Making a Start - The Peak District Midland / Monsal Dale pre 1903

[Armchair Modeller]

My query about the train was about the train classification. I thought it looks more mineral than goods. It has a different headcode to the train in the last photo too. I don't know enough about MR headcodes to understand the difference.

The last train is carrying head code ACD post 1910 I think which is Ordinary goods or mineral train stopping at intermediate stations.
Apart from the lamp on the far right I can't make out any other lamps on the original picture?

Possibly one in front of the chimney, but I can't be sure.

[Armchair Modeller]

Yes I would be almost certain there is a lamp at the base of the chimney, deep in shadow, and just the other you mention on the rhs of the buffer beam.

DSC_0204b.jpg

[Le Corbusier]

That would be a Midland AD head code which for 1910 was designated

Fish, Meat or fruit train composed of goods stock - Express cattle or express goods train class A.

Again from Bill Bedford .....

It's most likely a GER code, and since GER codes were for routeing, probably for a left turn at South Tottenham.

I have assumed that the white square on the left of the engine is a tool box catching the light ... could it be a disc?

The Midland Railway locomotives stationed in the London area were equipped with lamp irons in the four standard positions, plus an additional one on the smokebox door, over the centre, and adjacent to that over the right-hand buffer. Daytime headcodes were displayed by unlit lamps in some cases, or by various patterns of disc. These 'discs' were in fact square boards. One was plain white, whilst another was white with a blue circular disc in the centre. Another was white with a black St. Andrew's cross, and a fourth variety was black with a white diamond. By night, combinations of white, purple and red lamps were used.

[Noel]

... being pulled by a small shunting tank is it that odd?

The load shown is probably well within the loco's capacity. It is something of an enthusiast view to look at steam engines by categories in that way. So far as the railway was concerned it was just another engine of a given power class, and coal and water capacity, which could be used for any job within its capacity. At the time the Midland's heaviest goods loco was a 3F 0-6-0 or 0-6-0T, and it was to take them several more years to produce an indifferent 4F, which was the largest it ever managed, if you discount the S&DJR 7Fs. In that context, the 1F 0-6-0T isn't really that small.

Examples from a later era include the LMSR 3F tank, which were used for Broad Street suburban workings over the North London line. Some were also auto fitted for working local services out of Swansea St Thomas to Brynamman. Conversely, local freights on ex-LNWR lines north of Birmingham were commonly worked by G2/G2A 7F 0-8-0s, including any necessary shunting. I've also seen a photo of an 8F WD 2-8-0 shunting a heavy class 9 freight on the south Wales main line.

[Allan Goodwillie]

Hi Tim,
Just back from some time in China and can see there has been much happening during my time away - we might be able to catch up a bit at Scalefourum as we have a stand covering the West Lothian Starters Group and I am bringing along some of what we have been doing recently. Hope to meet up again at the weekend.

DSC04310 (2).jpg

DSC04311.JPG

[Le Corbusier]

Hi Allan,

Not sure yet which day I shall be attending ... but looking forward to having a chat.

[Le Corbusier]

A little more info on the Johnson 1F 0-6-0 Tank.

I have been in contact with Barrow Hill where the surviving 1F is on static display. I asked them the question regarding range.

Technical Details first
Water capacity of the 41807 was 740 gallons, coal capacity 2 tons 2 cwt.

Under load the water consumption per mile was said to be anything between 50 to 80 gallons although it was never really measured in these terms. Obviously it depended on how much weight was being pulled, the gradients involved, and how much standing about there was. Steam was also used for braking as you know and some were used for branch line passenger duty and were fitted with carriage warming apparatus, steam powered of course.

Please remember this is all hearsay as the locomotive really wasn't operated here at Barrow Hill.

