR 9F 2-10-0s of course)...

---

North American Railroads basically standarized on the 2-8-2 Mikado for freight and 4-6-2 Pacifics for passenger work by the 1920's. However given the increasing train loads for passenger and freight trains in the 1920's, many railroads started to look for bigger power. Enter the 4-8-2 Mountains, 2-10-2 Santa Fe's, and 2-10-4 Texas types.

The late 1920's and early 1930's saw the Superpower generation of locomotives, which used superheated steam. These locomotives were meant for power at speed. This is the era of the 2-8-4 Berkshires, 4-6-4 Hudsons for passenger trains, and 4-8-4 Northerns.

The Northern type is the pinnacle of North American locomotive development: fast, powerful and useful for both freight and passenger service.

Of course many railroads also used Mallet or articulated locomotives like the UP Challenger. These were ususally railways with steep grades or mountain profiles like the Baltimore & Ohio or the Union Pacific. The Union Pacific always had a thing for giant locomotives. They even ordered massive 6600 hp DDA-40X diesel locomotives in the 1960's to the same work the Challenger did: haul massive trains over the Rockies.
 

---

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 
What I find curious, SPK, is that, although the countries are of comparable sizes, Canadian locomotives seem to have been smaller than their US counterparts and Canada never seems to have gone in for gigantic freight locos comparable to "Big Boy" and the like. Any reason for this?

I have to say that the Canadian steam locos of which I have seen photos are also more elegant.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
We did have a 4-6-4 in Britain, the LNER W1 No. 10000. It was designed by Sir Nigel Gresley as an experimental water-tube boiler locomotive, then rebuilt in the 1930s with a conventional boiler and an A4-type front-end. It would have been an impressive machine, and had a grate area I think higher than am other British loco except I think the LNER’s U1 2-8-8-2 ‘Garrett’ built for the Worsborough incline banking duties.

Stanier on the LMS also might have produced a 4-6-4 that was basically an extended ‘Coronation’ 4-6-2 and would probably need to have been mechanically stoked due to its huge (by British standards!) firebox. But WW2 prevented such developments.

Anyone interested in Russian steam? They had, I think, the world’s largest non-articulated loco, with 12 coupled wheels. My favourites are the ‘S’ and ‘Su’ class 2-6-2s, but then my British favourite class is Gresley’s V2 2-6-2.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
I stand to be corrected on this one, but it sticks in my mind that, during the Stalin era, the Russians tried building a 4-14-4, with the inevitable track-straightening problems such a long fixed wheelbase brought in its wake. In spite of having several (I think 3) wheelsets flangeless, it was extremely competent at mashing pointwork, when it stayed on the track, that is.

There is also a picture in my collection of the one Garratt locomotive that Beyer Peacock built for Russia. At first sight, it looks fairly ordinary, until you realise the height of the chimney above the boiler is misleading. Then you realise that it must have been amongst the physically largest Garratts ever built (though not the most powerful).
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Sorry to double post, but memory was correct ~ this should take you to information on the engine in question.

Incidentally, for those of us who are impressed by vain human endeavour, Douglas Self's Museum of Retrotech (from whence comes the information) is fascinating ...
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
Sorry to double post

---

... totally a myth, and no apology necessary.

Chocolates, on the other hand, could purchase lasting absolution
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Canada's population is far more spread out than the US, in the sense that the present 30 million Canadians occupy a land area that is about the same as the US, which is nearing 300 million. In the late steam era, the population was less than 15 million.

So the trains were correspondingly smaller and/or slower and/or less frequent. Moncton, for example, had the central shops for the Maritimes, and sat at the focus of the through Main Line from Halifax westward, the NTR line also westward, the Saint John connector and connections to at least seven branch lines. But the public timetable only showed 28 passenger trains a day at most (not counting extras). Some of those only ran two or three times a week.

CN inherited a huge network of trackage, almost all of which was lightly built - the main lines were often only 85 lb. rail, so CN had to have fairly light locomotives spread out along the track. Their Northerns (4-8-4) were among the lightest of their group (Ontario Northland had the lightest, ISTM), with an axle-loading of 30 tons max. CP had better mainline track (they had a 20-year head start) and could haul the same loads with Pacifics and Hudsons.

Out west, the flat Prairies allowed Pacifics to haul 70 freight cars or more.

And CN had the easiest crossing of the Rockies, so fairly light 2-10-2s could handle full trains. CP had two much steeper climbs (Kicking Horse and Rogers passes) but still manged with 2-10-4s that were the biggest locomotives in the British Empire but which were fairly small by comparison to Challengers and Big Boys.

The British influence probably contributed to more "style" in visual design, some of which was actually rather unattractive. But the average look was tidy and reasonably well-proportioned (ignoring oddities like CPs D4g class or the rebuilds like #29)

I offer CN 5703 marred by an unfortunate smoke deflector, and CN 6200


Of course, given our weather , looks may not matter!
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
I stand to be corrected on this one, but it sticks in my mind that, during the Stalin era, the Russians tried building a 4-14-4, with the inevitable track-straightening problems such a long fixed wheelbase brought in its wake. In spite of having several (I think 3) wheelsets flangeless, it was extremely competent at mashing pointwork, when it stayed on the track, that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
What I find curious, SPK, is that, although the countries are of comparable sizes, Canadian locomotives seem to have been smaller than their US counterparts and Canada never seems to have gone in for gigantic freight locos comparable to "Big Boy" and the like. Any reason for this?

I have to say that the Canadian steam locos of which I have seen photos are also more elegant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
<snip>

But, it is interesting to speculate upon how things might have turned out had the GWR main line been built in 1830, not 1835. Had the broad gauge become established that much earlier, would other Engineers have adopted it? Just think how different British locomotive engineering practice might have been had we had the larger loading gauge associated with the broad gauge.

Such a pity ...

---

Ah, if onlies . . .

About 30 years ago I saw an "if only" model railway of a 1930's Great Western main line as if it was still broad gauge (7’ 0½” gauge). The stock was of similar overall dimensions, just a little broader, but the point that sticks was that with the extra stability, higher speeds would be almost routine! You wouldn't have to break conjugated valve gear to travel at 126 mph, just devise a mechanical stoker to shift enough coal to a much wider firebox that in turn provides heat for a boiler that could heat a small town.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Horseman,

Something I really have to ask, are you sure about that maximum axle load of 30 tons? It seems immensely heavy (OK, by UK standards) for 85lb rail. Point is, at the time indicated, the Bridge Stress committee had just reported in this country and, as a result of their work, it was agreed that the maximum permissable axle load could be raised to 22.5 tons, but only for well-balanced, 4-cylinder locomotives ~ which led to the introduction of the Kings on the GWR.

At the time, most of the railways in this country observed an axle load limit of 20 tons, frequently less. Significant parts of the old Cambrian system would only accept locomotives up to 16 tons axle load (Mid-Wales route through Llanidloes and Rhayader to Brecon). Admittedly, it was found that certain classes of locomotive imposed far greater dynamic loadings on the track ('hammer blow') than their static load would suggest ~ the George V class of the old LNWR were particularly notorious in this respect: 19 tons static axle load, 33 tons at 60 mph.

Given that UK main lines in the 1930's were laid on rather heavier rail than many, the idea of 30 tons on 85lb rail seems anything other than light. Or are we just talking light-by-North-American-standards?

Sioni

As you said, ifonlies! The notion of a broad-gauge GWR in the 1930's poses the question whether Collett would have introduced a locomotive with a trailing truck of some sort to carry the sort of firebox you suggest. It would appear that he thought a Pacific superfluous to the needs of the GWR (hence his conversion of The Great Bear) and Hawksworth, though there is evidence that design work was started on a Pacific, never built one either. But, had there been the need for a wide firebox, one cannot help wondering whether they would have leaned towards a Pacific or a Hudson?

Idle speculation, all of it!
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
As you said, ifonlies! The notion of a broad-gauge GWR in the 1930's poses the question whether Collett would have introduced a locomotive with a trailing truck of some sort to carry the sort of firebox you suggest. It would appear that he thought a Pacific superfluous to the needs of the GWR (hence his conversion of The Great Bear) and Hawksworth, though there is evidence that design work was started on a Pacific, never built one either. But, had there been the need for a wide firebox, one cannot help wondering whether they would have leaned towards a Pacific or a Hudson?

Idle speculation, all of it!

---

I am definitely going to have to build a time machine to "correct" history!

Rob

><>
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I'm pretty sure about the 30-ton axle load. Bridges wouldn't be a problem; the railways routinely overdesigned their bridges by massive amounts. Hence live-loads have never been much of a problem in North America.

Even the Delaware & Hudson in upstate New York owned Challengers.

Are you sure that some of the light loading is not a result of the UK use of vacuum brakes? North America standardized on Westinghouse air brakes in the 1870's.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Interesting question, SPK. I think, though, that the restricted maximum axle loads in this country had more to do with inadequate formations and poorly laid (for which read, 'cheap') track than the braking systems used. Whilst the 3 of the Big 4 companies (post 1923) used vacuum brakes, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of pre-grouping companies used Westinghouse (or similar) brakes.

Could the pattern of rail used be of greater significance? Until relatively recently, most of the UK railway system was laid in bullhead rail, which required chairs to hold it upright and a high level of regular maintenance if the track was not to disintegrate, but which did not lend itself to high localised loadings anything like as well as flat-bottomed rail. Am I right in thinking that most of the railways in North America were laid using flat-bottomed rail? This might be why high axle loads were acceptable.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Flat-bottomed T-rail is standard in North America, with the rail held to the cross-ties by spikes. This method has been standard since the 1850's, so we likely have an answer.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I suspect that the bull-head rail was actually quite flexible, since the web (the vertical bit between the head and the base) of British bull-head was somewhat thicker than the North American standard, presumably to compensate. The rounded base was needed because of fitting into the chairs and was only about 2.5 inches wide, while the flat base of 85-lb Candian rail was 5.2 inches - and that was supported full width of tie rather than just in the chair. So a lot of the weight went into preventing wriggle, rather than supporting imposed weight.

Once the money crunch eased up in the 1960's, bull-head was totally replaced by flat bottom in UK.

BTW, you also have to remember that the trains were/are hugely different in trailing weight - a big passenger train in England is 400 tons. A steam-era 18-coach Ocean Limited would run at about 1500 tons plus 300 for the loco, and would require steam heat from the locomotive - hence the larger firebox (84 sq. ft. on a CN Northern). No question about mechanical stokers! Speeds not that great - 24 hrs. for 840 miles, Halifax to Montreal - but all single track with passing sidings and all movements/meets coordinated by telegraph and written orders. Another reason for the big, infrequent trains.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
OK, so that makes it possible (and more than possible) that CN were operating a 30 ton axle load, but you described this as light. What on earth was 'heavy' on this footing?

I was aware of the fact that train loads were significantly heavier than we were used to in this country but then, as you said, how else could trains be operated on what was predominantly single track? You either have to run light, frequent trains with short distances between passing loops or, if this is impractical (which, with the distances involved, it has to be) you have to run infrequent, seriously heavy, trains.

In this country, the heaviest trains were mostly coal trains, running to about 1000 to 1200 tons, hauled by 2-8-0's (mostly), loose coupled and unbraked, which meant that speeds were low. Braking on coal trains is a modern phenomenon in this country. In the 1930's, the train crew would have had the brakes on the engine and the Guard's brake van. Any other braking they required was available only by stopping the train and pinning down the brakes manually on individual wagons. In turn, this meant stopping at the top of any significant incline to pin down brakes, then stopping again at the bottom to release them.

Add to this the fun implicit in loose coupling of the wagons, and the trains must have been a real nightmare to operate. From that perspective alone, it is small wonder that we never operated seriously heavy trains in this country.

And, in case anybody should ask why, the reason was the scourge of the Operating Department, the Private Owner Wagon. A large proportion of the coal trucks circulating the railways in this country belonged to the colliery of origin. No colliery was going to go to the expense of fitting power brakes to its wagons if it could get away without them ...

Which has a lot to do with why the Railways in this country were found to be uneconomic in the aftermath of Nationalisation. Granted, it wasn't quite that simple ~ government restrictions on how the railway companies could spend their money had had a lot to do with it and the lack of restrictions on road hauliers completed the picture.

I shall have to stop there before I start to rant.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Once the money crunch eased up in the 1960's, bull-head was totally replaced by flat bottom in UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I streetcars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
No one has yet mentioned that oddity among railways, the funicular railway, which features two cars that operate in tandem to asend and descend steep hills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I streetcars.

---

Yes indeed! San Francisco still has "old style" working streetcar lines (with tracks in the traffic lanes) and employs the original lovingly restored cars from abandoned lines in many cities.

And, of course, there's New Orleans.

Philadelphia was one of the last cities to abandon "old style" lines. These are all gone now, although I believe in some cases the tracks and even the overhead wires remain in place. I understand the Girard Avenue line recently reopened. I don't know if it remains open -- I haven't been to Philadelphia in ages.

Many cities are seeing a rebirth of streetcars in the form of light rail, but the cars run on right-of-way segregated from the street traffic lanes. San Diego and, most recently, Phoenix are examples. Fun, but not the real thing in my mind.

---

Toronto's system is classic street-traction operation like San Francisco's and Philadelphia's. The TTC's streetcars are the size of a bus and operate in the same fashion in a stop-and-go manner with a pull rope to request a stop.

When Toronto replaced its PCC streetcars (the kind Philadelphia has) with newer units, it tried to get a joint deal with Boston and Philly going. It didn't work out and it went alone and built the CLRV's in the late 1970's. The articulated ALRV's came along in the early 1980's.

Toronto just ordered the next generation to replaced the CLRV's. Bombardier is making the cars.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The Norfolk and Western J class mentioned by Horseman Bree was a magnificent locomotive. It used lots of devices to make the life of crew easier, and which also prolonged the useful life of the locomotives themselves. Further, it was serviced in modern facilities, and thus could be turned around in little longer than a diesel. With coal a major freight for Norfolk and Western, it is no wonder that the J class had useful life.

Finally. it looked superb.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
On the subject of funicular railways/tramways, my favourite has to be the Great Orme Tramway, in Llandudno, north Wales.

It may not be quite as steep as the others mentioned, but it's more scenic and even features street running
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
The Lynton/Lynmouth cliff railway is pretty good - like going up and down in a green ferny cavern. Mind you, it's not so good for exciting trainspotting: they sell a card locally which shows a man writing down on his pad "This one ... that one ... this one ...".

For excitement travel in the front of a Docklands train going into Bank. You think you're going into Tower Gateway, then suddenly you lurch to the left and go over what seems like a precipice into the tunnel ... You got that going into Queen Street (High Level)in Glasgow, too, at least when they had trains you could see out the front of!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Sioni Sais says: On an ecclesiastical note, Mont St Michel used to have a funicular.

So does St. Michael's Mount in Cornwall, although it's never been a passenger line and runs mostly in a tunnel.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Horseman: interesting your mention of the signalling methods used ~ I doubt that any other method would have been practical, though it is of interest to note that the same method was implicated in a head-on collision in this country.

This link (Thorpe accident ) gives some information on the incident, which was written up in detail in LTC Rolt's book "Red for Danger". The gist of it was that the mistakes were made at shift change time. The procedure was for Inspectors to give written instructions to their Telegraph Clerk regarding train movements. These were communicated to the next stations in each direction. The significant point was that no instruction was to be transmitted until the Inspector had signed it, and the signature was transmitted by the Telegraph Clerk as proof of his authority.

On the day in question, the one Inspector, Parker was still on duty (for some reason) when the other Inspector (Cooper) gave the instruction for the Mail train to be sent on from Norwich to him. Unfortunately, Parker had just given the driver of a train at Brundell the authority to proceed. Now, here is the interesting part. Cooper had not signed his instruction, but the Telegraph Clerk transmitted it as "Signed B. Cooper"

One very loud bang near Yare Bridge.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
It's a funicular that has the widest gauge in Britain, if not the world, at 7ft 6inch It is located in Scarborough and is the St Nicholas Cliff railway.

Information courtesy of the Railway Magazine issue for Seeptember 2008! According to the same article the St Michael's Mount line is 2ft 5.5in gauge....Does anyone know what is the widest gauge in the world?

Rob.

><>
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I'd be betting on Brunel's 7-ft. GWR, unless you include odd specialties like the Chignecto Ship Railway (never completed) or the gadget used to move stuff at Cape Canaveral.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
The widest gauge in the world? Probably depends, as Horseman Bree has said, on how specialised you want to be. The mobile cranes on the dockside at Bristol run on rails. Goodness knows what the gauge is, but it is certainly more than 7 feet. But I doubt that this counts.

It sticks in my mind that LTC Rolt made mention of locomotives built for (I think) a railway in Buenos Aires on a gauge of 11 feet 10 inches ~ something he observed during his apprenticeship at Kerr Stuart. I guess it needs somebody with better Googling skills than I to track that down.

On the whole, I concur with Horseman Bree ~ where it comes to serious, main line, usage, Brunel's 7 foot gauge is likely to be the widest.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I've said some of this before.

Two differences between a railway enthusiast and the rest of the world.

1. A railway enthusiast thinks Brief Encounter is spoilt by all that love stuff.

2. A railway enthusiast thinks Edinburgh Castle is a fantastic backdrop for a station.

More seriously though, when I read recently a 50th anniversary report of the RCTS trip to Doncaster in 1959 when 60007 did 112 down Stoke on the way back, I was sad to realise that because I was a youngster and most of the other passengers were much older than me, there's probably not all that many other people alive who were on board.

Going back to the discussion about cliff railways at Lynton and elsewhere, no one seems to have commented that they are driven by water. The cars have tanks underneath them. The tank on the upper car is filled, and the bottom car's has been emptied. The extra weight in the top car means it is heavier. So when it descends, the extra weight pulls the other one up.
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

2. A railway enthusiast thinks Edinburgh Castle is a fantastic backdrop for a station.

---

A real railway enthusiast thinks Edinburgh Castle is a locomotive (although he might be a somewhat esoteric enthusiast, i.e. not Great Western)

 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
There wasn't an 'Edinburgh Castle' was there? I assume all of the Castle Class were named after castles in GWR territory (more or less) so Welsh castles and West Country/West Midlands castles? (I quite like 'Castles' even if they were GWR engines!)

I think an LNER 'B17' or two had 'castle names' e.g. Raby Castle. We're taking B17/1s of course as B17/4s were 'Footballers'!

I used to like going to Edinburgh before I was 18 (well I still like it now, but not for this reason so much). Standing in Princes Street Gardens watching Class 26s, 27s, 47s, even the odd 'Deltic'...brilliant! Wish I could have been there in say 1963 and watched 'A2s','A3s', A4s, 'V2' etc. Or 1938 and seen the 'P2s' (my Dad once saw 'Cock o'the North', I think at Newcastle Central, before Edward Thompson did terrible things to it ).
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
There wasn't an 'Edinburgh Castle' was there? I assume all of the Castle Class were named after castles in GWR territory (more or less) so Welsh castles and West Country/West Midlands castles? (I quite like 'Castles' even if they were GWR engines!)

---

You need to think more recently. One of the GNER/NXEC Class 91s was named "Edinburgh Castle" until all their names were removed this year.

[ 17. September 2009, 09:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 
I had a feeling that one of the smaller Scottish railways had a 'Castle' class, but I can't recall which one - the Highland??
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Yes, it would be the Highland Railway. AFAIK the GNoSR only named a small number of its 4-4-0s (the batch that included ‘Gordon Highlander’), the Glasgow & South Western didn’t name anything, except one 4 cyl. 4-4-0, and the North British was fairly keen on naming but had ‘Scott’ and ‘Glen’ 4-4-0s and its named ‘Atlantics’ (e.g. ‘Midlothian’). Not sure about the Caledonian (it had at least one named 4-6-0), but the Highland had various named 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s (the ‘Castles’ would be the latter).
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Incidentally the Northern Counties Committee of the LMS in (Northern) Ireland had its own ‘Castles’: the 'U2' class 4-4-0s and I think some older 4-4-0s and 2-4-0s. ‘U2’ No.74 ‘Dunluce Castle’ is preserved, and there is chance that the RPSI could return it to steam in lieu of the GNR 4-4-0 ‘Merlin’.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
Since we are on the topic of 4-4-0s I must say that I think the Schools class was the Southern's, finest, gift to the universe - of course being a GWR fan I must admit to preferring the City Class! 3440 is magnificent!!
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The Schools' appearance was spoiled by the antique form of smokebox. Why did so many British railways insist on using something that was found to be unsatisfactory about the time of the Great Exhibition?
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
Nah! I disagree! It is the Cab that spoils the look of the Schools, due to the restricted loading guage on the Hastings line.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Would you believe it, I had never noticed the antiquated design of the Schools smokebox? I just went and reviewed my photographs from the National Railway Museum and discovered that not only did Maunsell use that design for the Schools (and, incidentally, the S15 class as well), Bullied perpetuated it on his Q1 class 0-6-0's ~ quite extraordinary. And I am not certain that the same design was not also used on the original Merchant Navy's and West Country's.

You would have thought that, by 1943, every designer knew that a wrapper-type smokebox was just an open invitation to leaks?

E.T.A. And I guess this makes me a candidate for a brand new anorak ...

[ 17. September 2009, 17:41: Message edited by: Darllenwyr ]
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
On my last visit to the NYMR in early August I had a good run behind 'Schools ' class 30926 Repton from Pickering to Levisham, and 'S15' No. 825 from Grosmont to Pickering (unfortunately interrupted by a long stop at Goathland whilst an ambulance arrived for a sick passenger ('twas the Air Ambulance!). It was almost as Southern that day as the Bluebell! (I did also have Std. 4MT No. 75029 from Levisham to Grosmont.)
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Everything that was unsatisfactory about the Schools was a consequence of the restricted loading gauge on the Hastings line*. This is illustrated by comparing the Schools to the LNER D49/Hunt class which is all but identical in appearance save the cab and smoke deflectors! Change those and you have much tidier and elegant locomotive (although most 4-4-0s look good).

