A couple of steam technical questions please

[CVR1865]

crews who smashed through the water troughs could expect the wrath of the P.way engineer and their next run would be on a long slow freight, as punishment.

[sirbrian]

This posting is in reply to the latest posting by Bullhead on the subject of water troughs and the collection of water from the troughs.

Most of my experience of the above subject involved many trips on LMS locomotives - Scots, Jubilees, Black Fives and Crabs, and BR Standards - 9's, 7's and 5's and WD's, on LMR lines. The water pick-up operations that I had seen were as I described previously. In view of the comments of Bullhead and the fact that this web discussion site concerns LNER locomotives and their operation, I thought it worthwhile to phone a friend who is familiar with LNER practice in case this was different from my own experience of water pick-up from the troughs.

My friend told me that the LNER practice was exactly the same as that with which I was familiar and had described in my previous postings. He confirmed that it was impossible to withdraw the scoop after it had entered the trough, the scoop could only be retracted after leaving the trough section. So it appears that the LNWR Society have got it wrong.

My friend also confirmed that the track dipped after entering the trough section and rose before leaving the trough section, as I had explained. The trough was installed on the sleepers so that no additional packing was required. He said that to the best of his knowledge, water freezing was never a problem with the operation of the troughs because there were always enough trains passing through. He reminded me that the New York Central used troughs under weather conditions much more severe than in the UK, as I had mentioned previously.

The objective of the troughs was to eliminate or reduce the need to take water at station stops, thus reducing the time needed to take water. This technique was preferred by engine crews becase it was much easier and safer, as well as reducing station stop times when things were going badly, as was the case sometimes. The risk of running out of water was reduced because the tender was filled frequently during the trip.

I hope that we have now covered all the discussion of this subject!

Sir Brian

[x568wcn]

The objective of the troughs was to eliminate or reduce the need to take water at station stops, thus reducing the time needed to take water. This technique was preferred by engine crews becase it was much easier and safer, as well as reducing station stop times when things were going badly, as was the case sometimes. The risk of running out of water was reduced because the tender was filled frequently during the trip.

also helped on the Non stop running, when they wouldn't be picking up water at Stations.
But nothing runs non stop any more, every passenger train today stops in York, except a GNER last night 91116 Strathclyde, which ran empty straight through platfrom 9, which seems a waste of money running an empty train down the line?

[Bullhead]

At the risk of incurring wrath and boredom of moderator and other readers respectively, the Mohawk & Hudson Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society (it sounds like a motorcycle gang to me) at http://www.crisny.org/not-for-profit/ra ... c_hist.htm says this:

"As the locomotive approached the track pan, the engineman would signal the fireman as they passed a lunar white signal at the beginning of the pan, and the fireman would lower the scoop by operating a valve or pushing a button on the front wall of the tender. Another signal from the engineman as they passed a blue or purple signal at the other end of the pan, and the fireman would raise the scoop."

It also suggests that in America, at any rate, power assistance for the scoop was provided on certain types of locomotive.

On the subject of heating, the same author says, "Track pans were steam heated in the winter to prevent freezing."

However, there is also a reference to the fact that "A ramp was built into each end of the track pan, together with a safety rail extension beyond each end, as a protection against premature or late operation of the water scoop" - so perhaps we're both right.

My own footplate experience, whilst quite extensive on various types of UK diesel and electric traction, is sadly limited steam-wise to a B1 on the West Highland Line (no need for water troughs there - just leave the tender filler open and the rain will replenish it) and an ex-CR 0-4-4T on the Bo'ness & Kinneil.

I am reminded of that Monty Python sketch, "do you want the 15 minute argument or the full hour?".

[sirbrian]

This posting is in reply to the latest posting by Bullhead. I understand from another friend that the water scoops on American locomotives were air operated. My friend also informed me that even with air operation, the scoop could not be pulled out of the water in the trough once the scoop had been lowered. Retraction of the scoop was only possible after leaving the trough section, the scoop coming out of the water near the end of the trough as I have described previously.