This compared with Tornado which I assume will be more efficient

Tornado’s tender has been redesigned internally eliminating the water scoop and increasing the water capacity from 5000 gallons (22,700 litres) to around 6,200 gallons (28,150 litres) and reducing coal capacity from 9 tons to 7.5 tons.
The range of a steam locomotive is governed by water capacity, lubricant consumption and fuel capacity. Water is the most significant limitation with most locomotives hauling loaded trains at express speeds being limited to about 100 miles (160 km) between fillings of the tender. For the A1 class an average of 40-45 gallons (113-137 litres) per mile is to be expected. Thus the standard 5000 gallons (22,700 litres) capacity of the tender will give about 100 miles (160 km) allowing 500 gallons (2,270 litres) in reserve.

So ... being optimistic a full water load would last for 15 miles .... so one would assume on these figures the effective range was 10miles ish.

Rowsley to Bakewell using the NLS Maps measuring tool is 3.75 miles ..... so workable for the 1F pictured in the photo. It is however another 3.8 miles from Bakewell to Monsal Dale and 2.5 miles on to Millers Dale .... so on the 50 - 80 gallons per mile usage a non starter without a water column at Millers Dale. Millers Dale to Buxton is a further 5.3 miles .... so a local freight from Buxton to Millers Dale and back if any shunting of the yard was involved would also be unworkable.

The Johnson 0-4-4 passenger tanks which we know worked the line had a capacity of 1000 - 1150 gallons (depending upon class) On the above figures that would place the range at 15 - 18 miles (20 - 23 miles to empty). From the 1929 engine rosters published in the J M Bentley scenes from the past book there is .....Turn One - a 6.15am train Buxton to Matlock arriving 6.56am and returning - all the rest are Buxton - Millers Dale - Buxton, and ..... Turn Four - Along with the Buxton - MiIlers Dale - Buxton workings there is also one to Chinley and one to Rowsley. There is a watering facility at Chapel-en-le-Frith so no issues with the Chinley service which is 24 miles round trip. There is also water available at Rowsley so at 15.3 miles Buxton to Rowsley it is workable. There appears to be no water column at Matlock, but at 8 miles round journey from Rowsley that should be fine.

So the question is .... would you break the Journey to take on water in this way.

Based upon this research there is no chance of a 1F tank running through Monsal Dale .... unless I construct a 'what if' scenario with a water column at Millers Dale and an exceptional pick up or drop off from a Buxton shedded loco ... hey ho

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tim,

what water consumption are you reckoning for the 1F? Tornado's water consumption would be much greater than that of a small tank loco

The LNWR spaced their water toughs at around 25 - 30 miles and were using 1800 gallon tenders on their more heavily loaded expresses in the 1890's. They probably were not having to refill the tender tank totally either, as it would be too risky for the loco to be nearly out of water as it reached the trough.

So the 1F was probably using a lot less water per mile and 20 - 25 miles might well be a reasonable range, even allowing for standing for a period or shunting.

Jol

[Le Corbusier]

Hi Jol,

I was basing the water consumption purely on the thoughts shared by the bods at Barrow Hill where the preserved 1F is currently housed (but as you see from the quote above that of Tornado) it is pretty much an anecdotal guess). I am struggling to find any definitive historic information of water usages for small tanks. I was interested that it was equal to or higher than Tornado, but assumed that this might be due to the old victorian design?

I am kind of hoping someone might have more detailed or accurate info out there. The tank capacity at 740 gallons is pretty small - considerably less than half of your 1800 gallon tenders ... so unless usage is much lighter 10 to 12 mile range still seems roughly correct. (1800 = 25 to 30 miles/740 = 10/12 miles)

[Jol Wilkinson]

But would a working range of ten miles, which might equate to less than one hours operation, be of any use? I can't see that it would, so think that 20+ miles would be necessary for useful operation. Having to stop for water every hour or so would be an inefficient way of doing things.

The passenger tanks with more water capacity would probably have to work harder, but as the photos of Monsal Dale on page 1 doesn't appear to show water cranes at the ends of the platforms, couldn't replenish more readily. So I am inclined to think that your calculations are too pessimistic.