*the diesel trains that replaced steam on the Hastings line were really nasty: noisy, cramped and unreliable.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Two years ago I had my first-ever run behind a 'D49' when Morayshire made its first visit to England in ages (I think it was also its first visit where it actually hauled coaches, as its previous journey south in preservation was, AFAIK, to 'Shildon S&D 150' in 1975). It was on the Embsay & Bolton Abbey Railway, a nice line, though a bit tame in gradients compared to the nearby K&WVR , which I have been a menmber of for years.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
But even the D49's had a smokebox that was far too short. This made for problems with circulation inside the smokebox. It also gave the engines a very "stuffy" look, as if someone was walking with his shoulders hunched up, and had a severe cold - about to sneeze.

Churchward/Collett/Stanier at least understood the point about smokebox circulation, and this gave their engines a more eager look. The USRA locomotives of 1918 in the the States were generally regarded as "good-lookers", particularly the Mikados and Pacifics, and they show the benefit of a proper smokebox.
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
One of the oddest little railroads in the history of railroading has to be the Waco, Beaumont, Trinity & Sabine Railway, which ran for a short time in Texas. It was better known as the Wobbledy, Bobbledy, Turnover & Stop. At one time its rolling stock consisted of specially outfitted motorcars pulling carriages. The difference between first and second class, I assume.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
One of the oddest little railroads in the history of railroading has to be the Waco, Beaumont, Trinity & Sabine Railway, which ran for a short time in Texas. It was better known as the Wobbledy, Bobbledy, Turnover & Stop. At one time its rolling stock consisted of specially outfitted motorcars pulling carriages. The difference between first and second class, I assume.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
One of the oddest little railroads in the history of railroading has to be the Waco, Beaumont, Trinity & Sabine Railway, which ran for a short time in Texas. It was better known as the Wobbledy, Bobbledy, Turnover & Stop. At one time its rolling stock consisted of specially outfitted motorcars pulling carriages. The difference between first and second class, I assume.

---

I guess this is as close as we get to your specially outfitted motorcars. The Railcars were infamously uncomfortable, according to one author, but kept Railways open.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I understand that the Newfoundland Railway actually had Sentinel steam cars at one time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

The Pichi Richi Railway, running north from the SA Peterborough, had its Coffeepot - boiler and cab of a steam loco, body of a narrow gauge carriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Tangent: I'm sure all on this thread are aware of the Peppercorn engine recently built new in the UK at fabulous cost as (I believe) no example existed in preservation. When I'm (very very) rich, I'm going to build an engine. What shall I build? PS This is not gonna be any time soon...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Tangent: I'm sure all on this thread are aware of the Peppercorn engine recently built new in the UK at fabulous cost as (I believe) no example existed in preservation. When I'm (very very) rich, I'm going to build an engine. What shall I build? PS This is not gonna be any time soon...

---

I don't want to be a bore but:

In Britain we have plenty of steam locomotives and the major problem is keeping those that are preserved in working order: some will always be static exhibits but if a locomotive can be put into running order, it should be and it should be kept that way.

We are however also missing a many of the lot of pre-nationalisation and especially pre-grouping rolling stock. I'm sure it would be better to have replica coaching stock to accompany the many pre-nationalisation locomotives; BR Mark 3's don't really go with steam.

---

I was against building the replica ‘A1’ 4-6-2 as we have so many ‘Pacifics’ already preserved in Britain. If I had been told at the start how much it was going to cost, I’d have been VERY against it. But its publicity value for railways in general and steam in particular has been huge. And it looks very good (I’ve yet to see it running, however).

The only replica I think should be done, and it wouldn’t cost too much compared to ‘Tornado., is one of the GER 0-6-0T ‘tram locos’ as used on the Wisbech & Upwell tramway. Build a proper replica, run it say on the North Norfolk Railway and yes, hire it out to various steam lines when they have a ’Friends of Th*m@$ ‘ event and need a ‘Toby the Tram Engine’. Because we need a new generation of enthusiasts and we need them to have ‘real steam’ and not the plastic-coated diesels that e.g. Drayton Manor theme park now has, over which the Rev. W. Awdry must be turning in his grave!

Sioni, they should build a rake of replica coaches as used on the LMS streamlined trains in the 1930s to go with ‘Duchess of Hamilton’ as she looks superb re-streamlined, and MUST be returned to working order!
 

---

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
I have to say I rather like the idea of a 2-10-2 in whatever form. I'm a rather uncultured steam engine enthusiast who has a nagging feeling somewhere along the line (no pun intended) that big is best... *going to look for pictures*
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The problem with running steam locomotives today is that they wear out. The Union Pacific sustains its 4-8-4 FEF-3 Northern 844 by salvaging spare parts from a non-running sister, 838. 838's boiler and running gear are in significantly better condition due to 844's extensive and continuous use since 1944.

The beautiful thing about Tornado is that it can be run up and down the country in excursion service without having to worry about destroying an actual preserved locomotive. The Pacific arrangement was probably chosen as it could go anywhere and be able to pull a decent set of passenger cars.

Let Tornado take the brunt of providing a running steam experience and spare the museum pieces!
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
Does anyone else agree with me in thinking that Modern Traction would look much better in pre-grouping liveries....imagine a DMU in Stroudley's improved Engine Green, fully lined of course! Imagine a HST in this , or even this livery
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
If we're being totally fictional, on this side of the pond I'd like to see what would have happened if passenger operations had been able to survive in private hands. Things were looking pretty grim in 1970, but the Staggers Act in the US was on the way in 1980. Since the mainline Class I's have consolidated into the Big Six (Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific) it would be interesting to see how private passenger trains would work with that corporate environment.

I'd also like to see passenger service on the Kansas City Southern and especially the Florida East Coast Railway. No passenger trains on the FEC is just wrong from a route and market POV.

Chicago would still lose a number of passenger stations. Dearborn and Union Station would likely have survived. The others, likely not.

On the subject of fantasy routes (which will in fact be built) a tunnel between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal. Finally.
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:
Does anyone else agree with me in thinking that Modern Traction would look much better in pre-grouping liveries....imagine a DMU in Stroudley's improved Engine Green, fully lined of course! Imagine a HST in this , or even this livery

---

Mmmmmm - nice!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Of course, that's been done before - eg BR lined black back in the 50s was basically LNWR livery.

But I know what you mean. I'm not sure I'd want to see the Gatwick Express in Billington's chocolate brown though! (Do you treat multiple units as locos or carriages, anyway?)
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
The leading/trailing ends are locomotives, the rest carriages. Obviously!
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
The leading/trailing ends are locomotives, the rest carriages. Obviously!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
The leading/trailing ends are locomotives, the rest carriages. Obviously!

---

Not obvious at all. Aren't the motors dispersed throughout the train?

---

Paint the Motors in Loco colours, whilst the rest of the train is painted in Carriage colours
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
When you say "motors", do you mean the engines themselves, or the carriages that carry them?

It's an important point ~ we need to get these things right.
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
About 30 years ago I saw an "if only" model railway of a 1930's Great Western main line as if it was still broad gauge (7’ 0½” gauge). The stock was of similar overall dimensions, just a little broader, but the point that sticks was that with the extra stability, higher speeds would be almost routine! You wouldn't have to break conjugated valve gear to travel at 126 mph, just devise a mechanical stoker to shift enough coal to a much wider firebox that in turn provides heat for a boiler that could heat a small town. [/QB]

---

I remember that model as well - I think you will find that most of the locomotives on that layout had huge single drivers - ie no coupled driving wheels.
If I remember rightly the model was built by Mike Sharman who was a leading light in The Broad Gauge Society and who went on to develop Scalefour Standards for broad gauge wheels. However when I googled for Mike Sharman and broad gauge I got
frogs instead.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
When you say "motors", do you mean the engines themselves, or the carriages that carry them?

It's an important point ~ we need to get these things right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How about the Severn Valley? 16 miles through the wonderful Worcestershire/Staffordshire countryside, two banks (Highley and Erdington) that tax the locos even now, a fabulous selection of GWR and LMS motive power, a full set of Gresley teak coaches as well as full rakes of GWR, LMS and BR ones as well, beautifully restored and kept stations including Arley, Highley and Bewdley, two tunnels, six viaducts, and a safari park - if nothing else, it must be the only standard gauge preserved railway in the country from which you can guarantee to see gazelles, bison and elephants!
Throw in some fabulous real ale served in the buffet cars and the new Engine House which holds the line's reserve collection of locos in a museum-like environment, and I think it beats the NYMR into a cocked hat [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
Why en't you say so, 'en?

---

Poor teid....the Cat is still scared of him
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Geroff,

Sounds like a good idea, a Shipmeet at the SVR. Reasonably accessible from all quarters, good ride, interesting railway, good company. All we have to do is remember to resurrect the idea rather nearer the time ...

Worth a try.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwyr:
When you say "motors", do you mean the engines themselves, or the carriages that carry them?

It's an important point ~ we need to get these things right.

---

The engines....duh! Blinking Sais!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by geroff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
About 30 years ago I saw an "if only" model railway of a 1930's Great Western main line as if it was still broad gauge (7’ 0½” gauge). The stock was of similar overall dimensions, just a little broader, but the point that sticks was that with the extra stability, higher speeds would be almost routine! You wouldn't have to break conjugated valve gear to travel at 126 mph, just devise a mechanical stoker to shift enough coal to a much wider firebox that in turn provides heat for a boiler that could heat a small town.

---

I remember that model as well - I think you will find that most of the locomotives on that layout had huge single drivers - ie no coupled driving wheels.
If I remember rightly the model was built by Mike Sharman who was a leading light in The Broad Gauge Society and who went on to develop Scalefour Standards for broad gauge wheels. However when I googled for Mike Sharman and broad gauge I got
frogs instead.

---

I remember Mike Sharman's articles - irreverently witty as well as informative - and the pictures of his amazingly fine models, both broad and standard gauge. I wondered if it were he to whom reference was made. (Good grammar, eh?).


[fixed code-can't fix trains]

[ 22. September 2009, 23:32: Message edited by: jedijudy ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Angloid's understanding of the HSTs : I know that high speed trains have a more powerful engine up-front. is almost right. The motorcars contain the engine, driving cab, and a compartment for a guard. Little difference between that and an ordinary loco.

Much more difference with the DEMUs which the Southern Region used run.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
If you check this link which was given on the previous page, BTW) you'll see an HST done in proper GWR green, with the guard's compartment marked separately in, obviously, chocolate&cream. So the motive power is visually separated from the rest. (And a fine suggestion it is, too!)

Unfortunately, checking back just a few years (say 100 or so!), you will find that there several passenger vehicles which looked quite ordinary outside, but which concealed a full steam locomotive with a vertical boiler and usually a 2-2-0 motive system (some were 0-4-0 s where it mattered). These were known as "steam railmotors", thoroughly confusing the language.

GWR version here

LNWR version here I hadn't realised that the LNWR ran to Cambridge, BTW. Silly me, thinking that Cambridge was somehow east of London.

And who would have thought that Rowland Emmett would have designed something that actually ran in Australia?

Here is the Canadian equivalent on the Grand Trunk Railway, used internationally (across Niagara Falls) at that. But this one is called a "self-propelled steam car"

The maintenance people hated these cars, because the works were incredibly difficult for access, and there were huge battles between roundhouse and passenger-car staff - the rounhouse just wanted to work on the locomotive and the car people wanted a relatively clean car (one that carried coal and a live boiler!)
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Double-posting to apologise to the hosts for putting so many links in. I'll try to behave.

With any luck, there is a host who is actually interested in some of this stuff!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Actually it can get quite complicated. HSTs have non-passenger-carrying power cars at the ends. So do Eurostars, but they also have them in the middle.

The old "Blue Pullmans" had power cars at the ends, but they had passenger compartments at the non-driving ends (and those bits were painted to match the rest of the carriages, as were the guards' compartments on the HSTs when they were in Intercity colours).

And the Swiss have (or used to have!) electric motor coaches with all the motors, pulling the rest of the train. Basically they are locomotives - but they are passenger-carrying vehicles.

Even with MUs it's not strictly clear. Today most trains have the motors slung under every carriage. But that's not always been the case: most older MUs are a mix of power cars and trailers. The old Bournemouth line REPs had a 4-car unit (including 2 powered cars) pulling or pushing up to 8 trailers in separate units ...

PS I see other people have put in posts while I was writing this!

[ 23. September 2009, 06:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :
 
This is probably the best looking diesel railcar of all time. Even the later more angular ones really look good. This wasn't just a styling exercise either, the shape was developed in a windtunnel. The interior is pure 1930s car design. Brilliant.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
As well as being good-looking, it was probably one of the more successful designs of railcar, once the GW had got around to fitting two engines (they were a bit underpowered with just the one).

From memory, the railcars were used on cross-country services like Birmingham to Cardiff, essentially as a toe in the water to see whether there might be a demand for the service. In the case of the Birmingham to Cardiff service, the railcars quickly generated more traffic than they could handle, hence my remark about their being successful.

Also from memory, I am sure that I saw Car No 4 at Bewdley (on the Severn Valley Railway) many years ago ~ we are tallking 1969 here ~ before services were running from Bridgenorth to Bewdley (let along Kidderminster). Does anybody happen to know what has become of it since?
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's at the Steam Museum at Swindon (seems a bit of a misnomer in this case!)
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
They might not be everyone's idea of beauty but the DeutschBahn 601 Class are very impressive pieces of work.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
According to the same website it is preserved at the Steam Museum Swindon.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Darllenwyr (# 14520) on :
 
Thank you, Jengie and Baptist Trainfan. I recognise that I now stand to be chewed out for claiming to have seen it at Bewdley in 1969. In mitigation I plead that I was only 8 at the time and memory may be at fault.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I also saw banana No 13 at the old Ironbridge station which was on the same line (or one of them as other lines also once radiated from Bewdley) but north of the preserved part of the SVR. If the link Jengie has given is correct in saying it was withdrawn in August 1960, this would have been quite late in its life. It was in the old red and cream coach livery.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
While doing some wandering in the websites linked above, I was reminded of the odd situation in Dartmouth, which had a proper railway station, but no track whatsoever, just a ramp down to the ferry that linked to the trains at Kingswear.

Were there any other stations that were not connected to their railways, but still functioned as stations?
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Lisbon in Portugal had the "Sul e Soueste" (or "Terreiro de Paco") station on the River Tejo. From there boats took you across the river to Barreiro from where you took trains to the Algarve. The boats were 2-class and the journey took nearly 30 minutes.

The station still exists, however since 1993 it has run under the aegis of the "Soflusa" ferry company. Barreiro station is now served almost entirely by suburban trains as long-distance services run across the river from Lisbon using the relatively new rail deck on the Tejo bridge.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
With any luck, there is a host who is actually interested in some of this stuff!

---

On the other hand, chocolates have been known to restore interest ...
 

---

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
They might not be everyone's idea of beauty but the DeutschBahn 601 Class are very impressive pieces of work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Which is your favourite ‘preserved line’ (you may call them ‘heritage railways’,: I prefer not to)? And do say ‘why’.

Mine would be the North Yorkshire Moors Railway: 18 miles long, plus on most days a further six into Whitby; scenery of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and Esk Valley; the line dates back to 1835; 1 in 49 gradients particularly between Grosmont and Goathland; probably the best collection of ex-LNER locos (including Sir Nigel Gresley and an NER 0-8-0) and coaches on any preserved line; stations like Goathland and Pickering…

Beat that!

---

The North York Moors line is my favourite English preserved line. The wife and I were fortunate enough to take a trip from Whitby to Pickering courtesy of the NYMR a couple of weeks back. Southern Railway 4-6-0 850 hauled us from Whitby to Grosmont where it was replaced by the NER 0-8-0. A Ivatt 5MT hauled us back to Grosmont, then, thanks to a broken fishplate at Danby, they top-and-tailed the last tran into Whitby with a Class 25 on the business end and SR 850 on the tail. The "Rat" was in fine voice as it accelerated out of the various speed restrictions on the line into Whitby. It reminded me of my bashing trips to Scotland in the 1980s when the "MacRats" - Classes 26 and 27 - were still holding down passenger diagrams around Perth and Dundee.

One thing I had forgotten was just how tight the curves are on the old Whitby and Pickering. Travelling in the NYMR's old Mk1s you got a sort of "hum" going around the tighter beds; later in the week in a Cl. 156 that hum became a scream as flanges bit into the rails on the tightest curves. The reason for the different of noise is that the BP Mk1 is "C1" - 64'6" in length whilst the class 156 is "C3" - 23 metres or roughly 74'11" long, so the bogie centers are further apart on the "156."

The NYMR trains into Whitby are seven coaches long - the most the platform at Whitby will hold. They have also got the art of pushing back, running round, and setting back at Whitby down to a fine art; which they need to do when they are dropping and picking up anything up to 260 passengers with each train. It is a good job that they retained a carriage siding and a runround at Whitby when the place was "rationalized" in the late 1980s.

PD

[ 28. September 2009, 05:45: Message edited by: PD ]
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
We might be going to York by steam in the next few months
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
One of these days, I'd really like to take the coastal Amtrak route from San Diego to San Francisco. The scenery is incredible but it's too steep and windy to both sight-see and drive on CA Pacific Coast Hwy 1.
 

---

Posted by booktonmacarthur (# 14308) on :
 
I would love to travel from London to Thurso, via the West Coast Main Line!
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
A few years ago my wife and I travelled from Shrewsbury to Crianlarich by catching the sleeper from Crewe. There is a lot to be said for waking up just after Helensburgh Upper to the beauty of the Scottish Highlands. Two years before that we travelled to Perth via the Settle and Carlisle, and Edinburgh. This was an exercise in avoiding engineering works, but with the added bonus of wonderful scenery once we got far enough out of Leeds. Otherwise we usually go up to Scotland on the ECML, which only becomes scenic north of York. My favourite stretches of the ECML have to be around Durham, and then north of Morpeth up to the outskirts of Edinburgh.

In 2000 we travelled from Los Angeles to Salem, OR on Amtrak and we thoroughly enjoyed it. The run up the southern coast is done in daylight, the dreary stretch between Sacto and Dunsmuir is overnight, and then it is daylight again for the scenic ride through the mountains into OR, and up to Seattle. However, timekeeping is not a strong point on that route as the line between Santa Barbara and Oakland is a secondary route. Southern Pacific and later Union Pacific have the arrears of maintenance build up on that route since the mid-1980s. This has forced Amtrak to pad the LAUPT to Oakland schedule from 10hrs 30mins in 1985 to little over 12 hours today. This allows for reduced speeds in the Salinas Valley which seems to be slack infested. Even then the Coast Starlight can run into LAUPT a couple of hours late. Northbound there seems to be less of a problem, as there is ample opportunity to recover time morth of Richmond, CA. This usually takes care of any arrears built up south of Oakland.

PD
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Posted by PD:

quote:

---

The North York Moors line is my favourite English preserved line. The wife and I were fortunate enough to take a trip from Whitby to Pickering courtesy of the NYMR a couple of weeks back. Southern Railway 4-6-0 850 hauled us from Whitby to Grosmont where it was replaced by the NER 0-8-0. A Ivatt 5MT hauled us back to Grosmont, then, thanks to a broken fishplate at Danby, they top-and-tailed the last tran into Whitby with a Class 25 on the business end and SR 850 on the tail. The "Rat" was in fine voice as it accelerated out of the various speed restrictions on the line into Whitby. It reminded me of my bashing trips to Scotland in the 1980s when the "MacRats" - Classes 26 and 27 - were still holding down passenger diagrams around Perth and Dundee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Posted by PD:

quote:

---

The North York Moors line is my favourite English preserved line. The wife and I were fortunate enough to take a trip from Whitby to Pickering courtesy of the NYMR a couple of weeks back. Southern Railway 4-6-0 850 hauled us from Whitby to Grosmont where it was replaced by the NER 0-8-0. A Ivatt 5MT hauled us back to Grosmont, then, thanks to a broken fishplate at Danby, they top-and-tailed the last tran into Whitby with a Class 25 on the business end and SR 850 on the tail. The "Rat" was in fine voice as it accelerated out of the various speed restrictions on the line into Whitby. It reminded me of my bashing trips to Scotland in the 1980s when the "MacRats" - Classes 26 and 27 - were still holding down passenger diagrams around Perth and Dundee.

---

Pedant alert!
I thik you'll find that the Southern 4-6-0 was S15 825, as 850 is the eponymous first member of the 'Lord Nelson' class (and hasn't, AFAIK, ever visited the NYMR)!

There's no such thing as an 'Ivatt 5MT'! Well, apart from some of the Stanier 'Black Fives' that were modified by Ivatt, and the only one of these preserved is 44767 'George Stephenson'. This has been an NYMR loco (and probably will be again at some stage) but it is not currently on the line AFAIK. The railway does have a BR Standard 4MT 4-6-0 (75029) running this year (as I have been hauled by it early last month, alomg with 825 and 30926 'Repton').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
The big attraction of double chimneys (and multiple exhausts in general) was that they reduced the back-pressure in the cylinders during the exhaust stroke: 10 psi typical in a single-chimney design could be reduced to 5 psi or less, without compromising the smokebox vacuum and therefore the draught on the fire. Any reduction in back-pressure translated into more power available to do useful work, important at any significant speed.