The use of water troughs facilitated relatively long non-stop runs that would not be possible, or risky at least, without them. I remember well non-stop runs between St. Pancras and Leicester, 99 miles, where picking up water at the troughs North of Bedford was very important because there was a long climb ahead in each direction. I can remember well also a trip on a Black 5 with an oil tank wagon train running out of London where a tender full of water was used by the time we reached Luton, because of the long climbs involved in route. More water was needed at the troughs North of Bedford after about another 30 miles travelled.

Sir Brian

[Pyewipe Junction]

Sirbrian, are you saying that it was almost possible to fill a near-empty tender from troughs? Wow!!

I notice that most long-haul trains had a decent stop at Lincoln Central (up to 8 minutes in the case of the Harwich-Liverpool boat train). I assume this is because there were no water troughs on the GE & GN Joint line from March?

[sirbrian]

In reply to Pyewipe Junction, it was my understanding that the water troughs were used primarily to top-up the tender whenever possible, not to fill the tender from nearly empty. In fact, if a tender were to be running dry, then the crew would stop at the first opportunity to take on water, rather than risk dropping a plug, or worse.

In the case that I described concerning my ride on a Black 5 with an oil tank wagon train, the line is mostly level or down-hill between Luton and Bedford, so taking water at the troughs North of Bedford would have been a top-up operation rather than a fill-up.

As for the 8 minute station stop mentioned, the time taken to fill a tender would depend on the facility available. I would expect tender filling times to vary widely, depending on the amount of water needed and the water flow rate at the facility. I can remember taking on water at Leicester with a Jubilee when the total station stopping time was only 90 seconds, but we knew that the troughs North of Loughborough were not that far away. The tender was not completely full when we departed because we only needed enough water to get to Derby, 27 miles away, if I remember correctly.

Sir Brian

[Pyewipe Junction]

Sirbrian:

were your rides on LMS and BR locos as driver or fireman, or did you have a footplate permit?

[Pyewipe Junction]

Just saw this on the GE Society web page (talking about the D14/15s):

'These fine engines positively bristled with innovative features, including compressed air operated water scoops...'

Didn't some tank engines (especially those used for fast outer suburban services - ?A5s) also have scoops, at least initially?

[Pyewipe Junction]

Slightly OT I know, but it must have been a nightmare to keep tank locos fed and watered to operate high intensity suburban services like those from Liverpool Street.

I assume they must have had to take water at the end of each trip, but how did they get coal? Were there mini coaling stages at the termini?

[Bullhead]

I am reliably informed that some Aspinall and Hughes L&YR locomotives were fitted with vacuum-assisted water scoop equipment.

From the same source, the water troughs just South of Carstairs were provided with steam heating, the steam coming from the boiler which also operated the pump which supplied the header tank. This was a large cast-iron affair which apparently froze solid one particularly cold Winter night, and the consequent burst and thaw caused significant flood damage.

Didn't some tank engines (especially those used for fast outer suburban services - A5s) also have scoops, at least initially?

I gather that the BR 4MT 2-6-4T now on the Bo'ness & Kinneil had water scoop equipment when it arrived (and which was removed during the restoration process).

[60041]

The issue of water troughs seems to have had some coverage here, but I would like to add a couple of points:
Troughs were situated on stretches of level track that had rising gradients at each end, so the train approached down towards the trough then up again at the end. The depth of water in the trough was not great - only about 4 - 5 inches, so the gradient needed over a distance of a couple of dozen yards or so at the ends was negligible.
The only troughs that I remember seeing in action were Lucker troughs on the ECML about 15 miles south of Berwick upon Tweed. The gradients here were natural undulations of the route, but it would have been quite reasonable to have created a rise in track level simply by ballasting the track. I cannot remember the length of the troughs, but they were certainly well over half a mile long, and could have been much longer