[grovenor-2685]

I certainly don't see a 1F using more water per mile than Tornado, even given the saturated/superheated difference.
Regards

[Le Corbusier]

I certainly don't see a 1F using more water per mile than Tornado, even given the saturated/superheated difference.
Regards

It certainly seems unlikely to me .... I have a few more enquiries out, so hopefully I will get something more definitive. I have asked the West Somerset what the typical water consumption might be on their 4F ... my reasoning being that the relatively light usage of a heritage railway might be nearer to the water usage on a 1F for local goods etc?

[John Palmer]

I agree that these range calculations have erred on the side of pessimism. Since Johnson bogie tanks have been mentioned I can illustrate my doubts by reference to a regular working of such engines. No surprises that the example comes from Somerset and Dorset territory!

The Branch from Evercreech Junction to Burnham was 24 miles 19ch, with another mile back from Burnham to Highbridge (no water columns at Burnham), so we are dealing with a run about 25 miles in length, assuming no intermediate stops for water.

The first three passenger services of the day on the Branch (Down-Up-Down) were covered by the same diagram, which was designated as a 1P duty to be covered by a Highbridge engine. Regular performers were bogie tanks from the 1833 and 2228 classes, respectively with tank capacities of 1150 and 1270 gallons. The load would conventionally be two LMS non-gangwayed coaches plus a van, probably increased to two two-sets on the second Down service because of the unbalanced nature of the carriage workings.

At a consumption rate of 50 mpg, the implication is that about 1250 gallons would be consumed running each of these trains. In the case of 1833 class engines the injector would be blowing out on an empty tank as a Down train neared the top of Pylle Bank; not nice!

If we adopt a more generous estimate of 40mpg consumption comes back to 1000 gallons between taking water at Evercreech and Highbridge, which still doesn't leave a big margin for error on an 1833 class engine.

At a 20mpg consumption rate we get 500 gallons per service over the Branch, making a 50 mile round trip just about feasible, with water being taken on arrival at Evercreech of each of the two Down services. It should be borne in mind that in order to take water at Highbridge the engine would have to be detached from its train and visit the shed as there were no platform-mounted columns there.

At a pinch it was feasible to take water at Glastonbury, which had columns for both Up and Down trains. However, there is no indication in the working timetable that Glastonbury was a designated water stop for any of these services, and dwell times at this station suggest that it was not used as such.

So, for a bogie tank on these duties, you are probably looking at a water range in the region of 50+ miles and a coal range of at least 80-90 miles (the second Down train of the day went on to Templecombe, and the engine is then shown in the diagram as going on shed, no doubt for coaling).

[Le Corbusier]

At a 20mpg consumption rate we get 500 gallons per service over the Branch, making a 50 mile round trip just about feasible, with water being taken on arrival at Evercreech of each of the two Down services. It should be borne in mind that in order to take water at Highbridge the engine would have to be detached from its train and visit the shed as there were no platform-mounted columns there.

At a pinch it was feasible to take water at Glastonbury, which had columns for both Up and Down trains. However, there is no indication in the working timetable that Glastonbury was a designated water stop for any of these services, and dwell times at this station suggest that it was not used as such.

So, for a bogie tank on these duties, you are probably looking at a water range in the region of 50+ miles and a coal range of at least 80-90 miles (the second Down train of the day went on to Templecombe, and the engine is then shown in the diagram as going on shed, no doubt for coaling).

Hi John,

20 gallons per mile would certainly place the 1F shunting Bakewell within the realms of a local goods from Rowsley to Buxton with drop of at Millers Dale for sorting. It is certainly much more in line with what I would have expected .... giving a 1F with 740 gallon capacity an effective range of say 28 miles (assuming a 25% contingency) as Jol has suggested. It would mean that water would need to be taken on at Buxton.

[Noel]

Dimensionally the 1P 0-4-4T and the 1F 0-6-0T are very similar, so are likely to have similar rates of water usage on average. Comparisons with Tornado are probably misleading as it is a much more powerful loco, requiring a much bigger boiler to supply the much bigger cylinders, and therefore would be expected to have a much faster rate of water use, even with the advantage of superheating (which was not available to the Midland tanks).