The downside to the equation (there's always one of those) was that the exhaust pressure, being that much lower, didn't eject the smoke and steam from the chimney as forcefully, which lead to it being caught in the vortex that forms around the rim of the smokebox at any significant speed. The A4's were not prone to this problem because of the streamlining, but the Bullied 'spam cans' had quite serious problems when first introduced. Does anybody know whether the streamlined 'Coronations' were affected or not?

Because of their taper boilers, GWR locomotives had smaller smokeboxes and taller chimneys (by comparison) than their LNER counterparts (with their parallel boilers), with the consequence that, even with the softer blast, the smoke and steam were ejected above the influence of the smokebox vortex, hence the lesser problem on the GWR.

In regard to GWR AWS, I think it was thought that a physical contact system was not compatible with the higher speeds then being envisaged ~ one hesitates to contemplate what would have been the consequences of a GWR ramp and shoe making contact at 225 km/h ...

---

quote:

---

The GWR seems to have had less trouble with smoke hanging along the the boiler top. It was less of an issue anyway thanks to most major GWR routes were equiped with ATC cab signals...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Having a taper boiler on its own wasn't enough to prevent steam drifting. Rebuilt Scots and Patriots suffered badly from it. I've read somewhere that the smoke deflectors fitted to them as standard from the early fifties were fairly useless, except for Gordon Highlander which had a different pattern more like a Britannia, which worked.

Unrebuilt Scots and unrebuilt Patriots must have had the same problem as they all had deflectors, whereas Jubilees, with the exception of the two that were rebuilt with class 7 boilers, were not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
One of these days, I'd really like to take the coastal Amtrak route from San Diego to San Francisco. The scenery is incredible but it's too steep and windy to both sight-see and drive on CA Pacific Coast Hwy 1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
I have just realized I made a very silly typo a couple of posts back. The second paragraph shuld read:

quote:

---

The GWR seems to have had less trouble with smoke hanging along the the boiler top. It was less of an issue anyway thanks to most major GWR routes were equiped with ATC cab signals...

---

Ooops!
PD

---

Taller chimneys on GWR express locos have been alluded to. Whilst there may be some truth that the taper boilers helped make this possible, the main reason was a more generous loading gauge on GWR main lines, probably a legacy from 'broad gauge' days.

Someone (I think it was Horseman Bree) commented on the A1 ('Tornado') having a smaller smokebox than e.g. a 'King'. Look again! Look at the sheer length of the thing! When Thompson rebuilt 4470 'Great Northern' in about 1945 to make the prototype 'A1/1' he gave her a much longer smokebox than a Gresley A1 or A3. And Peppercorn gave a long smokebox to all his production 'Pacifics' (A1s and A2s), and tidied up the cylinders and valve/gear/rods considerably (how awful, by comparison, Thompson's Pacifics looked!)
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I'm a bit surprised that the rebuilt Scots would have had the problem, given their nearly-Swindon profile. The unrebuilt ones would have had the huge, ugly wrapper smokeboxes, larger diameter than the boiler, with a complete ring of vortex creation just abaft the chimney.

I don't know what the excuse is for the Britannias, but designers never really understood the concept. When CN tried streamlining 4-8-4s in 1936, the casing ("wind-tunnel tested"!) proved less effective than the "normal" outline of locomotives. CP, OTOH, had a pleasantly-styled design for their Royal Hudsons that worked well at smoke clearing. The original twenty, normally-profiled, had to have deflectors added, once the feedwater heaters were applied. (scroll down the linked page to near the middle for comparative photos)
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
It is interesting (well, I think it's interesting) to reflect that part of the logic of the spam can casing on Bullied's Merchant Navy class was to clear drifting smoke from the cab windows (the other part of the logic was that the loco could be passed through an automatic carriage washer), hence the curious vent arrangement around the chimney. As we all know, the spam cans were notorious for their problems with drifting smoke (considered by some to be a contributory factor in the Lewisham accident) so one can say fairly safely that this was not a particular design success.

Again and again we seem to come to the same conclusion ~ the chimney had to be tall enough to escape the smokebox vortex. With the loading gauge restrictions on three of the Big Four (particularly the Southern), this was always going to be a problem. Introduce the soft blast characteristic of multiple exhausts and you are in deep doo-doo.

On the issue of taper boilers, whilst it is true that the LNER pacifics had taper boilers, the taper was nowhere near as pronounced (in relation to boiler diameter) as that of GWR passenger locomotives. Also, examine the question of clearance between the top of a Gresley boiler and a tunnel invert ~ there was precious little room. Gresley chimneys had to be short; there was no room for them to be otherwise.

On the issue of Edward Thompson's pacifics, one has to ask what on earth he thought he was doing, extending the chassis in the way he did? The huge gap between the leading bogie and the front coupled axle is inexplicable and could hardly have done anything to improve frame rigidity. It has been suggested that his rebuilding of Great Northern (the original Gresley pacific) was a matter of pure vindictive spite ~ it has to be admitted that it was the oldest of the pacifics and thus an 'obvious' candidate for rebuilding, but even so ...
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The GNR/LNER pitched their Pacific boilers much higher than any other railway. The boilers themselves were relatively small diameter, but the centreline was considerably higher than would be the case on any railway influenced by Churchward (Collett, Stanier, Bulleid...)

This forced the chimney to be very low above the smokebox.

And, yes, when you add the weird conversion of the first Pacific, you get a humongous empty space that served no purpose other than to increase the wheelbase and weaken the frame.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Oh the joy at discovering this thread!

As a child I had pictures on my bedroom wall of GWR Modified Halls on the Cambrian Coast Line. This summer, 35 years on, I rode from Machynlleth to Pwllheli and back behind BR Standard Class 4 76079. It was a delight.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Actually, I suspect that what I had in the photos as a child were Manors.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I must confess this thread has been an education, since I'm not terribly familiar with British locomotives.
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, yes, when you add the weird conversion of the first Pacific, you get a humongous empty space that served no purpose other than to increase the wheelbase and weaken the frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Actually, I suspect that what I had in the photos as a child were Manors.

---

Oops!

We'll forgive you, Trisagion. Unless the locomotive number is visible, identifying the class of the various 2-cylinder GWR 4-6-0's is not the simplest passtime ~ they were quite similar.

Horseman, am I right in assuming that you are speaking from a transatlantic perspective when you describe the LNER pacifics as having "small diameter" boilers? By British standards, Gresley's pacifics had some of the largest diameter boilers ever rolled (maximum diameter, above the firebox throatplate exceeded 6 feet in some cases), hence the tight fit within the loading gauge. I guess that, by American standards, this is pretty small, but for us it was large. I think you will find that Gresley boilers were probably only exceeded in diameter (in this country) by that fitted to the U1 Garratt built during his jurisdiction for the Worsborough incline.

I stand to be corrected on this one, but I thought Bullied was more influenced by Gresley than Churchward ~ wasn't he Gresley's personal assistant? Granted that Gresley was influenced by GWR practice where valve travel was concerned, I would have thought the GWR influence in SR practice was more via Maunsell.

SPK, glad to be of service. The same is true from this side of the pond ~ my ignorance of North American practice is legendary.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Actually, I suspect that what I had in the photos as a child were Manors.

I think you're probably right as they were the only GWR 4-6-0s that were blue rather than red, or in the case of the Kings, double red. Perhaps someone who is even more disturbed than I am could tell us whether Manors were allowed on the northern section to Pwllheli or just the main line from Welshpool to Aber?


Reverting to Scots and smoke deflectors, the rebuilt ones certainly had taper boilers but the taper wasn't as pronounced as, say, a Castle. The Cities and Duchesses all end up with smoke deflectors, whereas the Princess Royals did not. Until well into the fifties, the ones that had been de-streamlined had a shaved off bit at the top of the smoke box where the streamlining had been removed. I don't know whether that had any effect on smoke drifting.

It was said to be more a symptom of when the engine wasn't working very hard. Hard work produced an emphatic draft that pushed the smoke and steam out of the chimney.


On big LNER locs, much though I'd like to have seen on in P2 form, reminiscences in the 1950s of those that had driven them suggest that although they could pull anything stuck behind them, they burnt coal at a phenomenal rate even with light loads. The load made no difference; the fire just burned. Also, the eight coupled wheels squealed badly going round some of the tortuous curves on the line to Aberdeen that they normally ran on. The number of different permutations of A2s suggests the blend may not have been quite right.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The GNR/LNER pitched their Pacific boilers much higher than any other railway. The boilers themselves were relatively small diameter, but the centreline was considerably higher than would be the case on any railway influenced by Churchward (Collett, Stanier, Bulleid...)

This forced the chimney to be very low above the smokebox.

And, yes, when you add the weird conversion of the first Pacific, you get a humongous empty space that served no purpose other than to increase the wheelbase and weaken the frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I'm reasonably confident (as in, 80+ percent) that the Manors ran to Pwllheli ~ they were designed with former Cambrian routes in mind. I think the only Welsh mainline route from which they were barred was the old Mid Wales line through Llanidloes and Rhayader to Three Cocks Junction and Brecon, much of which was Yellow restriction.

I believe you are right about the P2's ~ their wheelbase was just that bit too long for the Aberdeen route and their coal consumption was legendary, though for all the wrong reasons. But I think it is fair to say that Thompson's rebuilding did nothing to solve the wheelbase problem and didn't do a great deal for adhesion either, hence Lord P's rather delphic remark above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
On a tangent, anyone else like Don Bilston? (it's a Myspace pace, but it's the most interesting one I found on a quick search).

AG

---

quote:

---

The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
A somewhat belated reply to PD, who wrote that:

quote:

---

The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.

---

IIRC, it was the P1's - the first Mikados, used only on freight - that had an A3 boiler on top of a different chassis. The P2's seem to have been completely different beasties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
A somewhat belated reply to PD, who wrote that:

quote:

---

The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.

---

IIRC, it was the P1's - the first Mikados, used only on freight - that had an A3 boiler on top of a different chassis. The P2's seem to have been completely different beasties.

---

Funnily enough, that rather illustrates what Thompson hated about Gresley's locomotive policy. Gresley had a habit of building small classes of highly specialized locomotives. Part of this was due to the LNER being skint, and part of it was due to Gresley's desire try new ideas. It does not matter which it was, it was still a running shed foreman's nightmare.

PD
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Major question, tangenting off: why were the English so obsessed with inside cylinders? All 0-6-0s, including Bulleid's, almost all 0-8-0s and most shunting tanks. More puzzling, most 4-4-0s, which is a wheel placement that allows for the cylinders in a well-balanced location. Did the designers have total contempt for the maintenance people?

I think the answer to the second question was 'yes'. The same applied to those that designed Jaguars in the fifties.

But I think there was also the view that the drive should be onto axles that were supported at both ends by frames.

There's still a lot of people about even now who seem to be oblivious to what I'd regard as one of the most basic design principles - start by asking oneself, 'how will I repair this?' Anyone who says 'my machinery or software won't break down' is revealing themselves to be a fool.


Also, on an 0-6-0 or an 0-8-0, outside cylinders don't look very stable in front of driving axles with no leading axle. With inside cylinders they can be above the front driving axle - even though they're impossible to get at. I'm fairly sure the big North Eastern 0-8-0s did not have continuous brake fittings and so would have been restricted to slow mineral use. Industrial 0-6-0 tanks with outside cylinders used for passenger trains on preserved lines do seem prone to imparting a to and fro effect to the carriages behind them.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
One of the objections to outside cylinders on 4-coupled engines (ie, with a short fixed wheelbase) was the way that the locomotive swayed around the vertical axis in response to the piston thrusts ~ the outside cylinders had a greater moment of inertia than their inside equivalent, with consequent rough riding.

It goes back to the earliest years of steam in this country: consider 'Rocket', probably the simplest chassis you could devise, 0-2-2. Outside cylinders (albeit in a rather curious location) and a classic rough rider. When Stephenson introduced his 'Planet' design, he put the cylinders inside the frames and close to the centre line, thus improving the ride, even though the engine still only had 2 axles. I think that many designers took the view that Stephenson knew best, and just followed the received wisdom in fitting inside cylinders, even though crank axles were known to be a weak point and fracture was far from unknown.

There was also the Victorian predisposition for hiding 'the works' from view as though they were somehow indecent.

It seems to me that American designers adopted leading trucks very early on in Railroad history ~ was that, as has been suggested, in deference to indifferent track quality? The presence of a leading truck tends to suppress the oscillations that British designers used inside cylinders to avoid. Because they had dealt with the oscillation problem, American designers decided that they didn't need the hassle of crank axles, so why use inside cylinders? Good thinking.

Saying all of that, it is hard to understand why Bullied used inside cylinders on his Q1's unless it was to reduce weight ~ it is possible that using the cylinder block to brace the frame meant that he could allocate more of his maximum weight elsewhere, specifically to the boiler. As his objective was to build the most powerful locomotive possible on a 6-wheel chassis, and the boiler is the key to steam locomotive power, one can understand a desire not to add any deadweight that was avoidable.

Don't know ...
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

.
.
.
.
.

Phew
.
.
.
.
.


 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I can't think of an inside-cylinder loco built for North American service after about 1850. OTOH, almost any loco used outside the yard had a lead truck, so the oscillation and front-overhang problem wasn't there.

So why the obsession with 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 designs for road service? (Not just in England, but in places with poor track like the Khyber Pass, where i.-c. 0-6-0s were in use within the last generation)

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A slightly late answer to Darllenwr and others, re: the boiler of LNER Pacifics.

Looking over the various pictures I can find, I realise that the boilers were actually about the same size as those on Stanier's Pacifics. But Stanier's locos LOOKED much heavier, while the LNE ones looked very tall and spindly, with visually smaller boilers perched above fully-exposed wheels. I suppose this relates to the heavy running plate, deflectors and smokebox ring of the Staniers, compared to the openness of the A1s and A2s.

Minor question: why did the Princesses never have deflectors, while the Coronations all had them? Is it the effect of the double chimney?

Major question, tangenting off: why were the English so obsessed with inside cylinders? All 0-6-0s, including Bulleid's, almost all 0-8-0s and most shunting tanks. More puzzling, most 4-4-0s, which is a wheel placement that allows for the cylinders in a well-balanced location. Did the designers have total contempt for the maintenance people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I can't think of an inside-cylinder loco built for North American service after about 1850. OTOH, almost any loco used outside the yard had a lead truck, so the oscillation and front-overhang problem wasn't there.

So why the obsession with 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 designs for road service? (Not just in England, but in places with poor track like the Khyber Pass, where i.-c. 0-6-0s were in use within the last generation)

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:

It seems to me that American designers adopted leading trucks very early on in Railroad history ~ was that, as has been suggested, in deference to indifferent track quality? The presence of a leading truck tends to suppress the oscillations that British designers used inside cylinders to avoid. Because they had dealt with the oscillation problem, American designers decided that they didn't need the hassle of crank axles, so why use inside cylinders? Good thinking

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
PD, the great British loose-coupled freight train has a great deal to answer for, but the design of the WR D600 class, although in deference to loose-coupled freight, was no part of the WR Management plan ~ it was forced upon them by the British Transport Commission who held the purse strings.

The intention of WR management was to eliminate the loose-coupled, unbraked, freight train, which would make a heavy locomotive (purely for braking purposes) unnecessary. Hence their call for a 2200 hp locomotive weighing 80 tons (the D800 class). What they got was a 2000 hp locomotive weighing 117 tons (the D600's). This was because the BTC had not the foresight to accept that the unbraked freight was an annachronism and was designing 2000 hp diesel-electric locomotives weighing 133 tons (the D1's). The BTC's view was (approximately) "what's good enough for us is good enough for you", which led to the insistence upon a heavy-weight locomotive built on a strength underframe; the D600's. By contrast, the D800's used stressed-skin construction (as did the D1000's) to minimise weight.

What is hard to comprehend is why neither management had the foresight to abandon vacuum brakes in favour of air. Granted the Mark 1 carriage fleet argued in favour of vacuum brakes, but the Mark 2's, with air brakes, were just around the corner. The fact that the WR diesel-hydraulics presented major problems when conversion to air braking was required was a significant factor in their early demise.

That and the fact that BTC had never liked them in the first place.

---

It is a comfort to know that the D600s were the BTC's fault, because otherwise the WR Diesel Hydraulics were reasonably successful - apart, that is, from the "half a D600" Bo-Bos built by NBL for local passenger and freight work.

I think British Rail's XP64 prototype was the first time they fitted a whole passenger train with air brakes. IIRC some early batches of the Mk2 fleet were ordered with either vacuum brakes or dual brake. The switch to air only came with Mk2b/c around 1966.

PD
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
PD, I don't know whether it is your 'bag' or not, but if you are interested in the WR diesel-hydraulics, "The Western's Hydraulics" by J.K.Lewis (ISBN 1-901945-54-5) makes interesting reading. Originally published in 1977, it is a reasonably thorough overview of WR traction policy in the late 1950's, the interaction with BTC (who were, it seems, interested in crushing the enterprise being shown by WR management) and the consequences.

One can say with reasonable assurance that the D600's and D6300's were all killed by the same problem: the MAN L12V18/21S engine. Reliability was always an issue.

Saying that, the Maybach-engined D1000's, D800's and D7000's didn't always fare much better, though the problem in their cases would seem to have had more to do with inadequate maintenance rather than intrinsic shortcomings to the engines themselves. It seems to me that the maintenance staff couldn't quite get their heads around the fact that they were running high-stress engines that needed just that little bit more attention than the big Sulzer engines in the D1's. They could have learned a few lessons from the guys who maintained the Deltics.

And all this from an avowed steam man.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?

---

Actually, to be honest, I'm remembering my late father - he died in 1974! - who lived for rail, resented electrics and diesels but still lived for rail. He was a Signal and Telecommunications engineer in Kenya and Ghana ... his eyes would light up when he saw a steam engine ... I was still a child, though when he died, and didn't grab the bug.

I'm sure there will be steam trains in heaven.* My own faint memories of locos pulling into some London station were memories of awe.

*And a celestial de-poluting device!
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

I'm sure there will be steam trains in heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There were very few benefits from running loose coupled goods trains, but there was one.

This is that a small engine with sufficient power to keep one trundling along at 15 mph could get one into motion. The slack in the couplings meant that on starting the engine only had to overcome the inertia in the first five or so trucks. It then picked up the weight of the rest of the train once it was already moving. When stopping, it was important to make sure the trucks buffered up to each other so that all the couplings were hanging slack.

That is more of a problem on an incline where unless the guard got his braking right, on stopping the trucks would run back so that the couplings were stretched.

One thing which will puzzle non-UK enthusiasts is that there was a middle range of freights than ran partially fitted, with a fitted head of say 10 wagons, and the rest loose.

Incidentally, I've long suspected that the Jones Goods was influenced by the sort of thing the Scottish manufacturers were by then building for the colonial market.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
PD, I don't know whether it is your 'bag' or not, but if you are interested in the WR diesel-hydraulics, "The Western's Hydraulics" by J.K.Lewis (ISBN 1-901945-54-5) makes interesting reading. Originally published in 1977, it is a reasonably thorough overview of WR traction policy in the late 1950's, the interaction with BTC (who were, it seems, interested in crushing the enterprise being shown by WR management) and the consequences.

One can say with reasonable assurance that the D600's and D6300's were all killed by the same problem: the MAN L12V18/21S engine. Reliability was always an issue.

Saying that, the Maybach-engined D1000's, D800's and D7000's didn't always fare much better, though the problem in their cases would seem to have had more to do with inadequate maintenance rather than intrinsic shortcomings to the engines themselves. It seems to me that the maintenance staff couldn't quite get their heads around the fact that they were running high-stress engines that needed just that little bit more attention than the big Sulzer engines in the D1's. They could have learned a few lessons from the guys who maintained the Deltics.

And all this from an avowed steam man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Nice picture, TonyK!

PD, since it obviously interests you, there's another book in my collection that might capture your attention: "Diesel Pioneers" by David N. Clough, ISBN 0-7110-3067-7. I bought it because it contains information on the Fell engine, No 10100, but it essentially traces the stories of all of the original Modernisation Plan diesels in this country, in other words, all the 1950's classes of Types 1, 2 and 4, plus 'Deltic', 'Falcon' 'DP2' and 'Lion'. From it I learned that the CIE 'Crossleys' were very closely related to the D5700's in this country, also variously known as 'Crossleys', 'Metro-Vicks' or 'Co-Bo's'. They also suffered exactly the same faults, with serious crankcase cracking of the engines. The curiosity of it is that the D5700's were not a facsimile copy of the CIE locomotives (on 6 axles) ~ why this should have been seems to be a mystery. Possibly BR were not prepared to pay for 6 axles if they could get by on 5?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Well, here's a picture to gladden the heart of any rail enthusiast!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
this thread exists just to torture hosts, doesn't it?

be honest, you aren't really discussing anything, just talking gibberish and giggling behind your hands imagining us turning our heads one way, then the other, like a dog watching Rocky the Flying Squirrel on TV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Strictly Come Gardening On Ice

---

careful or someone will steal your idea!



[eta: to be fair, I think that last "enthusiast" thread I started was on soap. so by all means, carry on!]

[ 05. October 2009, 17:57: Message edited by: comet ]
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
....heck, railway modelling used to be the done thing amongst Anglican clergy!

---

When they got home from their masonic lodges (see thread in Hell)
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
+Eric Treacy was a noted railway photographer

---

So much so that he met his Maker on the platform of Appleby station.

But this thread is seriously weird. I like trains and might have even dared (once) call myself an 'enthusiast': but I've not come across anything in Ecclesiantics quite so determinedly jargon-filled and impenetrable to outsiders as this. I suppose it depends where you're coming from though.

