LNER P1 2-8-2

It does seem odd that British practice seem to prefer multiple working rather than a single loco up to the job. It always seemed very odd to me to see photos of trains going up the Lickey incline with about 4 Jinties (or is that Jintys) on the back instead of one enormous banker, even when there was a design available. Likewise great long unfitted freights with guards vans when the continental operators moved with the times.

Kevin

The multiple workings was more a reflection of Midland practice carried over into early LMS day, the LNWR had standardised on bigger freight engines much earlier, and the LNER under Gresley generally pursued a big engine policy, for the LMS this didn't happen until Stanier.

"Kevin" wrote

Hardly standard practice and certainly not widespread other than during that period soon after the 1923 Grouping when there was still a substantial number of small locomotives in existance which were having to deal with ever increasing train weights.

The working of trains by multiple locomotives is hardly a British phenomena - although it always has been and continues to be so in the USA.

John.

In fact the Midland did build a large loco purely for banking the Lickey - an 0-10-0 called 'Big Bertha' which lasted till 1956.

Jim.

I recall seeing several 0-6-0Ts chasing trains up the Lickey in the 1960s.

I think in this case "multiple" meant "several" as in steam bankers, not diesels in multiple. And the U.S of A isn't the only country that runs diesels in multiple, Canada does as well and we also run 10,000 ton trains - Long or short tons, with that weight of train it hardly matters. :-)

And don't forget Australia where, I believe, they regularly run the heaviest trains in the world with diesels in multiple. Hamersley Iron Railway perhaps?

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

I didn't actually say that it was standard practice just that it was British practice to to use multiples of smaller locos than a large loco. Take a look at some of the bankers on the Lickey and Folkestone Harbour and I'm talking post nationalisation. Regarding the US, the extreme length of the trians there makes it necessary rather than working practice. It seems incredible that up to the second world war and the 2-10-0 WD's, with the exception of a handful of Garrets, 0-10-0s and 2-8-2s, that the largest freight loco was a 2-8-0.

Kevin

Why? That's all that was needed. A 27xx or an 8F could pull a huge train.

Considering the requirement was for banking of various size trains, the amount of banking power required varied greatly. The smaller locos gave more flexibility than the Lickey banker. If the 0-10-0 was *THE* answer to Lickey's requirements, more would have been built. There were *always* multiple bankers available since the

0-10-0 could not manage as the sole banker, it could not bank a train, return & be ready in time for the next one.

Folkstone was the same & also US diesels, the huge UP gas turbine locos for instance have all gone because smaller locos are more efficient by being more flexible.

Regarding the US, the

Could we have Garratts, please

, 0-10-0s and 2-8-2s,

With bigger, more powerful locos, you can do one of two things. You can pull longer trains or you can pull the same trains faster. Both ways you required major investment in infrastructure, the cash injection was never available, as the coal industry in particular was dominated by extremely small independant operators.

The Gresley 2-8-2's were a classic example of a loco that could pull longer trains than the marshalling yards could handle, yet were extremely limited in speed by the wagons which had no automatic brakes.

Post WW2 the 2-10-0 9F's replaced Garratt's on coal trains by running lighter trains slightly faster. This was mainly so that an out & back trip could be completed in a shift, as over night stays got banned by unions in the main.

Kevin Martin (a Kevin from Down Under)

In message , Christopher A. Lee writes

Christopher, once again you refer to a 27xx with the implication that it was a 2-8-0. It wasn't. The 80 locos numbered 2700 and from 2721 to 2799 were 0-6-0 saddle or pannier tanks of the 2721 class.

The GWR 2-8-0s were the 28xx class.

My typo. Spell-checkers don't pic k up on numbers.

Possibly the reason for the lack of big engines might possibly have been the overall weight and size factor. There are axle weight limits, total weight limits and also overall size to think of. More weight means more wheels, more wheels means longer engines and the tiddly British loading gauge couldn't cope.

Folkestone harbour suffered from low weight limits, hence the use of tank engines - R1's?

OT from freight engines, but the limit of passenger size was probably reached with the LMS Coronations and Duchesses.

Cheers, Mick

And I think it was reckoned that the Stanier Pacific boilers were the largest that could be stoked by hand by one man - anything larger would require two men, or some form of mechanical stoking.

Jim.

"Jim Guthrie" wrote

I think I read somewhere that to get the maximum continuous output from a 'Princess Coronation' (Duchess) Pacific boiler would require two firemen.

John.

John,

I think you might be correct. I think I'm going by memories of reading E.S.Cox on British loco performance when discussing the top limits possible. I'll have to have a re-read to freshen my mind :-)

Jim.

The message from "John Turner" contains these words:

The proposed (but stillborn) 4-6-4 was to have had a bigger firebox, mechanically stoked.

[From "Locomotives that Never Were"]

Fifty sq. feet of grate area was usually considered the maximum for hand firing with good coal. In Victoria the R class 4-6-4s had thirty seven sq. feet of grate area but were fitted with mechanical stokers, basically to allow for the lousy coal that was all that was available after the war. Regards, Bill.