[Le Corbusier]

I would be interested in peoples thoughts about this

IMG_0133.jpg

Part Millers Dale station.jpg

The tank is pretty close to the tracks. There are annotated hydraulic Rams further down the hill near to the river.

The position of the tank suggests to me that it is not associated with the quarry workings on the opposite side of the track and further up the hill?

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Le Corbusier]

The load would conventionally be two LMS non-gangwayed coaches plus a van, probably increased to two two-sets on the second Down service because of the unbalanced nature of the carriage workings.

John ... or indeed anyone else

Would you happen to know what the weight of the LMS stock would have been.

I have been discussing the same subject on RMWeb and the following comparison arose:-

Although not actually referring to Midland locos, the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway carried out some interesting research into coal and water consumption which might be of interest.

A Terrier used 524 gallons pulling 6 carriages over 23¾ miles - a meagre 22 gallons per mile (not mpg!)

An E1 tank, similar to the Midland loco, used 2,010 gallons dragging 29 wagons over 28½ miles at 14.7 mph - a mighty 70½ gallons per mile

A D1 tank, similar in size to the E1, however, could pull 13 carriages at twice the average speed using 2,328 gallons, over 106¾ miles - another meagre 22 gpm.

A C goods loco, quite powerful for its time, consumed 7,260 gallons pulling 41 wagons working 103½ miles - another thirsty 70 gpm!

The elegant G single, however, pulling 14 carriages over 50¾ miles sipped just 1,620 gallons, running at 39 mph - 30 gallons per mile

Just to demonstrate how train weights and speed could affect consumption, tests with a Gladstone 0-4-2 running between London Bridge and Brighton (50 miles or so) produced the following:

Light train (15 carriages / 170 tons) and little wind, at 32½ mph average consumed 964 gallons - only 19 gpm

Heavier train (20 carriages / 228 tons) and slight head wind, at 33.3 mph required 1,483 gallons - 29 gpm

Heaviest (24 carriages / 275 tons) and strong head wind, running at 43.3 mph consumption went up to 1,813 gallons - 36 gallons per mile

Analysing the figures for the Gladstone 0-4-2 it would appear that once wind has been factored the water usage is roughly proportionate to the respective weights. So, within an acceptable margin of error you can pretty much divide the water consumption by the number of units (carriages/wagons) to arrive at a consumption per unit. So with the Gladstone the lighter train has a consumption of ±1.26 gpm per carriage, whilst the heavy is 1.45 and the heaviest is 1.5. If we know the tonnage we could perhaps take this rough rule of thumb further to give gallons per ton per mile.

So if we can establish the weight of the 2P train and LMS coaching stock we might have a stab at estimating its gallons per ton per mile. This would give an estimate of the potential range with say a 12 wagon local goods using 8T D229 wagons assuming an average wagon weight of say 11T.

Using the above method on the figures for the E1 tank, we get 2.4 gpm per wagon which gives a range for 12 wagons at 80% usage of 740 gallons of 20.5 miles. However we have no idea of the loadings of the wagons in this calculation.

[billbedford]

Close examination of the original picture shows a 'T' shaped appendage to the end of the horsebox, as show circled in red on the extract attached.Bakewell train.jpg These were prominent on Midland designs of horsebox and reinforce my conviction that it is a horsebox we can see here. In shape they somewhat resemble lamp irons, but if that was their purpose then why the 'T' shape?

These were indeed lamp irons. They were made this way so that the lamps were beyond the end of the body so that they didn't foul the upper door when it was opened. Not a good idea to drop a lit oil lamp into a small space with lots of dry vegetable matter...

[John Palmer]

Silly me, I had become so accustomed to thinking of miles per gallon in the context of road travel that it never occurred to me to think that in terms of a steam locomotive's water consumption it will invariably be the other way round!