But don't let me stop the fun.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Comet, would you feel any better about this if I told you there was an engine called Comet, and also an express called 'the Comet'? The engine was 45735 and was one of only two Jubilees rebuilt with 7P boilers. The express ran from London to Manchester.

Not many people know that, and it's evidence of serious insanity to want to.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 


I dont know what that all means, but it sounds good!
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
a picture of one of the trains he is talking about.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :
 

quote:

---

+Eric Treacy was a noted railway photographer ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Comet, would you feel any better about this if I told you there was an engine called Comet, and also an express called 'the Comet'? The engine was 45735 and was one of only two Jubilees rebuilt with 7P boilers. The express ran from London to Manchester.

Not many people know that, and it's evidence of serious insanity to want to.

---

Also 5735 'Comet' (and her sister 'Phoenix') were, along with several other 'Jubilees', named after very early steam locos, I think from the London & Birmingham Railway (and the Liverpool & Manchester).

We've had some good stuff on Irish diesels. What about Irish steam? Anyone else a fan of the three B1a 4-6-0s? Very Like the rebuilt 'Jubilees' or 'Scots' to look at, except their boilers weren't actually tapered, but the boiler cladding was built up to achieve that look. I'd love to see the preserved No. 800 'Meadhbh' blasting out of Cork bound for Dublin but alas! this is unliklely to ever happen again!
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Tangential question: How does one sound out the "dhbh" of "Maedhbh"? And why does it work that way?

It looks like a rather rude noise made by a small boy.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Her name is pronounced "Mave" and usually rendered Maeve in English. All steam locomotives are female, like ships. In this respect the Rev Awdry was wrong.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Her name is pronounced "Mave" and usually rendered Maeve in English. All steam locomotives are female, like ships. In this respect the Rev Awdry was wrong.

---

quote:

---

I've not come across anything in Ecclesiantics quite so determinedly jargon-filled and impenetrable to outsiders as this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strangely Warmed:

quote:

---

I've not come across anything in Ecclesiantics quite so determinedly jargon-filled and impenetrable to outsiders as this.

---

I've long maintained that Anglo-Catholicism is the ecclesiastical equivalent of train-spotting. I mean that in the very nicest possible way, as a devotee of both.

---

Well quite. I'd defy anyone to tell the difference (assuming they swapped costumes) between the volunteer crew of a preserved steam railway and a branch of the Guild of Servants of the Sanctuary. Actually, it could well be the same people.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I know of at least one United Church of Canada minister who was buried with a model of Canadian Pacific diesel in his casket. He was a good friend of mine.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The post about Irish train speeds jogged my memory to remind me that I have a 1944 timetable (the "Official Guide of the Railways" for North merica, no less!)

At that time, the Maritimes, particularly the ports, were a big deal on CN, since everything going overseas went through those ports in winter, when the St. Lawrence froze. But still only three through trains a day, each way, with extra sections for overloads. (Not to mention all the freights and extras like troop trains)

Typically 5 hours for 187 miles, Moncton to Campbellton (4h50m for one), with 4 stops, including one for coal and water. BUT this is with at least 12 cars, and up to 18, or 1000 to 1500 tons, and the loco had to provide steam heat at -20.

AND on single track with passing sidings. Passenger trains took precedence over freight, and westbound over eastbound. But the speed differential couldn't be too high.

It actually says a lot that the stopping train, that did all the mail and parcels for the other 19 stations on the way only took 2 hours longer!

The fact that the present-day one-train-a-day Ocean Limited service does the run in 4h30min, using diesels with twice the horsepower of the 4-8-4s and second-hand Nightstar stock, indicates how little anyone cares about passenger rail here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Oh dear. My arcanicity seems to have reduced this thread to silence. Would it get anything going again, or arouse any interest if I mentioned that the Jubilees (see above) included sets of engines named after the provinces of Canada, the states of Australia and a lot of interesting princely states in India? Also, some famous admirals, sea battles and ships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you want evocative Scottish names carried by locomotives then the NBR 4-4-0's of the D29 and D30 classes, which carried names of characters in Sir Walter Scott's novels are fine examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It was an expression of general admiration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I've just come across this image on a new (to me) site.

It shows the Ocean Limited on the line I was discussing.

Incidental note, going back a page or so: I notice it is running lightly, so that the steam is not jetting up strongly, but there doesn't seem to be much issue with smoke drifting low, despite the feedwater heater ahead of the stack. I've seen more drift on locos with deflectors. This one shows that the deflectors do help.

---

Beautiful. The train has just passed my old house, the Campbellton Manse.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I always thought that the North British Railway had some interesting locomotive names. A real mix of history, Sir Walter Scott, and local interest. They also built some extremely good looking Atlantics for their stretch of the ECML none of which - unfortunately - survived into preservation.

The Highland Railway used to have fun with names as well.

The GWR built some extremely handsome locomotives, but got into a rut on the names after 1914. The Saints and the Stars had an interesting variety, but when it got to the Castles, Halls, Granges, and Manors, the system was taking over. One of the last batch of Halls - admittedly completed after nationalization - ended up as "Burton Agnes Hall" which is in the East Riding of Yorkshire - a long way from GWR territory!

PD
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Or the non-existent Welsh one, Bwgyr Hall.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ahem. Individual North American locomotives typically don't have names.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Sorry to backtrack ~ been away for a few days with no computer access ~ PD, on the subject of the BR D5700's, I think the main reason that BR scrapped rather than re-engine was down to the small number of locomotives involved, and the decision to reduce the number of "non-standard" classes. On a number of heads the D5700's could be deemed "non-standard" which made them easy candidates for elimination. I think that their Irish equivalents were built in sufficient numbers to make it uneconomic to simply scrap them, hence the decision to rebuild.

On the subject of locomotives names, has anybody come across "Bachelor's Button"? I believe that name was carried by an LNER A3 pacific, presumably named after a racehorse, as many of them were. The name appeals because of its apparent eccentricity ~ if you don't know about the racehorse connection, many LNER names seem very odd indeed (how about "Grand Parade", another A3?).
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Ahem, ahem. With the notable exception of the Dominion Atlantic, which ransacked the list of names associated with the story of Evangeline for their locos in the steam era.

The list is here Note that the locomotives pre-CP tended to have names of local significance (places, people), while the CP era gave names from the story of Evangeline.

An interesting case of a British-financed railway built in Loyalist territory using the names and story of the group that the British invaders (abetted by the intolerant Yankees) expelled forcibly to romanticise and sell a tourist operation. (Not that the Acadians were actually on display in that operation!)

They get serious credit for making Nova Scotia a well-known tourism destination, aided later by displaced Scot Alexander Graham Bell and his connections to the National Geographic magazine.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Dallernwr,

I think you'll find that Batchelor's Button is the common name given to a small flower, which was often used as a buttonhole flower. Many days have passed since then.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Sorry to backtrack ~ been away for a few days with no computer access ~ PD, on the subject of the BR D5700's, I think the main reason that BR scrapped rather than re-engine was down to the small number of locomotives involved, and the decision to reduce the number of "non-standard" classes. On a number of heads the D5700's could be deemed "non-standard" which made them easy candidates for elimination. I think that their Irish equivalents were built in sufficient numbers to make it uneconomic to simply scrap them, hence the decision to rebuild.

---

I think you'll find that I tacitly acknowledged that fact when I wrote:

"The A and C classes were a major chunk of CIE's fleet; there was therefore an incentive to try and sort them out."

The clear implication of that sentence is that that the BR Metro-Vicks were not similarly circumstanced and warranting a sort out.

PD
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Fair point, PD ~ apologies for missing the obvious.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
... On the subject of locomotives names, has anybody come across "Bachelor's Button"? I believe that name was carried by an LNER A3 pacific, presumably named after a racehorse, as many of them were. The name appeals because of its apparent eccentricity ~ if you don't know about the racehorse connection, many LNER names seem very odd indeed (how about "Grand Parade", another A3?).

---

My favourite A3 name is 'Royal Lancer' (BR no. 60107). There was also 'Robert the Devil' (60110). And there was 'Gay Crusader' (60108). But we don't want to get into Dead (Race)Horses territory!!
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Even allowing for my GWR preference, I found the names of the LNER B1s a bit mystifying, until I worked out that there was a schoolteacher thing going on: obviously locospotters should learn the names of 40 diferent species of antelope

But then how to explain the presence of "Ralph Assheton" (1036) in the midst of these four-footed lion foodstuffs?

The further addition of 17 more LNER directors just complicated things more: why should people who are being booted out of office get to have their names driven all over the country?
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
While on the subject of Members of the Board of Directors getting their names on engines, there is a slightly wicked story about C.B. Collett, with his known socialist sympathies. It seems that one of the GWR board (an Earl) was keen to have his name on an engine, so Collett complied by telling said distinguished gentleman that his name could indeed appear on the latest class of locomotive to emerge from Swindon, along with a range of other distinguished Earls.

What Collett conveniently omitted to tell our self-satisfied (and no doubt delighted) Earl was that the "latest class to emerge from Swindon" was by no means a new locomotive being, in fact, an amalgamation of two Victorian classes, using components from scrapped "Duke" and "Bulldog" locomotives to produce an outside-framed 4-4-0 for use on the ex-Cambrian Railway network ~ a class of locomotive that, in spite of emerging from Swindon in the mid 1930's, was very obviously Victorian.

It is said that the Earl in question was so irritated by what transpired that he managed to get the names removed from the 'Duke-dog' class locomotives, to re-appear on run-of-the-mill Castles coming from Swindon under the standard building program. It seems that Collett was highly amused by the whole business.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I reckon Peter Poundtext, another D30, is a striking name. I wish I'd remembered it when I'd been choosing my own handle for this site. Or, how about from the Scottish Directors, Baillie MacWheeble. And who was Butler Henderson? Well done thou good and faithful servant.

It's not just the LNER. Who were E Tootal Broadhurst, and E C Trench? And from the GWR, Hyacinth, Marigold and Primrose don't quite convey the majesty of the mighty iron road.

I've heard it alleged that for some of the more obscure personal names, directors and such like, that they were people named after engines.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
[Utter Tangent]

We've overtaken the Beer and Ale thread (289 vs 281).

Just thought I should mention that in case any Hostly types consider that railway matters are of insufficient interest to attract postings ...

[/Utter Tangent]
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
While on the subject of Members of the Board of Directors getting their names on engines, there is a slightly wicked story about C.B. Collett, with his known socialist sympathies. It seems that one of the GWR board (an Earl) was keen to have his name on an engine, so Collett complied by telling said distinguished gentleman that his name could indeed appear on the latest class of locomotive to emerge from Swindon, along with a range of other distinguished Earls.

What Collett conveniently omitted to tell our self-satisfied (and no doubt delighted) Earl was that the "latest class to emerge from Swindon" was by no means a new locomotive being, in fact, an amalgamation of two Victorian classes, using components from scrapped "Duke" and "Bulldog" locomotives to produce an outside-framed 4-4-0 for use on the ex-Cambrian Railway network ~ a class of locomotive that, in spite of emerging from Swindon in the mid 1930's, was very obviously Victorian.

It is said that the Earl in question was so irritated by what transpired that he managed to get the names removed from the 'Duke-dog' class locomotives, to re-appear on run-of-the-mill Castles coming from Swindon under the standard building program. It seems that Collett was highly amused by the whole business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
[Utter Tangent]

We've overtaken the Beer and Ale thread (289 vs 281).

Just thought I should mention that in case any Hostly types consider that railway matters are of insufficient interest to attract postings ...

[/Utter Tangent]

---

Oh, we've noted the postings and interest!

It's just the foreign language y'all speak.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Away from the GWR, until the 1920s a lot of CMEs seem to have problems designing a decent 4-6-0. The GCR ones weren't as effective as the Directors. Cardean looked impressive, but it is said was not really much more effective than the 4-4-0s that worked most of the trains. The Claughtons were very touchy and difficult to get the best out of and the original LYR 4-6-0s, rather than the later Hughes version I believe were pretty well useless. Likewise, Drummond's lumbering monstrosities.

I've heard it alleged that for most purposes even the small LNWR ones were less effective than the George Vs. I've got a theory that too many of them may have been a 4-4-0 with a 4-4-0 firebox and an elongated boiler. So the heating surface was too much tubes and not enough the back and top of the firebox. So you get a big boiler, more water and not enough direct contact between heat and water to generate steam fast enough.

There should be less of a problem with an Atlantic as there's more room underneath and to the side of the firebox and less temptation just to elongate a 4-4-0 boiler.

It's also possible, but this is heresy, that the Compounds might have owed their success not to compounding (they had old fashioned valve travel) but to the size of their fireboxes.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I can see where you are coming from with that. Robinson certainly tinkered with the design of the boilers on his 4-6-0s and they were only indifferent, not completely hopeless. They did, after all, last until 1947-50. My Grandad remembers them working local services in Northern Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire in the late 40s before the Thompson B1s arrived.

For the larger Robinson 4-6-0's weakness seems to have been valve gear. Gresley rebuilt a couple of them with Caprotti valves in the 1930s and their fuel consumption dropped 16-18%. The Imminghams, and the Fish Engines (two outside cylinders) seem to have been successful if heavy on coal. Least said soonest mended on the Sir Sams.

Oddly, the one railway other than the GWR that had 4-6-0s figured out was The Highland Railway. The Jones Goods (1895) had a larger than normal firebox and plenty of large diameter tubes. The "Rivers" and the "Clans" also seem to have avoided being "stretched 4-4-0s." However, there is a caveat. The Highland 4-6-0s were designed for lugging not running running. I doubt if any of them ever hit 60 mph other than going down hill. This means their front end design was never really tested to the full.

The Midland Compounds were also "luggers." According to O.S. Nock they did their best work with heavy trains timed at 50 to 55mph. The Leeds/Bradford - Carlisle, Derby - Bristol, and Derby - Manchester mainlines were happy hunting grounds for them; less so the southern portion MML (St Pancras to Sheffield) where their weakness at higher speeds would be exposed. A definite plus for them on the more steeply graded routes was the fact that they could be started as three cylinder simples then switched to compound expansion as speed picked up. High strating tractive effort is a definite plus on the S & C!!!

I have a strong suspicion that prior to about 1925 the fact that the Midland Compounds were not happy at high speed did not really matter. St Pancras - Leeds was timed to about four hours for 198 miles with four stops. This required the Compounds to run mile after mile at 55mph which was something they could do very efficiently.

What really exposed the Midland Compound's one weakness was the acceleration of services on the LNW and Midland Mainlines after 1925. At 60mph plus their tendancy not to clear exhaust steam fast enough would show itself. The GNR(I) produced a long travel valve version of the Midland Compound front end for their V class 4-4-0s for the Dublin-Belfast mail trains in 1932. They proved to be capable locomotives, regularly topping 75mph. The one area that did give trouble - the boiler - was one area were they did not follow Deeley's design. After WWII they received Belpair fireboxes which eliminated their tendancy to wolf coal at high speed with loads of 300 tons plus.

PD
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The problem with the Ten-Wheelers was that Churchward had done his homework before 1906 in getting a good proportion for the draughting, particularly in the blast-pipe and smokebox, and in getting appropriate piston-valve arrangements BUT none of the other designers would take the research seriously.

Even something as simple as making a proper smokebox (a cylinder mounted on a saddle rather than the wrapper smokebox that leaked and cracked) wasn't tried on most other lines for another twenty years.

Getting the boiler and valves right first, and then putting them on various wheel arrangements, made more sense than fiddling around with incompetent boilers and poor valves, however pretty the locomotives may have been.

The fact that Churchward didn't have enough superheat at first didn't matter much until after 1945, and then it was fairly easy to increase the superheat and double the chimneys, and the Swindon products were back at the top of the heap again - with designs that were already forty years old!

If Churchward had gone to Walschaerts motion in 1906, he'd have had the Black Five and the B1 sorted out before WW1.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Churchward was one of the few English engineers who could take De Glenn seriously, and had the brains to sort the wheat from the chaff. There was no secret to the formular - long travel piston valves, moderately high boiler pressures, unobstructed steam passages. The catch was that other engineers tended to be too pragmatic. For example, Ivatt, Worsdell, and Robinson all used piston valves on some of their locomotives, but retained short travel thus loosing much of the benefit of the technology. OTOH, Robinson cottoned on to the advantages of superheating faster than most.

Frankly, most British railways did not worry too much about coal consumption until the 1920s provided one bloke could shovel enough to feed the beast. The GCR Atlantics managed about 40lbs/mile on express workings - high by later standards, but not bad for a locomotive with no superheater and slide valves. Undoubtedly long travel piston valves and superheaters would have improved their fuel consumption, but for a railway that straddled the South Yorkshire coalfield that probably was not a high priority in 1904-6. Certainly the later superheated and compound varieties of Robinson Atlantic used less coal.

As I have said before the GWR had got themselves about 25 years ahead of the curve when it came to express passenger locomotives. However, some of their key concepts - such as the four cyclinder simple express locomotive - were of limited use on railways with tighter loading gauges than that of the GWR. Robinson would probably have been better off experimenting with three cylinder simple 4-6-0s than the four cylinder designs Gorton built just before and after the Great War.

PD
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
I think it was Prof. W.A. Tuplin that suggested that the principal problem to be overcome with a 4-6-0 (as opposed to a 4-4-0) was where to put the ashpan.

With a 4-4-0, the position of the firebox, and therefore the ashpan, is simple enough; you just drop it between the coupled axles, which makes giving the ashpan sufficient depth not to strangle the fire easy enough. On a 4-6-0 designers tended to put the firebox above the trailing coupled axle, which led to them adopting very shallow ashpans to clear the axle. Tuplin pointed out that the function of the ashpan was more than just the collection of ashes ~ it was also to control the air supply to the fire. In the early part of the century, only the GWR seem to have understood this and allowed a deep ashpan by wrapping it around the axle, and adopting 4 dampers rather than the more usual 2. This guaranteed a satisfactory supply of air to the fire under all normal running conditions on the GWR, ie, no more than 240 miles non-stop.

Breathing was also a contributory factor. The one Churchward boiler that never worked well was that installed on "The Great Bear", his only Pacific. From memory, the tube length was something like 23 feet. Unfortunately I cannot remember the bore, but the evidence was that the boiler did not breath freely and hence was never an entirely satisfactory steamer.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Darllenwyr is absolutely right about Tuplin, who suggested that the poor performance of several early 4-6-0s ,such as the "Experiments" on the LNWR, was also due to firemen not really knowing how to cope with a longer, shallower firebox. On the "Precursors" they had just basically dumped in the coal, but the 4-6-0s were more choosy!

Tuplin also suggests that even BR's last locos, the 9Fs, did not have sufficient ashpan air. As is well known, they could run at up to 90 mph, which had not been anticipated (but suggests good clearance of steam through the passages). This was far faster than they needed to run in normal service, and Tuplin's view is that, had this outstanding performance been known before they were built, the 9Fs could have been fitted with 4'6" drivers instead of 5', which would have allowed for a better ashpan design.

Of course, by this time L.D. Porta in Argentina was experimenting with his radically different "producer gas" system whioch very carefully regulated the ingress of air into the firebox. This gave excellent combustion and efficiency (no more "hedges" along the tops of biolers!) but one wonders if it might have been too complex for the hurly-burly of ordinary life. I believe the South Africans had some Porta-system locomotives: does anyone know what they were like in service?
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Good Heavens! I was citing Tuplin in the first place (so I should give the credit!) Although, as a GWR fan, I would prefer to publicise Churchward, wouldn't I?

I'm afraid that I can't see much "beauty" in most of the 4-4-0s, largely because the front ends were so gaunt and top-heavy with no cylinder mass visible. Sort of like trying to run with your elbows tied to your sides.

There were excellent reasons for the fact that most of the world (including the GWR) had locos with two cylinders outside the frames and directly in line with the chimney, and "proper" smokeboxes.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Whoops, sorry! I didn't read right back through the thread.

I agree about some of the 4-4-0s, although the South Eastern & Chatham ones were surely things of beauty. The GWR of course had their "Counties" and the combination of outside cylinders and four coupled wheels made them wiggle around somewhat on the track. Strangely, I have never heard that about the Southern "Schools" but didn't they have three cylinders anyway?

Some of the Drummond inside-cylinder 4-4-0s got extended smokeboxes when they were superheated, which made them look very nose-heavy. On the other hand, the LNWR inside-cylinder 4-6-0s definitely looked as if something was "missing" at the front beneath the running-plate. (The ones with outside valve gear and inside cylinders - and there were a few - looked absolutely ridiculous!)

I'd love to have seen a Midland "Spinner" in action, especially starting off. No rods, motion or visible means of propulsion to be seen anywhere - just a big single driving wheel!

[ 12. October 2009, 13:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The County engines, both tender and tank, were not among the best-looking of that company, because the proportion of wheel to body was seriously off.

And, yes, outside cylinders tend to swing the body sideways on short engines. (The Schools were 3-cylinder, so the loading was different) But American 4-4-0s were capable of major haulage feats, including the Empire State Express on the NYC, running at "English" speeds, and didn't seem to have the problem.

I note Tuplin's comment that some of the British Atlantics had no side-control in the trailing axle, and showed the same wiggle problem. This was one reason the GWR converted them all to 4-6-0s - that and the useful adhesive weight. (Why on Earth would one put a trailing axle under a big locomotive, if the firebox was narrow?)

There is a Swedish 2-8-0 running on a branch north of Ottawa. It has inside cylinders, and looks incredibly silly - just a connecting rods going around, no other visible drive features.

And the driver has to climb into the space bewteen the frames to oil the moving parts. At least there is enough space on this one. How does one get to the parts of an inside-cylinder plate-framed loco? Why?

(Speaking from experience of a 1912 bar-framed 4-6-0 with Stephenson motion. There were 58 oil points to check, but only ten of them were actually where you could barely see them. I'd hate to try with the connecting rods, crossheads and valve spindles in there as well)
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, beauty lies supposedly in the eye of the beholder and I rather liked the Swedish locomotive! There are only a couple of similar locos I can think of in Great Britain: the Great Eastern B12 on the North Norfolk Railway (4-6-0) and a 2-6-0 in Ireland (built without a pony-truckI believe, which was added later as the loco was nose-heavy).

The point about accessibility is of course much more significant than looks, which is why the BR Standards all had outside cylinders (except for "Duke of Gloucester", which needed an inside one to provide enough power with the loading gauge. And, of course, that has a boiler which has only steamed well in preservation!) The Stanier "Pacifics" and GW 4-cylinder locos, while achieving good balance of moving parts, were very tricky for maintenance, with little space to get in. There was also difficulty in providing big enough bearings on the crank axles.

Of course, you could always go for conjugated valve gear, as on the Gresley Pacifics and Southern 2-6-0s, with inside valve events derived from outside valve gear. (I think some Irish 4-cylinder 4-6-0s tried it, too). That gave you more space between the frames - but the Gresley locos, at least, soon got "out of beat" due to wear. Often this led to overrun in the inside cylinder, sometimes with unfortunate results!

[ 12. October 2009, 16:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'd love to have seen a Midland "Spinner" in action, especially starting off. No rods, motion or visible means of propulsion to be seen anywhere - just a big single driving wheel!

---

I'd prefer the Dean variant,being a GWR fan after all! I think that Dean and Armstrong built some of the finest, aesthetically speaking, locomotives that the GWR built...I include the Dukedogs and Cities in this, as they were very much similar, in look at least, to the Dean and Armstrong locomotive. The Victorians built their loco's to have a grace and elegance that has been lost, I feel...have you seen this for example?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, beauty lies supposedly in the eye of the beholder and I rather liked the Swedish locomotive! There are only a couple of similar locos I can think of in Great Britain....

---

quote:

---

"The ratio of diameter to length of the tube undoubtedly has a most important bearing upon the steaming qualities of the boiler and upon the efficiency of the heat absorbtion. This is more particularly noticeable when the boilers are being worked to the limit of their capacity. If 2 in. tubes, say, are employed in barrels 11 or 12 feet long, when the boiler is being forced the length is not sufficient to absorb the heat from the amount of gases that a 2-inch tube will pass, and overheating and waste result."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, are you excited because it was Type 37 (which is, admittedly, pushing on the dinosaur stage), or are you excited because a train ran at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Car control was the reason for the railways to become immersed in computer technology as soon as any form of computer was possible. CN was heavily investing in punch-card machinery and the programming of same way (complete with the uber-geek terminology that goes with the machinery) back in the dim mists of time before I went to university.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What you needed was a Bill Brosnan. His reforms on the Southern Railway System kickstarted the renewal of Rail Freight in North America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Just in case it is of any interest, we have seen something of a resurgence of freight on the Rhymney Valley Line.

A number of years ago, there used to be a regular (3 nights a week) aluminium coil train went up the valley somewhat after midnight. We were very aware of its passage because our bedroom window looks out onto Bargoed viaduct, which would seem to be the start of the bank to Brithdir and (eventually) Rhymney. In the early 90's the train would be hauled by 2 class 37's ~ you can imagine the racket. In the course of time, these were replaced by a single class 66.

Unfortunately, American Can (to whom the shipment was going) closed their Pontlottyn plant some years ago and the traffic ceased. There is now no freight on this line north of Ystrad Mynach.

On the other hand, the line through Ystrad Mynach to Cwm Bargoed has seen a return to traffic. There are now at least 2 return workings on that line every weekday, usually 20 to 22 bogie hoppers headed by a class 66. These constitute the regular working between the Ffos-y-fran open-cast colliery and Aberthaw power station. I gather that the operators of Ffos-y-fran were instructed that no coal may leave the site by road ~ this was one of the conditions of being allowed to operate at all ~ mainly in an attempt to appease local residents who were not at all happy with the idea of a procession of lorries coming and going from the site at all hours. Trains, it seems, are far more socially acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Re: Rail treatment trains ~ fixed formation train: Rhymney is unusual in having run-round facilities ~ no such facilities exist at any of the other Valleys Lines terminals, which is why the loco-hauled trains only operated between Canton Shed and Rhymney.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
Like South Wales, Ireland has a growing passenger rail system. The Cork to Midleton line reopened last month, and the trackbed of the rest of that line to Youghal is safeguarded. (Limerick) Ennis - Athenry (Galway) is due to reopen "Late 2009." Rumour has it that the line from Athenry to Tuam will reopen 2011, but the Irish Government is having cold feet about Tuam - Claremorris - Sligo. My hunch is that Tuam - Claremorris will reopen, but Claremorris - Sligo will fall by the wayside - for now. Work is also advancing on the first section of the Clonsilla to Navan line as far as Dunboyle.

PD

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
PD

I am fascinated ~ where do you find all this information about Irish Rail? Particularly given that you are on the other side of the pond!

I should add that I find it very interesting.

Total non seq: the rail-head treatment train has just gone up the valley ~ 1 wagon in the charge of 2 class 66's, top and tail. It started something of an argument between Lord P and myself. My essential point was that tying (I think) 6500 bhp to 100 tons of vehicle is a ridiculous waste of resources, and why isn't the thing self propelled, like a ballast tamper or similar? This led Lord P to remark that he was sure that freight multiple units (as in, DMU's but for freight, rather than passengers) are in service. I was fairly convinced that this could not be economic, putting an engine on every vehicle in a freight train sounds like a recipe for a maintenance nightmare.

What does the team think? Do such things exist, and, if so, how practical are they in day-to-day service?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just to open a bit of a tangent: for the Brits, in particular, have you ever thought about how to name a town (or other location)? Europe has been pretty thoroughly walked on for thousands of years, but the New World was actually opened up and settled amazingly quickly. As an example:

Between 1890 and 1915, the west of Canada received the second major railway (actually several companies, later folded into Canadian National by 1922) During that time, at least 830 places were named, given that they were to have railway stations, and those stations needed names for the telegraph operators, if nothing else (and in a few cases, there was nothing else!)

So, included in the list, there was an alphabetic procession of stations along the mainline from Portage la Prairie to the Rockies, four times through the alphabet list here and explanation here

Another mild oddity was the "grain line" south from Sioux Lookout, where 12 of the stations had five-letter names, only Graham being the exception. All of these were telegraph outposts, and just about all of them disappeared at the end of the telegraph era.

The desparation to come up with names shows at Hemaruka, named after the four daughters of a railway official (Helen, Mary, Ruth and Katherine)

But very few were difficult to spell (since they were designed for the telegrapher) unlike, say, Illecillewaet on the CPR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Do such things exist, and, if so, how practical are they in day-to-day service?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I don't think there is anything in the UK quite so clear as the example cited of Railways naming locations purely to suit operating convenience.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
There used to be a station in the junctions where the line from Derby to Nottingham crosses the line from Leicester to Chesterfield which had no proper road access. There was no community there and it was called Trent after the river.

---

Parallel instance in Wales would be Dovey Junction ~ where the Cambrian line divided to Aberystwyth (to the South) and Pwllheli (to the North). As at Trent Junction, there was no road access and (to this day) no visible settlement. It was just the point of junction.

Ironically, passengers are encouraged to use Machynlleth as the interchange point. When I say 'encouraged' I mean by more than just the timetable ~ Dovey Junction has to be about the bleakest railway station platform I have ever seen, you really would not want to have to wait for a train there on a typically Western Welsh November day.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Dent station on the Settle and Carlisle line is about four miles from the village of that name. When a visitor asked why the station was so far away he was told, 'Appen they wanted it near't trains.'

Hassocks in Sussex was I believe, ecclesiantically, named after the tufts of grass in the surrounding fields which resembled church kneelers. The settlement was built up around and took its name from the station.

Rice Lane station in Liverpool was originally ( until ten or so years ago) called Preston Road. It is on the road which leads to Preston but which has never been called that officially – at least, not for many years: its name is Rice Lane.

Many years ago (when I was nobbut a lad) we lived at Brompton, near Scarborough in North Yorkshire. There was, just (it closed in the very early 1950s) a station there called Sawdon. Brompton was (and is) a small village, but Sawdon is no more than a few houses and it is several miles away from its station and Brompton. Similarly on the Wirral, the sizeable village of Willaston used to have a station called Hadlow Road (I don't even know if Hadlow exists).
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 
In Ireland, Limerick Junction has long been notorious, not only for being nowhere near Limerick (in fact, in a different county, if I remember correctly), but for the complicated reversing procedures necessary to enter and leave it. It's not quite so labyrinthine these days, but still odd.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There's also quite a difference in altitude between Dent and Dent station. You could build a railway from Settle to Carlisle or Settle to Dent, but not to all three.

I've never been to Limerick Junction but I've seen some years ago a diagram setting out how trains arrive and depart, which was very complicated.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I seem to remember reading about one of the Dorchester stations at which all London-bound trains had to first run past the station and then shunt backwards into a siding alongside the main platform. I can't believe that this procedure still takes place.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Yes, it was the LSWR/Southern one. I don't know when it was sorted out but probably somewhere around the end of steam. Something similar used to happen, and may well still does, at Killarney. When there used to be a line from Scarborough to Whitby, because of the way the line approached the station, there was an odd arrangement for working the trains in and out of the platforms.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Near Canora, SK, a north-south line crosses an east-west at grade. The only station was about a mile away on the "east" line, so every N-S passenger train had to use the curved link, going North far enough to back towards the station, or, when southbound, entering the station and then backing out up the North line. This probably wasn't much complication with one train each way daily N-S!

Hamilton, ON is some miles south of the line to London/Windsor, so Toronto-London trains had to back to or from Bayview Junction, until someone got smart and set up a bus link from Dundas.

Brandon, MB's CN station was a stub terminal, north of the through line, so trains passing through had to back one way.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think the Canadian regulatory system must have been more tolerant than ours, which generally has not liked passenger coaches with living passengers inside them being propelled without either an engine or a driver in a push-pull compartment at the front. So these reversing movements have been a bit of an exception.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Hamilton, ON is some miles south of the line to London/Windsor, so Toronto-London trains had to back to or from Bayview Junction, until someone got smart and set up a bus link from Dundas.

Brandon, MB's CN station was a stub terminal, north of the through line, so trains passing through had to back one way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daviddrinkell:
In Ireland, Limerick Junction has long been notorious, not only for being nowhere near Limerick (in fact, in a different county, if I remember correctly), but for the complicated reversing procedures necessary to enter and leave it. It's not quite so labyrinthine these days, but still odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I think the Canadian regulatory system must have been more tolerant than ours, which generally has not liked passenger coaches with living passengers inside them being propelled without either an engine or a driver in a push-pull compartment at the front. So these reversing movements have been a bit of an exception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Enoch's comment is probably correct.

I am rather amused, in light of PD's description of the various changes of direction, that many railways, particularly the GWR, would let individual carriages loose on the mainline, to coast towards a destination - the "slip" coaches.

This presumably meant that there was a shunting engine somewhere near to clear the mainline before the next train at speed came through. And another man had to be on board to get the braking right (with vacuum brakes at that, not much reserve for adjustment). Pretty expensive way of bending the rules, particularly with no means of direct coomunication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, that looks like what I thought a stub point was.

As far as I know, there's never been any precedent here for the idea of particular types of train or one direction having an automatic priority. Trains are normally booked to cross each other at particular crossing points which are marked in the working timetable. Goods and shunting workings though are more likely to wait longer and not be allowed to get in the way.

Usually, at crossing points, trains take the left hand loop. I'm fairly sure that there's a line in Northern Ireland where this was altered so that expresses could go through on a straight run, and stopping trains could be put in the 'wrong' platform so they could do this. PD you might know more about this.

PD, your description of Athenry has lifted a very ordinary Friday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
At its peak, the non-stop Belfast-Portrush expresses in the later 1930s took 73 minutes non-stop for 65 miles.PD [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daviddrinkell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
At its peak, the non-stop Belfast-Portrush expresses in the later 1930s took 73 minutes non-stop for 65 miles.PD

---

That's pretty fast. Even today, when a lot of the road is motorway, it would take almost that to drive from Belfast to Portrush. In the thirties, the train would have had an enormous advantage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsofchange:
Thought you might enjoy this video I took of Angel's Flight, a little funicular railway in downtown Los Angeles, CA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
You might like to note that the Lynton and Lynmouth funicular is not the only water-operated cliff lift in the UK. There is a similar funicular at the Centre for Alternative Technology at Pantperthog, Machynlleth, in mid-Wales.
The lift is used as the access route from the carpark to the exhibition level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Ah well, if it's steep railways, I have travelled on the Flåmsbana.

I would have to say, the Fløibanen does rather outdo Constitution Hill, particularly the downward trip. Hurtling towards the Bergenfjord a tad more exhilarating than Marine Terrace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Possibly when its gradient exceeds 1 in 3?

I have no idea, though I am sure that there is some expert out there who could give me a hard and fast definition.

I have tended to think of cliff railways as lifts more or less for as long as I can remember, but I could not tell you why. But I guess than anything that needs a special trolley to make its carriages habitable is stretching the definition of "railway" to pretty extreme lengths.

The Great Orme tramway in Llandudno, North Wales, uses conventional carriages on a gradient of 1 in 4 (on the lower, street, section) and is rope hauled. I would say that makes it a railway. The funicular on Constitution Hill in Aberystwyth, on the other hand, has its carriages stepped, which tends to disqualify it as a railway to my mind. I cast myself on the mercy of the court, m'lud!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This thread now has just about all of the characteristics needed for Eccles: highly-specialised jargon, ritual reenactment of older forms of worship, serious and intricate debates about the significance of colours, mildly weird equipment, schisms and unitings, and now a debate about what is a REAL railway!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This thread now has just about all of the characteristics needed for Eccles: highly-specialised jargon, ritual reenactment of older forms of worship, serious and intricate debates about the significance of colours, mildly weird equipment, schisms and unitings, and now a debate about what is a REAL railway!

---

We have hardly started. Hasn't anyone mentioned Rule 55 yet?

You can't run a railway without Rule 55 (in Britain anyway). It's the ultimate way of letting control (the signalman) knowing you are there. I suppose genuflecting, the one-arm hug and signs of the Peace are the Ecclesiastical equivalents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
[QUOTE]Okay ... rubrics, too. But where is the Real Presence™?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Jengie when you were going over Ais Gill and Ribblehead in a blizzard was it in day light? That should have looked impressive, whereas alarming at night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Car - we use carriage or coach for a passenger one...

---

In the UK "car", "coach", and "carriage" are used on different railways to mean the same thing. Which is confusing. I think of "carriage" as the default but both the other words are used sometimes.

I think that "truck" and "wagon" mean different things, but I'm not sure what!

[ 28. October 2009, 15:44: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
It seems some translation is in order:

First off, yes Tower = Signal Box.

Switch = Points.

Tie = Sleeper.

Truck = Bogie

Streetcar = Tram.

Car - Generic word for any unpowered train-hauled vehicle, whether freight or passenger.

Gondola - An open car with sides without drop doors in the floor.

Hopper - A car containing drop doors in the floor and hatches in the roof (if closed) for drop-loading of bulk freight, particularly coal or grain. May be open or closed.

Consist - Pronounced CONsist when used as a noun. Refers to the cars contained in the train, exclusive of the locomotive and caboose. Most rulebooks define a train as: "An engine or more than one engine coupled, with or without cars, displaying markers."

In later years with multiple-unit diesels, consist also came to refer to the set of locomotives hauling a train.

Locomotive or Engine may be used interchangeably, depending on the road in question.

Caboose = Brake Van (aka Van, Buggy, Waycar, Crummy, Cabin depending on the road in question)

Dispatcher - General Traffic Controller of a section of railway, typically a Division. Under Timetable and Train Order, Dispatchers issue train orders to stationmasters and/or tower operators by telegraph to modify or annul parts of the timetable or to create extra trains. Stationmasters will pass train orders to the conductor.

Switches on single-track lines were often thrown by the trainmen carried on the train.

Under Centralized Traffic Control, a dispatcher controls the interlocked switches and signals himself, and thus directly controls trains by toggling electronic switches. CTC allows dispatchers to work remotely.

Remember how meets work under train order. Each train has a class and right. Rights are conferred by the dispatcher through train orders, class is determined by direction and timetable. Right is superior to direction. Under this system when any two trains meet it is always clear which one takes the siding.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thanks. That's really interesting. The description of how you manage single line working is quite different from ours. As has already been mentioned, ours is controlled by issuing tokens or tablets that are part of the interlocking system.

With paper train orders, what is the safeguard against a despatcher forgetting or not knowing that there is a train approaching in the section ahead, and issuing a train order he shouldn't?

Also, our meets (crossings) don't work the same way. There's no system of priority. You do what the timetable says, except that if the train you're supposed to cross hasn't arrived yet, you wait. The machine won't let your token/tablet/staff be taken out and given to you until the other one (or quite likely the same one) has been handed in. Until then, the signals cannot get pulled off.

On double track, trains are only moving in one direction, but if the line carries passenger trains, no train can enter a section until the previous train has left it (absolute block). On single track no train can enter a section in either direction until the previous train has cleared.

Just to confuse everyone, on some double track freight only sections there has been something called permissive block, where one train can be allowed into a section at a very slow speed before the previous one has cleared. Goods trains could end up queued one behind the other.

I like all the names for a caboose (guard's van or brake van here). We haven't had brakemen. On a goods train, in the bad old days when they were unfitted, braking was a major part of the guard's job. Goods guards reckoned the life of a passenger guard was a doddle. However a large part of a passenger guard's job was taken up with luggage, mail bags, packages, bundles of morning or evening papers and other things that travelled on passenger trains, and had to be put out at the right stop, including sometimes unaccompanied dogs.

Where do brakemen go when the train is in motion? Do they go on the engine or in the caboose?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
There were two brakemen during the steam era, one at the head end in the locomotive and one at the rear in the caboose. The rear brakeman was also known as the flagman.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
One might wish to add that there are double (or multiple) line sections in Britain which are signalled for reversible working. This helps if there are any hitches on one or other line, although I suspect that the speed allowed on the "wrong" line is slower than on the "right" line.

There are no tablets or tokens involved - control is done centrally from the switch panel in the signalling centre, and through the lineside signalling with approach control (i.e. signals stay at read to slow a train down before it crosses to the other line, then turn to green). Does anyone know if drivers also get advised by radio if they have to change lines?

Radio control block for single line working (used on the East Suffolk Line, also in Wales ands Scotland) was first pioneered on the narrow-gauge Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. This uses "virtual" tablets, obtaained by the driver stopping at block points and phoning for permission to proceed. But a new system is now superseding it, certainly in Wales.

Talking of permissive block: a couple of stories from Hungary a few years back, both with passenger trains on double-track electrified main line. At one station, the power was off with maintenance being carried out. A diesel banker drew up to the rear of the train without coupling up, horns were sounded, the diesel set off pushing. When the electric loco got back onto a powered section, there was more hooting and the diesel simply slowed down to let the train proceed.

In another place, single line working was in force for track renewals. The ploy was to wait for three or four passenger trains to arrive and then send them through all together, buffered up but not coupled. Presumably the first train (which I was on) continued into the next section and the others would then let the signalling sort them out!
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Enoch:

Dispatchers have a complete timetable and list of every train order issued. Train orders were issued in triplicate and repeated back to the dispatcher to ensure correctness. Everything was written down and logged multiple times.

A Dispatcher would have every order issued with respect to his territory in front of him.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
ISTM that accidents related to the dispatcher's work were extremely rare. Problems due to failures out on the line (broken rails, sun kinks, locomotive failures, hot boxes...) would complicate things, hence the availability of men who could go out along the line to set flags and fusees to alert oncoming traffic. And someone could go up a pole to connect a telegraph key to alert the dispatcher if needed.

But you had to work with what you had in that era, and that demanded that everyone get their act together and that the rules were totally enforceable, or the whole system stopped.

Oh, and BTW, the track crews had to have copies of the orders as well, so they knew when there was enough time to do their jobs. I've no idea how they learned about changes in the plan once they were out on the line.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Obviously the Dispatcher system worked, because one would hear about breakdowns of the system fairly quickly (mostly in the shape of one very loud bang). However, I don't quite see how traffic requirements in North American were incompatible with some form of electric staff / electric tablet control, such as the Tyer's Patent system in this country. Essentially, the system combined the telegraph with the train staff, connecting together what were effectively tablet magazines at either end of a section of single line. Only one tablet could be out of the two magazines at any one time, but that tablet could have been taken from either machine and could be replaced in either machine. Provided the train in the section was carrying the correct tablet, the possibility of collision was eliminated.

Of course, that assumes that the rules were observed. The Abermule/Abermiwl collision on the Cambrian Railway demonstrated what could happen if rules were not observed. On that occasion, the driver of a train that had just arrived at Abermule had the token from the previous section returned to him through an oversight, even though he was heading onwards, not back. Contrary to the rules, he did not check that he had been issued with the right token and proceeded into the next section, where he met (and was killed by) the train coming from the other end carrying the correct token.

And, as I commented earlier in the thread, train orders were not infallible ~ vide the Thorpe accident. In fairness to the individuals concerned, that incident was not down to anybody forgetting about a train, but was, once again, down to rules not being obeyed.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I think the best way to think about it is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Not that I have been looking at the Cats thread or anything.

In counterpoint, Darllenwr, I simply cannot fathom the fact that British timetables did not specify train superiority by class, right or direction. To me that is the fundamental starting point for controlling train traffic. It's just like the rules of the road. What do you do when two trains need to meet? Who gives way?