To the question. In the 1950s the most common composition of an S&D Branch train was an LMS Brake Third and an LMS Composite, in both cases non-gangwayed, and either or both of which might be lavatory equipped. Further, either vehicle might be drawn from any of the three commonly recognised LMS design periods. Despite the overall similarities of LMS non-gangwayed stock this means that there could be a surprising amount of variation in the overall train weight, but such variation is at least within predictable bounds because there appear to be no qualifying vehicles having a tare of less than 26 tons or greater than 30 tons – so an average tare of about 28 tons per coach should give you a reasonably accurate basis for further calculations.

In addition it was common – though by no means inevitable – for the train to include an NPCS vehicle. A Southern Railway Van C was frequently so employed, and weighs in at 16 tons tare.

The implication is that a typical 1950s Branch train formed BT-C-BY would have a tare weight in the region of 70 tons.

@billbedford - Thanks for the confirmation, Bill, makes sense to mitigate the risk of setting bedding/hay alight. But why the 'T' shape when an 'L' shape would have sufficed?

[Le Corbusier]

Thanks John,

Interestingly .... taking your 70T weight - if we assume the 50 mile round journey, use the lower tank capacity of 1150 gallons and assume a usage of 80% of the water - 920 gallons - this would give an economy rate of 18.4 gpm. Taking in to account the train weight at 70 tons we get 0.263 gallons per ton per mile.

Compare with the 170T Gladstone - we have 19 gpm or 0.11 gallons per ton per mile. (32.5mph average presumably improving consumption)
Compare with the Terrier (6 carriages at 72 tons) we have 22 gpm or 0.3 gallons per ton per mile. (less than half the tractive effort of the larger tanks here which presumably explains the higher consumption figure)
Compare with the E1 (assume 11T per wagon ...so 319 Tons) we have 70.5 gallons per mile or 0.22 gallons per ton per mile. (might have been heavier given the speed of 14.7mph average or alternatively on the limit of its capabilities)
Compare the D1 tank (13 carriages at 147 Tons) we have 22 gpm or 0.15 gallons per ton per mile. (30 mph average presumably improving consumption)

Whilst no firm conclusions can be drawn from this, your original comment about over pessimism would appear spot on. Given what we see above I would very much doubt if the 1P Tank is going to be worse than the figure of 0.263 gallons per ton per mile I show and in all likelihood it will be better (perhaps nearer to 0.2). I suspect it will be closer to the E1 than the D1 because of the average speeds?

If we therefore assume a 10 wagon local goods train at 10T per wagon (average) .... so 100 tons, and then use the 1F tank capacity of 740 gallons but applying the 80% margin - so 590 Gallons with 150gallons in reserve. We then apply the 1P gallons per ton per mile of 0.263 we get a usage of 26.3 gpm and an effective range of 22.5 miles.

In absence of further data I am going to assume that a Johnson half cab would have had the range to either work a local goods between Rowsley and Buxton, or run light to a given station between to shunt the station yard.

[billbedford]

The first three passenger services of the day on the Branch (Down-Up-Down) were covered by the same diagram, which was designated as a 1P duty to be covered by a Highbridge engine. Regular performers were bogie tanks from the 1833 and 2228 classes, respectively with tank capacities of 1150 and 1270 gallons. The load would conventionally be two LMS non-gangwayed coaches plus a van, probably increased to two two-sets on the second Down service because of the unbalanced nature of the carriage workings.

yes, but...

The S&D's own 0-4-4T's had smaller tanks than any of the Midland classes, 750 gallons if I remember correctly. Assuming the trains were made up of four six wheelers instead of two bogie coaches, the duty cycles would have been much the same as in later LMS days.

[billbedford]

Thanks for the confirmation, Bill, makes sense to mitigate the risk of setting bedding/hay alight. But why the 'T' shape when an 'L' shape would have sufficed?

Because the Midland carriage side lamps had their support pockets on the sides rather than the backs.

Why side lamps?

These date back to the period before the use of automatic brakes. All the carriages built before the introduction of the clerestory stock have lamp brackets bolted to the end pillars. Usually on the sides but sometimes, like the horseboxes, on the ends. Since any vehicle could have been the last one in a train the lamps were needed to the train crew an indication that the train had not become divided.