In North America with low traffic densities and long distances, train orders worked well. Trains had enough crew in the head and rear ends to ensure safety. The conductor and engineer could establish what was coming by the timetable and train order they had, and there were enough trainmen to protect the train with flags, lights and fusees*. Essentially we accepted that trains would have to meet each other and ensured that each train crew had enough information to act appropriately and safely according to the timetable, train orders and rule book.

With long distances and low densities, the key question is to what to do when the timetable needs to be varied due to inevitable delays.

Also, when we say single-track, that often means a 300 mile stretch of track with nobody living on it with five passing tracks. In places like Northern Ontario that is often the case. Trains do need to pass one another, but all traffic is still in the same direction. Trains don't exit and leave the main line except at the end of the Division.

*Small explosives places on the track to alert a train that the track up ahead was blocked.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Your "fusees" are "detonators" in UK.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
Translation: Fusees = Detonators

I take the point about skinning cats. Part of the answer to your implied question about timetabling was a fair amount of built-in slack. Taking the Cambrian line as a case in point, with crossing points about every five miles, if a train was running late, it would simply cross at a different point to what the timetable said. This would be sorted out by the signalmen on the ground on an ad hoc basis, within the provisions made by the operating rules. I guess the key difference is distance. If a single line is essentially broken into five mile sections, then ad hoc operation is feasible. On a single line of the sort with which you are familiar, it really is unworkable, and one has to introduce the criteria of which you speak. In this country, the criteria would have been seen as superfluous: a late running train would be held at an earlier crossing point to prevent it causing delays to other services. Unless it was an express, in which case it might be given priority in the hope that lost time might be made up. To some degree, local knowledge could be important ~ if the signalmen knew that the crew of the late-running train had a reputation for regaining lost time, they would be given a clear run. As I said, very ad hoc and only possible on the sort of line where everything is packed close together.

E.T.A. Cross-posted

[ 28. October 2009, 22:17: Message edited by: Darllenwr ]
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thanks Darllenwr. I don't think I've seen the Welsh spelling of Abermule before.

I think it's fair to say that the people writing the timetables would normally time all other trains to wait for an express passenger, two lamps one over each buffer, 4 bells, and most other trains to wait rather than hold up a stopping passenger, 1 lamp below the chimney, 3-1. And a class C, lamp over right buffer and in middle, shouldn't be held up by some wandering unfitted or a shunter/trip/pick-up or whatever the local phrase was. But I've never encountered any suggestion that trains in one direction automatically had priority over the other.

I get the impression from the various posts that one of the big differences between UK and North American practice is that in the UK trains move only because signalmen tell them they can. Drivers know where they have got to go to, and when they've got to get there, but they aren't responsible for deciding whether they can start or not. They have to do what the signalman tells them - and particularly on passenger workings also can't start until the guard blows his whistle and waves his flag (or modern equivalent)

So it isn't a question of one train giving way to the other. The one that arrives first has to stop and wait anyway.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
In North America, the following is common:

A scheduled merchandise freight (boxcars full of manufactured wares) moves over a 50 mile eastbound distance from the last station and siding and meets another merchandise freight travelling in the opposite direction (westbound), also 50 miles from the last station and siding. For the sake of argument let us say they are both of the same class, in fact according to the timetable they are Trains 113 and 114, each having the same route in the opposite direction.

There is one passing siding to the left of the line. There is nothing else around. No stations or signals.

According to the rulebook, Eastbound trains are superior to westbound trains of the same class. Therefore Train 114 which is westbound takes the siding. It stops and its brakeman muscles the switch for the siding, and the train moves in. Once in the siding the switch is muscled back into the through position. The trainmen hop out and place fusees and torpedoes. (My bad. A fusee is a flare, a torpedo is a detonator).

The eastbound train passes the westbound one (as the timetable says) and no other trains are scheduled to meet. The trainmen muscle the other switch into position and the train continues.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
One of the famous diferences between Britain and North America, in railway terms, was that in Britain, the drivers normally did not carry watches - they just went on at the "usual" pace on the assumption that they would get the time right. At stations, the guard would control the start time.

But, over here, the engineer and the conductor HAD to have watches, so they could observe timetable times and progression times to be sure they would do the meets smoothly.

Everything was done by the train crews, the telegraph operators being just communication devices.

In my example above, Allanwater Sub. in northern Ontario, 138 miles, 16 passing sidings with telegraph operators at each station, the only signals were semaphores used to tell the traincrews whether there were orders to be picked up or not. There were no signal crews or boxes. But a typical day would see 14 trains total.

The crews operated the switches, which had colour-for-route indicators built in, and it was the crew's responsibility to ensure that they didn't come to grief.

Once one train stopped, the crew had to check the other train as it passed for mechanical problems - again, personal responsibility to make sure things worked.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ok, an engineer not carrying a watch? That blows my mind. Speed control is central on North American rails.
 

---

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I think the best way to think about it is there is more than one way to skin a cat. Not that I have been looking at the Cats thread or anything.

---

I should hope not!
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thanks SPK and HB. That's a tremendous help in understanding how this works. It's a quite different way of doing things.

Drivers did usually have watches, particularly in later years, but the thing that will surprise you is that very, very few UK steam engines ever had speedometers. It was assumed that drivers knew by experience how fast they were going. This though did mean that speed restrictions on some lines were a bit erratic.

Cabs also had no lights - after all, you don't drive with the light on anyway. So at night what you couldn't see by the light of the fire when the firedoors were open, you couldn't see.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 
On the GWR, at least, the driver was required to have a watch, certainly in 20th century days. The driver had a log book to fill in, booking the passing times at significant points along his route, and other pertinent information, such as where he slipped coaches. These log books were maintained for evidential reasons ~ if somebody were to be run down by a train, for example, drivers logs would be examined to determine which train had been responsible and whether any further action should be taken.

For further information on this subject, refer to the books by Harold Gasson, a former GWR fireman. A driver was lost without his watch.

Also on the GWR, only the 4-cylinder 4-6-0's ever had speedometers (Stars, Castles and Kings). On all other classes of engine, the drivers had to work it out for themselves.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I simply cannot fathom the fact that British timetables did not specify train superiority by class, right or direction. To me that is the fundamental starting point for controlling train traffic. It's just like the rules of the road. What do you do when two trains need to meet? Who gives way?

---

You may have got the wrong end of the stick there - UK trains most certainly are split into classes. They range from Class 1 (express passenger) to Class 8 (slow freight).

BUT - as UK trains use the timetable to determine where and when they will pass, train class only has an effect when a signalman has to decide which of two trains to prioritise in the event of one of them running late. This is generally only an issue when the trains are going in the same direction, as most of the UK is double (or more) track anyway.

There's also not the issue at passing places on single track lines of which train has to go into the siding/which crew has to operate the points, as passing loops in the UK are effectively short lengths of double track with left-hand running, and the points are controlled by the signalman.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Most locomotives over here didn't have speedometers either until 20 years ago. Railways felt they were unreliable and prone to breakdown. Given the decrepit state of repair that many railroads were in, this was true. Speed was monitored by timing the train between mileposts and calculating the result.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
‘Can you get your head in, please?’

Last Saturday I went to the Keighley & Worth Valley annual beer and music festival. It was the first time I have been to this, and I mostly enjoyed it (even Eddie Earthquake and the Tremors playing hits from the 1950s & ‘60s were surprisingly good! ).

But as I went downhill on my last run of the day I was leaning out of the window as we slowed, I think for Damens loop. I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned, expecting to have my ticket checked. No, the man was not in uniform, and he said something to me which I asked him to repeat ‘Can you get your head in, please?’

I was somewhat shocked, having travelled many hundreds of miles with my head out of the window , a good number of which have been on the K&WVR. So I said ‘Why?’ He mentioned something about danger if another train was to pass. But I was on the left side of the train! Even if I’d been on the right, I am so experienced at doing this, and the speed is a maximum of 25mph, that there would be a negligible risk. I did bring my head in, but only till he’d gone. He did pass later and ordered me to get my head in again. I didn’t oblige and he didn’t follow it up. Good job, as I was close to a ‘train rage’ incident!

I can only assume that insurers or health & safety zealots have made this railway (and others) have some poor, unfortunate bugger of a volunteer go up and down the train ‘enforcing’ this policy.

The irony is that at least three coaches in every Worth Valley set are compartment stock and he couldn’t have done this in those! Which is why I moved carriages at Ingrow West!

But what a worrying sign of the times! I would rarely want to travel behind steam if I couldn’t lean out of the window at least some of the time.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What do you do when two trains need to meet? Who gives way?

---

In the old days I think the signalman decided. Based on the timetable.

Of course there were rules when the timetable doesn't specify. Local variants I think, but in general they are obvious ones - goods give way to passenger traffic, mainline to branch line, slow trains to express. In the morning up trains take priority, in the evening down trains. (Directions in British railways traditionally are not things like "east" or "west" but "up" or "down" - that is towards or away from somewhere - almost always London!)

These days I suspect all that is scrapped in most places. Rules will be decided by agreement between train operating companies during the long and absurdly expensive negotiations that lead up to the production of the timetable.

And in practice decisions are made centrally in real time in the interests of keeping the service running. If a train has to get somewhere in time to make another journey it might be given priority, or even turned round early and have its passengers stranded on a platform waiting for the next train - its much more like The Taking of Pelham 123 than it is like The Railway Children!
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I would guess, Alaric, that since the man was behind you and you were on a bend, that he may have been wanting to take photos (with his head out the window!) without a head in them. His prob, though, not yours
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Enoch likes Cabooses. So do I.

There were three varieties of the North American Caboose: Cupola, Bay-window and Extended Vision. Bay Window cabooses had no cupola and were single level. EV cabooses were a hybrid of the first two types.

Roads like the Baltimore & Ohio, Northern Pacific, New York Central and Milwaukee Road preferred bay-window cabooses.

I particularly like the Northeastern sytle Caboose
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
In Britain cabooses were more prosaically called "brake vans". They were often fairly rudimentary affairs but then distances are far shorter than in North America.

Most brake vans were double ended but the Great Western type - known as a "Toad" - only had a verandah at one end. I can only think of one type of van which was on bogies, the Southern Railway "Queen Mary" which was intended for fast goods traffic. Both these date back to the 1930s (the "Toad" in its variants goes back further than that). I suppose if your train was all loose-coupled four-wheelers, then you didn't need a more sophisticated brake van!

Passenger brake vans often had a little ducket sticking out of the side enabling the guard to see along the train. This disappeared with the new British Railways coaches in the 1950s. Some stock in southern England in the late 19th/early 20th century had a raised section of roof a little bit like the American caboose - these were often known as "birdcages". Many BR Southern Region guards vans - certainly the Kent Coast electric stock of 1959 and possibly some later - had a periscope to let the guard look fore and aft.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Oh, dear, SPK, symmetrical cabooses?

PROPER cabooses have the cupola offset towards one end. I offer this photoset for comparisons. 14, 15 and 24 as you scroll down give the best images of proper cabooses, although I always thought that CP's cupolas were too tall.

Here is a well-restored example.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:


And in practice decisions are made centrally in real time in the interests of keeping the service running. If a train has to get somewhere in time to make another journey it might be given priority, or even turned round early and have its passengers stranded on a platform waiting for the next train - its much more like The Taking of Pelham 123 than it is like The Railway Children!

---

Either turned round early, or ordered to speed through and omit scheduled stops in order to make up time (and avoid fines for the operators): no thought to those hoping to get off at Little Minimarket instead of being swept along to Bankers City. Let alone the rainsodden crowds waiting at Cloudburst Halt.

But let not this hellish glimpse of modern reality stop this wonderful nostalgiafest.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Good Heavens! As if symmetrical cabooses weren't bad enough, now we have the outright heresy of a train leaving the station before the advertised time! Is nothing sacred?
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Priority when passenger trains crossed was decided by local custom. Most systems had some sort of classification system, so the Irish have "A" for expresses; "B" for local passenger; down to "X" (IRC) for departmental trains.

In the event that two passenger trains of the same rank crossed, the usual practice in ETS days was for Dublin bound trains to take precedence in the morning and Country-bound trains in the evening. This was a matter of convenience.

In Britain, the usual situation is that the working timetable governs who goes first when trains of the same class cross. Thus if 1A36 and 1A37 meet on a single line, it is the working timetable that decides; though if things go pear-shaped the signalman, or in extreme cases divisional control makes the decision.

With ETS, it usually takes 2-4 minutes for two trains to cross. In the days of token catchers you could have quite a long wait if an express was due and you were riding the slow train.

1. Your train would arrive from A, give up the token covering the section A to B.

2. The A to B token is restored to the machine to release the A end signals.

3. The token would then be withdrawn placed in a pouch and put in the land-based tablet catcher.

4. The express would dump its C to B token into a net and collect the B to A token in the cab side apparatus. The signals at the A end of the station would then be returned to danger.

5. The token for C to B would then be restored to the ETS machine, releasing the signals at that end of the station allowing the route to be set and the starter pulled off for the train departing for C.

6. The C to B token is withdrawn, placed in a pouch and handed to the driver of the stopping train.

7. The stopping train could then depart, and after that train has departed the signals at the C end are returned to danger.

This process was quite cumbersome, leading to some extended station stops for slow passenger trains on single track routes with express passenger services. However, it was pretty idiot proof. What went wrong at Abermule was firstly that the ETS instrments were not in the signal cabin, but in the station building, which meant the people other than the signalman handled the ETS. In theory, the ETS machines were the responsibility of the stationmaster, but in practice whoever was handy dealt with the ETS. Secondly, the driver of one of the trains failed to check that he had been given

On single track routes with heavy passenger traffic, ETS has been all but totally replaced by track circuit block where the locking is done electronically, or by full blown CTC. A few ETS installations survive, but several of them ae operated by train crews under the supervision of a remote signalman. For example, the ETS instruments at Battersby, Glaisdale, and Whitby, and the intermediate block instrument at Grosmont are all under the control of the signalman at Nunthorpe.

PD
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Is this where we play Mornington Crescent



 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
This thread is going to get sent straight to Eccles next H&A Day.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo !!!!!!

*collapses into a sobbing heap*
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Pats Think² on the back

Kid, how could you? ITTWACW!
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I thought this was a Car website?
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I thought this was a Car website?

---

I hadn't realised the Antichrist had struck
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Huge news: Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway just bought the entire Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for $34 Billion.

Article here.

Wow.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
At least in North America you can buy a railway. Here you can only get a short term operating lease on someone else's track. If you want your own railway, all you can have is a model one.

You can though have a collection of engines and hire them out to operators who are short of them.
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
I have read something today, that has made me and .

Five enthusiasts were overheard arguing about the appropriate colour of hi-vis jackets, to be worn by Photographers, for a railway setting, on the Isle of Man. Apparently they were incensed that two photographers were wearing Yellow, rather than Orange, vests.

Amazing.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Lord Pontivillian , what is the correct colour for the Isle? Is it like blue stoles at Royal Peculiars, or does it depend on the time of the year? Perhaps this thread should go to Eccles for a full exploration of all the issues involved.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
At least they were incensed. I trust in proper hierarchical order (ie Fat Controller first).
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I guess I'm my usual self then, being partial to the Diesel Reformation.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Speaking as one planted firmly in the Old Order, I would have to say that you simply aren't on a Real Train if there isn't Steam present!
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:
I have read something today, that has made me and .

Five enthusiasts were overheard arguing about the appropriate colour of hi-vis jackets, to be worn by Photographers, for a railway setting, on the Isle of Man. Apparently they were incensed that two photographers were wearing Yellow, rather than Orange, vests.

Amazing.

---

Gee, what is the world coming to - the Isle of Man Railway using high-vis vests. In my day it was strictly an oily boiler suit operation for those at the smokey end, blue uniforms for the staff, and "watch yerself" for railway enthusiasts taking photographs. Mind you, the IMR of the late-1970s would have sent mainland HSE people nuts - staff and ticket operation, few full height platforms (actually few of any sort), no continuous brakes on passenger trains running at up to 40mph, and some distinctly "wobbly irons." As the IMR is regulated by Tynwald not Westminster, the 1889 Railways Act does not apply there, yet inspite of their archaic working practices they have had very few accidents and even fewer serious ones.

One old truism on the IMR was that with the small boiler Beyer Peacock locomotives was that you had a choice of steam heat, or continuous brakes - neither if the engine was steaming badly! Nowadays they do use continuous brake - vacuum bakes were installed in the 1920s, but were often not used as there is no statuary requirement for them - but I think it is still a staff and ticket operation.

PD
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
PD , is what you are setting out the Traditional clothing, or is it Dearmerite? And the oil - has it been properly blessed?
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
HB, you have authority behind you. This might get us forcibly transferred to Kerygmania, but what about Is 6:4:-

"And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house [of the Lord]was filled with smoke".

Also, the warhorse in Job 41:-

"Out of his nostrils comes forth smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes".

It's obvious what sort of engine is a true engine.
 

---

Posted by Lord Pontivillian (# 14308) on :
 
What is everyone's favourite Station. I personally love Cardiff Central for its variety, though Temple Meads and Manchester Piccadilly are amazing architecturally.

I like Cardiff Central because you have a massive range of trains.
You get everything from Class 142 DMUs to top'n'tailed Class 67s on the Holyhead services. One also often sees some kind of Freight going through the Station, usually hauled by a Class 66 although there is currently a Class 57 in the station throat.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I like Temple Meads, though it would be better if the terminal platforms with the hammer beam roof were still in use. I also like Paddington, St Pancras as it was, York and Newcastle. There's a pattern there. They've all got imposing roofs, some of them have imposing frontages and they're all busy. One less well known one was Buxton where fifty years ago there used to be two matching stations next to each other, but one of them is long gone and the other is dull on its own.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Stations: St Pancras surely takes the crown. Enoch's comment 'as it was' presumably expresses regret at the crappy extension, shoving the Midland main line out the back; hard to fault the restoration of the main station though (except for the naff and cheesy statue of the embracing couple).
Otherwise: Newcastle Central beats York in my opinion: similar sweep of the main train shed, but a beautiful classical building, and a genuine mediaeval castle almost engulfed by the tracks.
Huddersfield is another classical gem.
For sheer incongruity the prize ought to go to Hammersmith (Hammersmith and City terminus): it wouldn't be out of place in some Wiltshire market town, instead of at the end of a busy metro line in the biggest city in Europe. [Is London that still, or does Berlin or somewhere beat it now?]
Modern stations: in Britain the new Leeds is impressive (and they've nicely restored the Art Deco ex-LMS concourse). Holden's Underground stations - definitely modern even if they date back to the 30s - are iconic, as are some of the recent Jubilee line stations. But I doubt if any of them are as heart-stoppingly exciting as some of the new German and Spanish stations, which I have only seen on paper. And in Italy of course there is S Maria Novella in Florence and Rome Termini - again dating from the 1930s.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Remebering my loco-spotting days lo! these many years ago (1956), I can remember Temple Meads as an exciting place - great curving trainshed with far too much platform and all the "other" tracks/platforms where one went because one could see the roads into the engine servicing area.

Not to mention the sudden appearances of Midland-powered trains in or out of the old station - usually when one was too far away to cop the numbers...

And the tantalising views of goods trains on the avoiding line, always much too far away for a number...

All wreathed in fog and coal smoke

Desperately unmodern, but fun.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Hmmm, favourite stations.

Hamilton's Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Station. One of the rare examples of Art Deco railway architecture in Canada. The TH&B is elevated through downtown Hamilton, so the tracks are on the second level.

For sheer Art Deco grandeur there is of course Cincinnati Union Terminal. One of the last Union Stations built, it was a bit of a white elephant, but grand.

Ottawa Union Station was classically grand.
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Favourite? Damems, the tiniest station in the country.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:
Favourite? Damems, the tiniest station in the country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Well for views of those I have been to Crianlarich is pretty hard to beat.

---

The link above now appears forbidden to me as well but if you want a view from Wikipedia of the same
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Small stations:

Crianlarich - nicely maintained West Highland Railway "Chalet-style" station, with, last time I was there, an active freight yard.

Barnetby, Lincs - still semaphore signalled with a lot of freight. Used to be nicer when the old footbridge and island platform buildings were intact.

Medium Sized:
Killarney - attractive wooded setting with original buildings. The reversal of trains in or out of the station make it rather more interesting than most.

Lincoln - busy station, with lenty of through freight and its original Victorian Tudor buildings. More interesting a few years ago when it was semaphore signalled and had definite up and down sides.

Stirling - plenty of traffic; nice Edwardian buildings.

Major City Stations:
Edinburgh Waverley - big and busy, and not totally wrecked in the 1970s.

York - The fore-buildings are a bit disappointing, but the curved three arch roof is a treat. Very busy with a wide variety of TOCs.

Washington Union, DC - a union station in the grand style that is still busy enough to feel like the real deal.

I also have a certain fondness for Dublin Connolly, London Marylebone and King's Cross, Glasgow Central, and Bristol Temple Meads. The old Douglas (IMR) terminus was also pretty impressive before it was reduced in size to make way for the bus garage.

PD
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
China seems to be the place for trains these days. Not only the new monumental railways stations like Beijing West , but, as we drove through a town in Shanxi Province, there were still steam locomotives hauling to and from the local industrial plant.

Before that, I think the last time I saw a working steam train - other than preserved railways, or the West Highland line - was in about '89 or '90 - a few months after the opening of the border between the two Germanies - when they were still using them in the East.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Doncaster station is great for spotting - east coast expresses mixing with little locals and plenty of goods, and the Wabtec works right next door . I also like Clapham Junction for the sheer volume of traffic. And Crewe is fun.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
The best small stations on preserved lines are Oakworth on the K&WVR (yes, I know it is the ‘Railway Children’ cliché station, but is still their best) and Goathland on the NYMR. On the national network I like Wetheral on the Newcastle & Carlisle line, and Dent on the Settle & Carlisle, though so many S&C stations are good.