[Noel]

I have been discussing the same subject on RMWeb and the following comparison arose:-

Apart from the figures for the Gladstone, none of the loads shown give the weight of the train, which makes comparisons rather difficult. Coaches of the era could be bogie, 6-wheel or 4-wheel, so tares and loads could differ considerably. A similar problem arises with the goods trains, for the same reason. A 10T coal wagon had a tare of about 6 tons, but loaded would weigh about 16 tons, so a 40 wagon train of empties would be about 240 tons, and loaded about 640 tons. A mixed freight would not produce quite that scale of difference, but would still be well above the combined tare weights with loads included, so comparison by numbers of wagons is not particularly useful.

[Le Corbusier]

yes, but...

The S&D's own 0-4-4T's had smaller tanks than any of the Midland classes, 750 gallons if I remember correctly. Assuming the trains were made up of four six wheelers instead of two bogie coaches, the duty cycles would have been much the same as in later LMS days.

Thinking further on this we should I think be including the weight of the loco into the calcs as well. The 1Ps varied between 40T and 50T empty and loaded so for an average perhaps 45T. The 1Fs were 34T to 42T so 38T average.

If I use Bill's capacity of 750 gallons

Train weight = 70T + 45T = 115T. Distance is 50 miles round trip. 80% water capacity = 600 g.
so 12 gpm for 115 tons = 0.1 gallons per ton per mile.

Extrapolating for a 1F with 12 wagons average weight 11T.
Train weight = 132T + 38T = 170T. Efficiency = 0.1 gallons per ton per mile. Available water = 592 gallons.
so effective range = 592gallons /17gpm = ±35 miles.
__________________

If I use John's capacity of 1150 Gallons

Train weight = 70T + 45T = 115T. Distance is 50 miles round trip. 80% water capacity = 920 g.
so 18.4 gpm for 115 tons = 0.16 gallons per ton per mile.

Extrapolating for a 1F with 12 wagons average weight 11T.
Train weight = 132T + 38T = 170T. Efficiency = 0.16 gallons per ton per mile. Available water = 592 gallons.
so effective range = 592gallons /27.2gpm = ±22 miles.

The 22 miles feels perhaps more likely?

[John Palmer]

The first three passenger services of the day on the Branch (Down-Up-Down) were covered by the same diagram, which was designated as a 1P duty to be covered by a Highbridge engine. Regular performers were bogie tanks from the 1833 and 2228 classes, respectively with tank capacities of 1150 and 1270 gallons. The load would conventionally be two LMS non-gangwayed coaches plus a van, probably increased to two two-sets on the second Down service because of the unbalanced nature of the carriage workings.

yes, but...

The S&D's own 0-4-4T's had smaller tanks than any of the Midland classes, 750 gallons if I remember correctly. Assuming the trains were made up of four six wheelers instead of two bogie coaches, the duty cycles would have been much the same as in later LMS days.

Yes, the S&D's bogie tanks did have a somewhat smaller tank capacity than their Midland successors: 876 gallons in the case of the Avonside engines, and 950 gallons in the case of the Vulcan-built engines. Whilst it's true that one can detect some similarities between the 1931 and 1950 morning duty cycles on the Branch, the S&D's own 0-4-4Ts were rapidly diminishing in number at the start of this period, such that all but one had been withdrawn by the end of 1932. Midland design 0-4-4Ts, with their larger tank capacity, took over these duties. If you look back to the 1920 working book you will note a rather different pattern of morning Branch services; there is no strong similarity with the services from about 1931 onwards. I see nothing yet to invalidate my thesis that the Midland tanks, at any rate, managed a round trip Evercreech-Burnham-Evercreech without water replenishment en route.

On the lamps question I fear we are at cross purposes. I fully understand that the carriage side lamps in question had side pockets and that this enabled them to be mounted on a Tee-shaped lamp iron on the vehicle's end. But the Tee-shaped iron in question was mounted on its side, such that the lower half of the Tee's crosspiece lies below the stem by which the iron is attached to the vehicle. What purpose does that lower half of the crosspiece serve?