Medium sized: I think Durham is very good, and would be even better if they hadn’t modernised the southbound side. I used to love spending an hour or so at the viaduct end in the 1970s when there were still ‘Deltics’ departing on ECML expresses. Huddersfield (medium to large) is also good (as Angloid noted) on the outside, but the inside is a bit gloomy (as I will be reminded again at around 5.15pm today!).

York is the best big station. Newcastle, as someone has noted, is very good, but the ‘modern’ black ticket office spoils it somewhat and should not have been built.

I used to like King’s Cross best of the London termini but it may have changed for the worse??
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
On this side of the pond we have Los Angeles' Union Station, the last grand old-style railroad station ever built in this country. The outside resembles A cathedral in the Spanish Mission style, with the interior looking like the Art Deco version of a way station on the route to Outer Space.

And there's New York's "old" Pennsylvania Station, torn down in the 1960s and replaced with a monstrosity not even worthy of being photographed. The old station was modeled on the Roman Baths of Caracalla. Here's the interior. The destruction of this masterpiece is an act for which old-time New Yorkers will never forgive the City.

And no consideration of New York is complete without a consideration of Grand Central Terminal, built to look like an Italian Renaissance palace. After years of neglect and seediness, the interior has now been beautifully restored.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ottawa Union Station's Departure Hall is a half-scale duplicate of the lost one of New York's Penn Station. Both were Beaux-Arts and based on the Baths of Caracalla. Ottawa Union Station was replaced by a characterless suburban station in the 1960's and is now a government conference centre.

It's only a block from Parliament Hill on the other side of the National War Memorial.

The National Capital Commission has purchased most of the buildings on Wellington Street including Bank of Montreal's Ottawa Main Branch, a classic Main Branch building and IIRC the last major Commercial operation on Wellington Street. The current watchword is security, and that branch was right opposite Parliament Hill.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you Miss Amanda . It was always said of Euston that it was a gate from the city to the country beyond, and vice versa. Harold Macmillan's Govt ruined that. It may have got the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty right, but this was an error. Penn and Grand Central Stations served the same purpose, and the loss of Penn is gbhhfj. Beijing West is another example of the concept.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (not Station!) was pretty much forced on SP, UP, and ATSF by the City Fathers. By the mid-1930s, when construction began, passenger numbers were in decline and they really did not want to fork out the big bucks to build a new terminal. It is a beutiful building, and since the advent of Metrolink, reasonably busy, but it is an operating nightmare as it consists of ten (formerly sixteen) terminal platforms. The lack of through platforms makes through running from Orange County to Chatsworth/Santa Barbara or Santa Clarita/Palmdale time consuming. There is periodic talk of a bridge across the 101, and making four or five through platforms, but so far it has only been talk.

Washington Union Station is an interesting mix of terminus and through station. In my wandering I have only ever used the "Virginia" side of the station. Amtrak always seems to take an inordinate amount of time to change locomotives at Washington. 20 to 30 minutes seems excessive compared to the 6-8 minutes that was customary at Carstairs before the old Caley route from Carlisle to Edinburgh was electrified in the mid-1990s.

Richmond (Main Street) is another interesting station, and I hope that will be used more in the future, being close to down town. I don't know the railway geography of Richmond that well, but I would assume that the Silver Service trains on the former ACL mainline could use it too, that would leave just the four terminating workings from New York/Washington at the Amshack* in the 'Burbs.

PD

* "Amshack" - an Amtrak station of modular construction; usually of 1970s vintage.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
One of the problems in the US is that the private railroads favoured stub-end terminals over run-through designs for Union Stations and other big city terminals. This made reuse by Amtrak which prefers run-through operation harder. Grand Central is a stub, as is Chicago Union Station*. Penn Station was made run-through for use by LIRR and New Haven connections, but Broad Street Station in Philadelphia was a stub.

*Chicago Union Station was served by the Pennsylvania Railroad from the East and the Milwaukee Road (Chicago connection for Union Pacific after 1955) and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. The layout is a double-ended stub with one run-through track. One lonely connection between the isolation of Eastern and Western railroading.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
It was always said of Euston that it was a gate from the city to the country beyond, and vice versa. Harold Macmillan's Govt ruined that. It may have got the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty right, but this was an error.

Unfortunately, for those of us that remember it, the Doric Arch was very impressive. So was the hall, though the decor was as scruffy as the clientèle by the time I remember it. But the rest of the station was a typical LNWR grubby mess. There were clusters of platforms with nondescript pitched roofs over them, jammed in where they could be fitted over the years, and separated by two sets of goods bays. The two original 1830s platforms were stuck in the middle, but not connected to either side.

Whether it would have been possible to fit a decent station on the site without removing the arch and hall, I'm not sure, but there is nothing that could be said in favour of the old Euston as a station rather than as an architectural monument.

When I commented on stations earlier, I too thought of Huddersfield, which has a magnificent frontage to the street. Then I remembered the nondescript station behind it. But at least the platforms are reasonably well arranged. The old Euston did not even have that. It was a place passengers could get lost in.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Given that it would appear to be the function of a station to get the passengers into/out of their trains, Euston was a total disaster.

I know that the appearance of some irrelevant part is terribly important to those who visit, but I would have to agree that, for passengers, the old Euston was a place to get lost in (and to get quite dirty in, as well).

Possibly the arch could have been reassembled in some appropriate place - Knock Fyrish already has a nice set of pointless gates, for instance, so a Doric Arch would just add piquance.

But I cannot remember any part of the actual train/person interface at the old Euston that was faintly attractive.

Paddington, OTOH, has no particular "street" appearance, but works well as a station (and a train-spotter's location, to boot), Marylebone has charm as street frontage and as a station, St. Pancras has a grogeous street frontage, and an impressive trainshed, leaving Kings Cross as a rather dirty but functional place. The jury is still out on Liverpool Street. Oh, yes, Fenchurch Street is quite attractive (or was, in my memory)
 

---

Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 
As an example of how to renovate and modernise a major terminus, Manchester Piccadilly stands out. Unlike the mess at its sister station, Victoria.

North America did a very good job of grand terminals - all the ones I've visited are impressive: Grand Central in New York, the VIA terminal in Toronto and Union Station in LA. The Santa Fe depot at San Diego is an attractive mission-style building with lots of tiling.

Others that come to mind-
Keeping to the Spanish Mission theme, an interesting use of an old station: La Jolla United Methodist Church (yes, it really was originally built as a railway station)

Ginormous station building in a tiny village: the former Italy-France border station at St Dalmas-de-Tende in the South of France.

[ 10. November 2009, 12:35: Message edited by: Mr. Spouse ]
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Yes, Manchester Piccadilly, and the railway lines out of it, are the best things about Manchester!
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
the decor was as scruffy as the clientèle by the time I remember it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Who are all these philistines who don't seem to care that one of the greatest and earliest monuments to the railway age (ie the Euston arch) was destroyed in a wanton attack of vandalism? It could easilu have been incorporated in a redesigned terminus with a minimum of
architectural imagination. Instead we're stuck with the blandest of bland corporate monsters which one wouldn't recognise as a station apart from the logo outside and the bewildered travellers falling over each others' luggage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Who are all these philistines who don't seem to care that one of the greatest and earliest monuments to the railway age (ie the Euston arch) was destroyed in a wanton attack of vandalism? It could easilu have been incorporated in a redesigned terminus with a minimum of
architectural imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
I agree with you about the arch, but not about the station design. As an example of good 1960's design it still works, especially now they have removed some of the obstacles (aka retail opportunities) that removed the sense of space. [/URL].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Who are all these philistines who don't seem to care that one of the greatest and earliest monuments to the railway age (ie the Euston arch) was destroyed in a wanton attack of vandalism?

---

Hey, at least the big terminus building at the other end of the line still exists
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Who are all these philistines who don't seem to care that one of the greatest and earliest monuments to the railway age (ie the Euston arch) was destroyed in a wanton attack of vandalism?

---

Hey, at least the big terminus building at the other end of the line still exists

---

OK Marvin, excuse my ignorance, but is that (station) building in Birmingham? Liverpool? Glasgow even? Holyhead ?? 'Cause all of those could claim to be at the other end of the line from Euston!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's Curzon Street in Birmingham, because the original line from Euston was the London and Birmingham. Of course it amalgamated with all sorts of other railways such as the Liverpool & Manchester, the Lancaster & Carlisle, the Chester & Holyhead, and the Grand Junction to become the London & North Western with its northern terminus at Carlisle.

Because of the L&M link, the LNWR used to call itself (somewhat naughtily) "the oldest passenger firm in the business"!
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's Curzon Street in Birmingham, because the original line from Euston was the London and Birmingham.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Yes, Manchester Piccadilly, and the railway lines out of it, are the best things about Manchester!

---

Careful... But it's reminded me of Manchester's most impressive station - Liverpool Road, the first ever railway station. Now a museum, with a very good tableau in the former first class ticket office.
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
SPK: I don't know how the through cars were transferred, but there was probably some interchange in the yard trackage south of Dearborn Street/LaSalle Street stations that would serve the purpose. Also, thanks for the tip on the Michigan Central.

Of these Chicago stations, my most vivid memories are of Grand Central (where the C&O trains to my home town departed)and Northwestern Stations. I recall that LaSalle Street Station was sort of a dump, a vivid contrast to Grand Central Station at the other end of the 20th Century Limited's run.
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
For most beautiful North American stations not currently used for passenger service, I would nominate St. Louis Union Station (magnificent Romanesque station building and the largest train shed in the US, now used to cover a shopping mall) and the P&LE station in Pittsburgh (now an upscale restaurant).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
And as for New Street - its the only large station in the UK that is less pleasant than Euston

There are some pictures of it here and here and here's a reather fuzzy one of Moor St next door
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LA Dave:
The P&LE station in Pittsburgh (now an upscale restaurant).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And as for New Street - its the only large station in the UK that is less pleasant than Euston

There are some pictures of it here and here and here's a reather fuzzy one of Moor St next door

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not convinced about Victoria. It's still really two stations. About 40 years ago a journalist was able to recount with pride how they'd been quoted two different prices to go to the same place, one from the ticket office on the Brighton side and the other from the one on the Chatham side. The last laugh though was on the journalist who, not being a nerd, didn't realise the historical reason why there were two ticket offices, or that the trains were going to the same place by different routes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Didn't John Betjeman compare it to a public library in Nottingham? It was about as quiet as that for much of its history, though it seems to be having something of a revival. And it is probably unique in being the only London terminus served exclusively by diesel trains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And as for New Street - its the only large station in the UK that is less pleasant than Euston

---

quote:

---

There are some pictures of it here and here

---

quote:

---

and here's a reather fuzzy one of Moor St next door

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
But Birmingham New Street is the pits. I had the misfortune to change there the other day; I managed to find an escalator to reach the concourse; discover (and double-check) the platform my train was leaving from, struggle down a long flight of steps to it (there would have been a lift but it was not worth the hassle of searching for it), then with less than ten minutes to departure be told 'platform alteration'. This time there was no escalator and not enough time to find the lift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So without the platform alteration you'd have been fine? Hardly a major condemnation.

---

quote:

---

By the way, all the escalators are at the B ends of the platforms, and the lifts are at the A ends. There's plenty of signage around the place to direct those who aren't familiar with the station. But sometimes I think people just like to have a stick to beat it with. It's the fashionable thing to do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:By the way, all the escalators are at the B ends of the platforms, and the lifts are at the A ends. There's plenty of signage around the place to direct those who aren't familiar with the station. But sometimes I think people just like to have a stick to beat it with. It's the fashionable thing to do...

---

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that not all the platforms are served by escalators (or they only go up, not down, which is fine unless you've got heavy luggage). It's all very well to say 'look for signs' but even a railway nerd like me finds it difficult to orientate myself in such places

---

You should look at National Rail's Stations made easy map (with photos). According to that only platforms 1 and 12 aren't served by escalators but there is only one per stairwell so presumably are up only. All the platforms have lifts but accessed from a subway except for 6/7 and 8/9 which are in a corridor off the main concourse.

If you don't mind stairs, the overbridge from Victoria Square isn't a bad place to hang around and react to last minute platform alterations.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
So without the platform alteration you'd have been fine? Hardly a major condemnation.

I disagree. Not being able to run a station without changing your mind at the last minute - after you've announced where a train is going to depart from - is a major condemnation.
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Birmingham New Street can be very confusing on acquaintence, but it really isn't that bad apart from two things.

1. It is over capacity in terms of the number of trains it handles, which leads to a lot of platform alterations. Also since the Midland and LNWR sides have been merged it an be hard to find your train sometimes.
2. It is very unappealing at platform level.

On the plus side, it has twelve platforms not the 17 of Leeds, neither does it have the convoluted layout of the merged "New" and "Wellington Street" stations. The up side to Leeds is that it is not buried under a shopping centre, and the platform allocations are fairly predictable.

PD
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
One station that I really like is Kansas City Union Station. A large Union Station which served 12 different roads, including the Union Pacific and the Santa Fe. Excellent mix and well designed. Plus the restaurant was run by Fred Harvey.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I'm really tempted to push this over the line to another page. Because I can. And because soon it will catch up with the friggin' OZ/NZ thread in All Saints and the All Saints' hosting crew will give us heavenly types hell.

But of course I won't. Never.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Marvin thank you for the link to the photos. The contrast is very telling between New Street - the late Osbert Lancaster's Even More Functional but without the gas masks - and the sympathetic retro refurbishment of Moor Street.

The first one, of the freight working, brings out very well the place's speleological quality. In stead of looking up at a nice overall roof, or even a LNWR train shed, there is just darkness.
 

---

Posted by Shubenacadie (# 5796) on :
 
Good thread, everyone. I like the description of Birmingham New Street in the caption of the first photo Ken links to.

Would it be an appropriate use of this thread to ask if anyone knows of any clubs or societies for children interested in railways? A few months ago I was visiting some friends whose son was 7 at the time (now 8); his father is something of a railway enthusiast and one of his grandfathers very much of one (and even his mother takes some interest), but they said that he feels the lack of fellow enthusiasts of his own age. I think that some of the preservation societies have junior sections, but a) these are linked to specific railways and b) I get the impression that they're more aimed at teenagers who are or soon will be old enough to start volunteering on the railways in question. Any ideas? (they live just outside Cambridge if that makes a difference).
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I can't answer Shubenacadie's question I'm afraid, but I just wanted to keep this thread on page one.

To slightly change track on the stations theme: what about remote halts with no road access and hardly any trains? I've never been to any of them but I know there are a few: Berney Arms in Norfolk is one I believe.
 

---

Posted by daviddrinkell (# 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I can't answer Shubenacadie's question I'm afraid, but I just wanted to keep this thread on page one.

To slightly change track on the stations theme: what about remote halts with no road access and hardly any trains? I've never been to any of them but I know there are a few: Berney Arms in Norfolk is one I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I can't answer Shubenacadie's question I'm afraid, but I just wanted to keep this thread on page one.

To slightly change track on the stations theme: what about remote halts with no road access and hardly any trains? I've never been to any of them but I know there are a few: Berney Arms in Norfolk is one I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I remember riding the Dayliner (a large self-propelled DMU-equivalent) on the Dominon Atlantic line out of Halifax, NS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Not being able to run a station without changing your mind at the last minute - after you've announced where a train is going to depart from - is a major condemnation.

---

It's not great, I'll admit. But I'd say that if a late-running (or, perish the thought, failed) train is occupying the platform it's better to divert trains behind it into other platforms than to make them all late as well.

They don't just do it on a whim, you know.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I see they are going to spend £50m on the worst stations.

Do you agree with their choices? Why so many in the North West? Manchester Victoria used to be great, a real period-piece, till the Metrolink reduced its status/no. of platforms and the MEN Arena was plonked over it (yes I am a hypocrite in that I went to see 'Rush' play there a few years ago!).

Lord Adonis decrying Wakefield Kirkgate is something I agree with (Me, agree with a Labour politician?? ) If only it had been maintained, as it's potentially a nice station, and must have been great in LMS days.

Normanton, just up the line, is a very sad spectacle, if you know anything of its history as a once-important station. Enormous expanses of (mainly 'former') platform, with now only a bus shelter-type structure (albeit a fairly big one) in the middle. I remember the massive buidlings it used to have, but they were derelict even when I first saw them in about 1973 on a passing Plymouth-bound NE/SW express.

[ 17. November 2009, 15:23: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Do you agree with their choices?

---

Crewe? Preston? Are they having a laugh?

Both of those are lovely old stations with genuine atmosphere. I dread to think what might be lost if they bring in "improvements" - bulldozing the history in order to put in bland concrete and plastic, most likely.

Clapham Junction is certainly too small for the amount of traffic it gets in rush hour, but there's not much they can do about that is there?

And yeah, Manchester Victoria is a dump.

I'm not well enough acquainted with the other stations to comment.
 

---

Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 
I was surprised to hear that Preston is in the list, though it is a bit grim on Platforms 1&2 - they were supposed to be getting upgraded anyway, so I wonder if this work is included in the new announcement to make it sound good? The Government are very good at making pronouncements which turn out to be variations on something previously decided (e.g. '1300 new trains', etc.).

As for the other NW stations, Wigan NW is a dire place on a wet and windy day and Warrington I guess has seen better days. But then I go to stations to catch trains, not to enjoy a 'retail experience'.
 

---

Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
Preston station is fine. The cafe and shops have reacently been done over. It needs a spruce up maybe but it is not that bad.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I see they are going to spend £50m on the worst stations.

Do you agree with their choices? Why so many in the North West? Manchester Victoria used to be great, a real period-piece, till the Metrolink reduced its status/no. of platforms and the MEN Arena was plonked over it (yes I am a hypocrite in that I went to see 'Rush' play there a few years ago!).

Lord Adonis decrying Wakefield Kirkgate is something I agree with (Me, agree with a Labour politician?? ) If only it had been maintained, as it's potentially a nice station, and must have been great in LMS days.

Normanton, just up the line, is a very sad spectacle, if you know anything of its history as a once-important station. Enormous expanses of (mainly 'former') platform, with now only a bus shelter-type structure (albeit a fairly big one) in the middle. I remember the massive buidlings it used to have, but they were derelict even when I first saw them in about 1973 on a passing Plymouth-bound NE/SW express.

---

I think many of the worst stations are in the North West because, as someone has already mentioned, the old railways up there didn't invest a lot in passenger facilities: look at the LNWR: superb permanent way, state-of-the-art locomotive design (even if Webb's compounds did odd things at times) but passengers were regarded as a nuisance. That was the leading railway and the others hardly needed to compete.

Clapham Junction was designed for trains and does that job well. The passengers were an afterthought and some platforms are narrower, in proportion, than on a space-starved train set.

Luton station is doomed. The only way to improve it would involve moving it at least four miles north or south

(I too remember seeing Normanton from a SW/NE express in c1971 : what a gloomy place I thought)
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I don't know who came up with that top ten "worst stations" but I did not see many of mine on the list. I would agree with them including Clapham Junction, Liverpool Central, and Warrington Bank Quay, but I don't think there is much you can do about any of them.

My own personal British Railway hellholes are:

1. Meadowhall - a modern 4 platform station serving the eponymous shoppig mall on the northside of Sheffield. SYPTE likes you to change trains there when travelling from say Doncaster to Barnsley. I have never been so cold...

2. Wakefield Kirkgate - an attractive station, but badly neglected. Closer to the city centre than Westgate, it could be developed as a major local transportation hub.

3. Halifax - last time I was there it looked like the Apaches had hit it. Lousy disabled access.

4. Birmingham New Street - mainly due to the gloom at platform level. I wish they had built over the station throat not over the public part of the station.

5. Habrough, Lincs. - I change there on the way to my mother's. Used to be a nice manned station with a heated waiting room. All now demolished and replaced by two mildly vandalized shelters. Good excuse to hide in the pub.

6. Dundee - unattractive 60s rebuild of the old Tay Bridge Station. Thankfully it is to be rebuilt. I just wish I did not have the feeling that when they are finished with it, it is going to be even more ugly and inconvenient.

7. Forres - Beeching era remnants for the former triangular junction station. Badly needs a facelift.

I should perhaps also add my ten favourites.

10. Edinburgh Waverley - still retains quite a lot of its atmosphere despite all the modernisation.
09. Stirling - usually very well kept.
08. Lincoln Central - nice medium sized junction.
07. Birmingham Moor Street - very pleasant;far more so than either New Street or Snow Hill.
06. Shrewsbury - nice pseudo Tudor station that no-one has ever bothered to mess around with too much.
05. Bristol Temple Meads
04. York - great overall roof; but I liked it better before electrification.
03. London Marylebone - the only terminus in London where the atmosphere is not suppled by the tannoy.
02. Cambridge - convenient when you have luggage. Unusual survival of an arhaic layout.
01. Glasgow Central - clean and bright these days, and remarkably easy to find your way around for a big terminus.

There are some near misses for the top ten list. Hull Paragon is a transformed character now that it incorporates the bus station. Newcastle Central's mid 1990s refurbishment improved it considerably. Also I have always been very fond of St. Pancras.

PD
 

---

Posted by Chris P. Bacon (# 15262) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
Thankyou for rescuing the thread, Angloid -- I was worried I'd killed it.

Corrour on the West Highland Line in Scotland is a good example of a station without road access. I think it's now linked to the outside world by a private landrover track, but the nearest public road is several miles away in another direction. Despite the minimal local population, it's sometimes quite busy, as it provides access for hill walkers to mountains that are hard to reach by any other means.

Wikipedia lists several more UK stations without road access, mostly on preserved railways; Smallbrook Junction is the only one on the national network that hasn't been mentioned here yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shubenacadie:
Thankyou for rescuing the thread, Angloid -- I was worried I'd killed it.

Corrour on the West Highland Line in Scotland is a good example of a station without road access. I think it's now linked to the outside world by a private landrover track, but the nearest public road is several miles away in another direction. Despite the minimal local population, it's sometimes quite busy, as it provides access for hill walkers to mountains that are hard to reach by any other means.

Wikipedia lists several more UK stations without road access, mostly on preserved railways; Smallbrook Junction is the only one on the national network that hasn't been mentioned here yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LA Dave:
Getting back to North America, the Budd cars, or "RDC cars" as we called them, were rough-riding. I remember as a lad taking a two or three-car RDC lashup from Pittsburgh to Washington, D.C. and it was a pretty rocky ride through the mountains of southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
the stations were dreadful. Gaunt, drafty and ramshackle. I've already commented on the old Euston once one got beyond the arch and the Great Hall. Rugby was bleak, Crewe a jumbled mess. A lot of L&Y ones weren't much better. Does anyone remember the old Liverpool Exchange?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
This is turning into a long post and almost a hellish rant (though they wouldn't understand it down there): but I need to moan about Pacers. (Class 142 I believe). You know, the train that thinks its a bus, looks like a bus, smells like a bus, rattles like a bus... I travelled on one today: a 15 mile journey that took 45 minutes. They were designed as an economy model that used a pre-existing bus body design, plonked on a rudimentary four-wheel chassis. (Most of the buses built to this design were retired years ago). Like a bus, they cram in far too many seats and like a bus, there is only one door at the front of each vehicle so that it takes an age to disgorge and embark passengers. They are slow and noisy, and when they try to go slightly faster they are bone-shakingly uncomfortable.

They were intended for rural branch lines, but of course most of these had been closed by the time they were built, so instead they have been deployed on suburban routes and long-distance trains (for example, the Morecambe/Lancaster to Leeds service which takes well over 2 hours). Fortunately the line I've just travelled on is about to be electrified, but anywhere else in Europe this would have been done 50 years ago. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
This is turning into a long post and almost a hellish rant (though they wouldn't understand it down there)

---

Who wouldn't?

On the subject of Pacers: as an enthusiast I like them, because they look different and in this modern age of conformity difference is good. As a passenger, I hate them for all but the shortest journeys. Fortunately we don't get them round here
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

On the subject of Pacers: as an enthusiast I like them, because they look different and in this modern age of conformity difference is good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
They might one day (when there are only two or three left in captivity) look as quirky and unusual as some of the strange hybrid vehicles one sees in vintage photographs of old branch lines.

---

But they already do! Like it or not, they're part of the history of railways in this country every bit as much as A4s or HSTs.

And when it does come to preserving them, I think there are many lines that could use one or two. Lines like the NYMR, SVR and WSR could provide a genuine year-round local service as well as their heritage trains if it weren't for the huge cost - Pacers could enable them to do so cheaply, and at the same time help to take more cars off the roads .

Yeah, it's a dream. But just imagine the possibilities...
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
NYMR will probably pass on them due to the number and severity of the curves on that route. The decibel output of a Pacer going around a sharp bend has to be heard to be believed!

I cannot believe the change there has been on the British Railway network since the mid-1980s when I first started travelling large swathes of it. Much of it has been for the better in terms of rolling stock and timetabling, but there are certain things that I miss. Pretty high on that list is the etwork of mail and newspaper trains that used to operate in the dead of night - usually with one or two Mk1. carriages for anyone who wanted to travel at that hour of the night. The bench seats of a BR Mk1 carriage were a handy place to doss down for a few hours whilst the train wandered its way across country. I also miss some of the weird through workings the timetable could throw up before sectorization. For example, Hull - Birmingham - Oxford - Paddington; or my own personal favourite - Newark Northgate to Sheffield via Barnetby and Gainsborough.

Another one that got a cheer from me was the daily Cleethorpes to Blackpool. I also used to get a kick out of the Edinburgh - Scarborough - Edinburgh train that operated every summer.

PD
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


And when it does come to preserving [Pacers], I think there are many lines that could use one or two. Lines like the NYMR, SVR and WSR could provide a genuine year-round local service as well as their heritage trains if it weren't for the huge cost - Pacers could enable them to do so cheaply, and at the same time help to take more cars off the roads .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
NYMR will probably pass on them due to the number and severity of the curves on that route. The decibel output of a Pacer going around a sharp bend has to be heard to be believed!

I cannot believe the change there has been on the British Railway network since the mid-1980s when I first started travelling large swathes of it. Much of it has been for the better in terms of rolling stock and timetabling, but there are certain things that I miss. Pretty high on that list is the etwork of mail and newspaper trains that used to operate in the dead of night - usually with one or two Mk1. carriages for anyone who wanted to travel at that hour of the night. The bench seats of a BR Mk1 carriage were a handy place to doss down for a few hours whilst the train wandered its way across country. I also miss some of the weird through workings the timetable could throw up before sectorization. For example, Hull - Birmingham - Oxford - Paddington; or my own personal favourite - Newark Northgate to Sheffield via Barnetby and Gainsborough.

Another one that got a cheer from me was the daily Cleethorpes to Blackpool. I also used to get a kick out of the Edinburgh - Scarborough - Edinburgh train that operated every summer.

PD

---

Heaven forfend that the NYMR should ever get a 'Pacer'! They are indeed terrible to hear on curves: the curve just south of Crimple Beck Viaduct near Harrogate is one of the worst, if you are unlucky enough to get a 'Pacer'! Thankfully my first train of the day, boarded at a station further south but on the same line, is usually a 153+155 3-coach 'Sprinter' these days. You still get some off-peak services worked by 'Pacers' on the Harrogate line, though.

I agree entirely as to the sad loss of more interesting workings. In about 1980 we returned from our Cornish family holiday on a through (summer Saturday) Newquay to Newcastle train (Mk 1 stock, and IIRC a Class 40 up front ). It took a lot longer (>6 hours) than if we had changed at Par onto a SW-NE 'HST!

[ 18. November 2009, 15:07: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Interestingly enough, National Express East Anglia are thinking about this "diesels under the wires" business. They run Turbostars between Liverpool Street and either Peterborough or Lowestoft. Not only does this include London-Ipswich which is electrified, but the trains are only 3 cars and can get very crowded (not to mention poor use of an intensively-used line).

From December next year the plan is to start these trains at Ipswich, possibly running them more frequently. The problem is that this involves changing at Ipswich, which people don't like doing, although we are promised existing lifts as well as the existing footbridge.

Many of the freight trains down to Felixstowe from the London direction do change between electric and diesel; those that go north towards Ely have to reverse but maintain diesel traction.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Re. unusual workings: there used to be a Saturday Poole-Sheffield train which travelled via Addlestone, Feltham, Brentford and Dudden Hill, changing from a class 33 to a 47 at Brent. It was non-stop for passengers between Basingstoke and St. Albans.

When I tried to use it, I was told at Southampton that I couldn't buy a single to St. Albans! I got one in the end, but it was no surprise to find the train virtually empty. We got signal-stopped at Mill Hill (my local station) - that was great, so I got off. The guard wasn't pleased!

I think this stopped in 1973.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
My favourite odd train journey was the Edinburgh to Harwich boat train that went via Manchester.

No I am not making that up, travelled on it several times. It was the only direct train from Edinburgh to Nottingham in the day back then and cheaper than going East Coast mainline.

I also have a direct train from Sheffield to the nearest station about 100 yards from a church I used to attend (unfortunately have to change at Manchester Piccadilly on the way back which blows going to the evening service regularly).

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
That was the "North Country Continuental". But are you sure it came from Edinburgh and you didn't change at Manchester?

Today the furthest places you can get to direct from Harwich are Bury St. Edmunds and Cambridge - not even Ely any more!

By the way, it was only a few years ago when my wife wanted to travel from Liverpool to London one Sunday. The WCML was closed due to engineering works - but there was a regular Liverpool - Paddington train. Does that still run? (You had to be cunning in timetable-reading to detect it!)

[ 18. November 2009, 15:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
If they are suited to anything, these 'trains' are better on rural branches than anywhere else. What they are not suited to is intensive commuter services or long-distance travel.

---

quote:

---

You're lucky if there are few of them left round your way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
I don't know who came up with that top ten "worst stations" but I did not see many of mine on the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

By the way, it was only a few years ago when my wife wanted to travel from Liverpool to London one Sunday. The WCML was closed due to engineering works - but there was a regular Liverpool - Paddington train. Does that still run? (You had to be cunning in timetable-reading to detect it!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

You're lucky if there are few of them left round your way.

---

Not "few", "none". And it's not "none left", there never were Pacers in Birmingham, we've always had Sprinters instead. The nearest Pacers to here are those used on the Valley Lines in South Wales, barring the odd one that finds its way up to Worcester on the local from Bristol. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That was the "North Country Continuental". But are you sure it came from Edinburgh and you didn't change at Manchester?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That was the "North Country Continuental". But are you sure it came from Edinburgh and you didn't change at Manchester?

---

I got off at Manchester that being where my parents lived, but yes it started in Edinburgh and went through to Harwich. We are talking 1984-1988 vintage now. St Andrews students got the train Leuchars to Waverley, bordered this one at Waverley (it was deemed better to do that than wait Haymarket, however on the way up you always changed at Haymarket), this train whose final destination was Harwich. It left about 3 p.m. in the afternoon irc definitely afternoon but may be 2 p.m. or 4 p.m.. Oh I once did the Manchester Harwich leg. That was early August/September 1987. So yes I am sure.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
All of this forces me to conclude that apart from local projects (e.g. Airdrie-Bathgate-Edinburgh) there probably is not going to be any further electrification in the UK until there is a major change of attitude on the part of the politicians.

---

One change of attitude, coming right up

They're going to electrify the Great Western main line, and Liverpool - Manchester. Not before time, too!

[ 20. November 2009, 10:43: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
All of this forces me to conclude that apart from local projects (e.g. Airdrie-Bathgate-Edinburgh) there probably is not going to be any further electrification in the UK until there is a major change of attitude on the part of the politicians.

---

One change of attitude, coming right up

They're going to electrify the Great Western main line, and Liverpool - Manchester. Not before time, too!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Spouse:
I was surprised to hear that Preston is in the list

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

On the subject of Pacers: as an enthusiast I like them, because they look different and in this modern age of conformity difference is good.

---

If I were a bus enthusiast, I might like them too. They might one day (when there are only two or three left in captivity) look as quirky and unusual as some of the strange hybrid vehicles one sees in vintage photographs of old branch lines.

They might. But to me they will always be crap, look crap, smell crap and sound crap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm pretty sure it doesn't. But what they don't tell you when the WCML is blockaded, that it is often quicker (and cheaper*) to get a train to Birmingham (London Midland semi-fast), and pick up a Marylebone train from Moor Street.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:

It's a far cry from the days of the 4VEP's and 2SUB's on the Waterloo to Reading line in the early 1980's, when I was regularly taking my bikes on the trains. At least in those days there was a guards van with proper space for bicycles &c.

---

quote:

---

that evil bridge over the Mersey (or is it the Ship canal?)

---

quote:

---

You can still take bikes free on trains in and around London - you stand with them in the doorway - there are rules against taking them in the rush hour but they are often broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
Free carriage of bikes was something that began in the 1970s when the decline of mail, parcels and newspaper traffic basically made the van sections of DMUs and EMUs redundant. That happy fault led to a sweet deal for bikes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
Free carriage of bikes was something that began in the 1970s when the decline of mail, parcels and newspaper traffic basically made the van sections of DMUs and EMUs redundant. That happy fault led to a sweet deal for bikes.

---

I'm pretty sure bikes were free long before that on the old southern electrics. But then I'm from Brighton - at the end of the only main line in the UK the have been third rail since the 1920s. Despite being born in the 1950s I don't remember steam trains from childhood because where I lived there weren't any. And the only diesel was goods.

[This is a Real Train Note the flat nose with a door in the middle of it so you can make corridor trains of any length. With guards vans of course.

And despite the lack of streamlining and the old-fashioned motors they could still do 100mph approaching Hayward's Heath from the north.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I can just about remember my mother taking me to see the auto-train which operated the shuttle service between the Town and Junction stations ~ the existing Stourbridge Junction station is rather more than a mile from the town centre. The Auto-train was usually a 14xx Class 0-4-2 tank plus one carriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
By the time I got there in the mid-1970s it was more like ten trains a day and 150,000 passengers a day.

---

Now that would be crowded Almost as many passengers as Victoria or Waterloo on three narrow-gauge platforms...
 

---

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
By the time I got there in the mid-1970s it was more like ten trains a day and 150,000 passengers a day.

---

Now that would be crowded Almost as many passengers as Victoria or Waterloo on three narrow-gauge platforms...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I have never been to the Isle of Man. Sad, really, as I would love the railways, especially the Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts. (I also like coastal scenery, castles and things Celtic and Norse, so it's inexplicable that I haven't been there yet!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I have never been to the Isle of Man. Sad, really, as I would love the railways, especially the Beyer Peacock 2-4-0Ts. (I also like coastal scenery, castles and things Celtic and Norse, so it's inexplicable that I haven't been there yet!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I'll add my endorsement to David's comments, with the rider that you should not expect a cup of tea and a bun at any of the tourist traps on the Island. When we were there in 2007, we were very suprised by the way that it contradicted one of my father's dictums on running a successful tourist attraction. He agreed with the comments of a W & LLR colleague who once observed that, to run a successful tourist attraction, all one needed was a car park (preferably free), a tea room and toilets. The attraction itself was purely a bonus!

Be that as it may, (and there does appear to be some truth in it; dad was chairman of the W&LLR for 35 years and it doesn't appear to be doing too badly on it) the Isle of Man doesn't appear to have got hold of the idea. Very few of the tourist destinations have anywhere that you can get a cup of tea or, indeed, refreshments of any sort. We were startled to find that The House of Manannan, in Peel, the Island's newest tourist attraction in 2007 (it had only opened that Easter) had no cafe / tea room of any description. Given that it had been purpose-built to be amongst the island's premier tourist attractions, the omission of a tea room seemed gross in the extreme.

So, go prepared! The railways are fun (particularly the Manx Electric Railway, if you get into conversation with the Motorman, but that's another story!), but tea and buns hard to come by.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
<snip>
So, go prepared! The railways are fun (particularly the Manx Electric Railway, if you get into conversation with the Motorman, but that's another story!), but tea and buns hard to come by.

---

But I do remember having some really nice ice cream at the Douglas train station!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I've never been to the IoM. But I believe that The House of Manannan is, in fact, the old Peel Station building.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
You've got to have a tea shop. Otherwise there's nowhere to leave the women and they'll grumble about it being cold, wet, and why does anyone want to look at a load of dirty, smoky and oily engines when they could go shopping.
 

---

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've never been to the IoM. But I believe that The House of Manannan is, in fact, the old Peel Station building.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've never been to the IoM. But I believe that The House of Manannan is, in fact, the old Peel Station building.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
That's a fair point, David, but I fancy that my observation still stands.

I suspect that it has something to do with many of the major tourist attractions on the Island being virtually government departments. There seems to be that lack of enterprise that one tends to associate with the Civil Service in this country. Yes, I grant you, there are places that one can get tea and a bun within a few minutes walk of the tourist traps, but you would expect a tourist trap on the mainland to want the tea and buns revenue to go to them, not some other teashop. Clearly government departments don't have to worry about making money.

Symptomatic of this (at least in 2007) was that the cafe in Douglas station actually had no links with the IoMSR at all; it was simply a private operator that happened to occupy part of the station building. And wasn't open at weekends ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Pontivillian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've never been to the IoM. But I believe that The House of Manannan is, in fact, the old Peel Station building.

---

Here you are! Sorry the important bit is at the bottom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
....one could not obtain a satisfactory history of the railways of the Isle of Man anywhere, not even in the Railway Museum. I know that Middletown Press published a number of volumes of history of the railways on the island, but I understand that these have all been out of print for many years. Can anybody tell me where I could obtain anything on the history of any part of the Isle of Man railway systems?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I would have to say that I was quite taken aback by what we found at Douglas when we visited in 2007. Having seen some of Ivo Peters' footage of the IoMR dating from the 50's and 60's, I had a pretty fair idea of what Douglas station had been like. Seeing the butchered remains came as quite a shock.

Whilst we were there, my father, my son and myself discussed the predicament that the railway finds itself in. A volunteer preservation outfit of some sort is not really viable, given that the population of the island is clearly not large enough to supply all the voluntary labour that would be required, which means that volunteers would have to come from the mainland. It isn't the sort of thing you can easily do as a day trip ...

We also considered whether there was any possibility that parts of the railway system might be re-opened and concluded that the realistic answer was "No". Without a function as a freight carrier, there could be no justification for re-opening lines and it seemed to us that carriage of freight by rail was simply not going to happen. Mines traffic has ceased and, again, one cannot envisage that returning. Road transport is the 'in' thing these days and that seems unlikely to change in the short term. And tourism alone could never justify the capital expenditure that would be needed.

Which is sad, because it seemed to me that the Northern route had a lot to commend it scenically ~ I would have loved to be able to ride on the coastal stretch on the west of the island heading for Ramsey. I guess I will just have to dream.

---

Strangely, the Peel line just won't quite die. The trackbed is safeguarded, and once in a while the idea of relaying it comes up. The only major missing stucture is the bridge at the west end of St. John's. The bus service between Douglas and Peel is one of the most intensive on the island, so my hunch is that the passenger traffic is there, but would it be enough to justify the investment?

The Ramsey line, although highly scenic between St John's and Michael/Ballaugh, was really surplus to requirements after 1958. The MER's direct route up the coasttook the bulk of the Douglas-Ramsey traffic, and buses handled the Peel-Ramsey traffic once walking fell out of favour.

The Port Erin line was always the busiest, so it was logical to retain it. However, I suspect it would benefit from a clearer vision of what it is actually there to do. DTT alternates between treating it as a tourist attraction, and as an integral part of the Island's transportation system. On the whole it has to be said that it is primarily a tourist attraction, but it can (and does) have a public transit function. Ideally the railway would operate all year round. The diesels would take care of a limited winter passenger service - after all Tesco is right next to the station in Douglas - operating primarily from Port Erin, Port St Mary, and Castletown into Douglas, Steam would work the more intensive Easter to October tourist service.

To achieve this the railway needs to finish the rebuild of the railcars - the former CDRJC 19 and 20. (BTW, the diesel locomotives are unsuitable as they have no train heating equipment.) The management also needs to have about 21 carriages in good condition for peak season loadings.

Lastly, there needs to be a greater appreciation of the heritage side of the railway from the Department of Tourism and Transport. Douglas station was in poor shape the last time I saw it, and Port Erin, although substantially intact needed a repaint and a general tidy up. Also, when the opportunity arises, the management really does need to start undoing some of the damage at Douglas. A good start would be reinstating the old bothy - the grounded body of coach N41 - in front of the works. The installation of a platform fact along the new southern edge of the station would help tidy that side of the station up too. The removal of the canopies was really unfortunate. To have kept them would have made the loss of platform six and the old freight yard less visible. The old carriage shed was full of holes as long ago as 1979, so its removal, and the construction of a new one was probably inevitable. The resiting, whilst unfortunate, did allow the construction of a much needed central maintenance facility for the Island's buses.

On the other hand, when I have finished moaning, at least the railway is still open. There were times in the 60s and 70s when it looked as though the Isle of Man Railway would not make it.

A final not on volunteers. When the railway company was still in charge, volunteers were welcomed and given not safety related maintenance jobs to do. That source of extra help disappeared with Nationalization in 1978 and the subsequent unionisation of the work force.

PD
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Something for you guys here - should you venture to Japan: "Hotels woo train spotters".
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
How does one book?

Perhaps in the lift the different floors are
1
O
S
HO
TT3
N
Z
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
Something for you guys here - should you venture to Japan: "Hotels woo train spotters".

---

quote:

---

Perhaps in the lift the different floors are
1
O
S
HO
TT3
N
Z

---

Not in a British hotel. The middle floor would be 00. Mind you, if it was a posh boutique hotel, it would be EM or even Scalefour.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I guess the rooms on the Z floor might be somewhat on the smallish side.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Perhaps in the lift the different floors are
1
O
S
HO
TT3
N
Z

---

Not in a British hotel. The middle floor would be 00. Mind you, if it was a posh boutique hotel, it would be EM or even Scalefour.

---

quote:

---

I guess the rooms on the Z floor might be somewhat on the smallish side.

---

Not necessarily. The rooms could all be the same size - which means you could get a complete town in the Z gauge room and only one chair in the Gauge 1 room. If rooms are all charged at the same rate, that would make the "per person" rate much cheaper in the Z gauge room.

But - would the guests book and check-in according to scale? And we all know that HO/OO stuff is cheaper than the smaller and bigger scales!
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I was assuming this was a Japanese hotel.

In the UK there's the question whether P4, Scalefour ,EM and OO are different floors or different price levels on the same floor, with OO definitely the budget rooms without breakfast. Perhaps like various varieties of Presbyterians, the proprietor will have to conceal the existence of each other from the P4 and Scalefour guests.

But I was also assuming it's the views of the trains that are the different scales, not the sizes of the rooms.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
ha ha ... call me an imbecile and juvenile nay infantile if you like but I'm enjoying this. If we must have an incomprehensible thread, at least I can top the page each time

(now, back to playing with my Hornby Type 36 ... )
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :