Returning to Grantham

[workev]

Will take a look at my books then to find this elusive photograph!

Ian

[workev]

Still in the Middle East, so no chance at looking for those L1s.

However, in looking for photos on eBay, I came across one showing an A3 (60039) being coaled by a crane with a grab, not from the tower. Was this a common occurance, a one-off or a sign of the times towards the end of the shed?

See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/No-60039-coaling- ... 5adc3a38e8

Currently set to end on 5 days time (16 May).

Ian

[Bryan]

Coaling by grab was also common at Whitby.

[61070]

Still in the Middle East, so no chance at looking for those L1s.

However, in looking for photos on eBay, I came across one showing an A3 (60039) being coaled by a crane with a grab, not from the tower. Was this a common occurance, a one-off or a sign of the times towards the end of the shed?

See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/No-60039-coaling- ... 5adc3a38e8

Currently set to end on 5 days time (16 May).

Ian

Thanks for spotting that photo and including the link Ian. I'll gladly stand correction by any of the guys who were actually doing the job at Grantham, but my undestanding is that there were two options when the coaling plant broke down - using the old coaling stage or hiring in a crane/grab arrangement as illustrated. Operating the coaling stage was a labour-intensive method (wagons of coal up the ramp, and then the coal transferred manually into tubs which were slid along to the discharging points for tipping into tenders/bunkers). After the mechanical plant commenced operation there were no staff regularly rostered to this activity, so extra staff had to be brought in - one or two men have told me that as cleaners they remember being drafted to coaling stage duty. I think the crane/grab alternative may have become more common towards the end of the shed's life, when staffing had been reduced and there were fewer cleaners and labourers. If the coal was being drawn from the stockpile on the ground (to the east of the 'New Shed') - which doesn't appear to be happening in the photo of 60039 - a crane/grab would be used to load wagons to supply the mechanical plant, or possibly direct to the locos if that plant had failed.

As I've said, elaboration or correction of the above will be very welcome.

[ROY@34F]

However, in looking for photos on eBay, I came across one showing an A3 (60039) being coaled by a crane with a grab, not from the tower. Was this a common occurance, a one-off or a sign of the times towards the end of the shed?



Ian[/quote]

Ian,
Interesting photo there. As John(61070)says,coaling like that did occur occasionally when the big tower was out of action. Also,as John says, alongside the east side of the main shed,where there was a long pile of coal on the ground running parallel with the 2 roads alongside the shed. These 2 roads were known as "coronation",and were generally used to store engines awaiting work or repairs. I remember once such coaling taking place there,but,as John says,the photo of '39 doesn't look to be at that location.It looks to me more like the western most road of the old shed,with perhaps "London road tracks in the foreground,and the signals top left look about right for that position. This photo doesn't look like the end of steam year ,as the A3 only has a single chimney!!
Roy.
P.S. I have just noticed the photo is dated 1956,so not near the end of steam.Sorry,I missunderstood the theory that it may be.Doh!

[workev]

Roy,

Don't go by the year posted with the photo, I think thats wrong. Note the late emblem, but will need to look in Yeadons to see if (or when 60039 got the double chimney).

The same guy as a photo captioned 1956, with an A4 on a Pullman Service going down from Stoke with Mk1 Pullmans, which is post 1961!

Ian

[60129 GUY MANNERING]

Roy,

Don't go by the year posted with the photo, I think thats wrong. Note the late emblem, but will need to look in Yeadons to see if (or when 60039 got the double chimney).

The same guy as a photo captioned 1956, with an A4 on a Pullman Service going down from Stoke with Mk1 Pullmans, which is post 1961!

Ian

Ian,
60039 got her Double Chimney in July 1959.

Regards,Derek.

[ROY@34F]

O.K.,See what you're saying Ian and Derek.I have since found '39 got her double chimney in july '59.So when wes the latest crest introduced?-around '57 I would guess , but not too sure.

[strang steel]

While browsing the internet, I came across this account of a days spotting at Grantham which I found quite interesting.

http://www.meltonmowbray.steamrailways. ... limpse.htm

However, I think the author has failed to recognise that in July 1957, 67367 had just been transferred to Grantham, where it remained until withdrawal a year or so later according to the books that I have.

[workev]

The photo that I recalled was in fact not the ECML, but an L1 on a Derby-Grantham train at Saxondale, Nottingham. However, I am not giving up hope because I am convinced there is a photo of an L1 at either Little Bytham or Essendine stations on a stopping service (maybe a late subsitution for a B1?).

I managed to acquire some slides in eBay which are purported to be Keith Pirt shots around Grantham. Good value, although one of a C12 on shed went for £9 (not to me!) When I get them I will try to get a better look at them. Not sure whether I am allowed to post them, so need to check Copyrights first.

Ok, my next subject is Parcels traffic (and TPOs) at Grantham....... More questions to follow!

Ian

[strang steel]

I don't wish to nit pick, but I think we used to have a few more than 18 loaded iron ore tipplers ,John(strangsteel),on the Frodingham trains.I always thought we used to bring 14 at a time off the Stainby branch,2x14 assembled into 28 at Hihgdyke to go to Frod. If you look at the 1st. photo in this thread,there are certainly well in the 20's of wagons behind the WD. I have seen photos of loaded trains at Skillington Rd. (on the Stainby branch) with 18 or so wagons on,which sort of blows my theory of 14!.Although rules were bent all the time "up the branch" so it could still be that 14 at a time was the rule.
Roy.

Now you are making me doubt my own memory. My parents back garden was within 50 yards of the line and I was sure that it was less than 20 that I counted (I always counted wagons and carriages for some reason) unless I am 10 out and it was 28. I remember asking the Sleaford East signalman (who lived opposite us) why there were so few, and he told me the bit about the gradient at Ancaster.

Sadly, although I wrote all this down in a book during the 60s my mother threw it out after I left home.

As an addition to this I have been trying to work out just how easy it would be for a loaded iron ore train to climb the 1 in 100 short bank to Ancaster.

I am not good with formulae, so if anyone can do the correct calculations I would be very grateful.

One iron ore tippler had a capacity to carry 27 tons of ore, and the wagon itself weighed around 7 tons. An O2 locomotive and tender weighs around 120 tons. The brake van would be 20 tons or thereabouts.

If there were 28 wagons, that would be 28 x 34 = 952, plus 140 which equals 1092 tons.

Would an O2 be capable of taking that weight up a 1 in 100 gradient? I dont know how much horsepower would be needed to do that at say 10-15 mph. I suppose they might get a bit of a run at the 'bank' but I doubt the loco would be going much more than 25 mph at the foot of it.

If any mathematically minded people are out there, I would appreciate some help.

[ROY@34F]

John,
I'm sorry to cause trouble for you . I may well be wrong after all . I did ask an old friend , who was a goods guard when I was a fireman in the days of the O2s . But he was'nt sure ,which surprised me . It would certainly be interesting to find out for sure. I must admit when you come up with over a thousand tons up a 1in 100 , it does sound a tall order . Although the O2s were 3 cyl.engines ,maybe powerful enough ,so long as they could keep their feet. I don't recall ever having a problem up Ancaster bank , and as you say we would have a good run at it so long as Honington's distant signal was off, and then go for it !! We'll hopefully get to the bottom of it one day ! I'll try a few more old mates when I come across them.
Roy.

[61070]

I've had a try at some basic calcuations, but this is a complex scenario which may not answer to simplification. I believe that the work of experienced men on the steam loco footplate was/is as much an art as a science and, while equations are well and good and they have their place, not everything the men were capable of achieving can be described by mathematical formulae.

First off, the force required to overcome gravity on 1 in 100 is 1/100 of the weight. 1/100 of 1092 tons is 24,500 pounds (rounded off). This is the force which would be required to exactly balance this train on the gradient, i.e. to keep it moving at a steady rate (including a zero rate, i.e. stationary) but in a frictionless world.

The world is not frictionless, so to move a real train, up or down, you also need to overcome the various resistances which, in the real world, affect the locomotive and the wagons.

Using values of rolling resistance available from several internet sites it would appear that a minimum of 4,000 pounds would be required to overcome rolling resistance of this train once on the move at speeds around 12-20 mph on straight track. This is a minimum based on good bearing condition, no rubbing brakes etc. Thus to go up the bank at a steady speed (no acceleration or deceleration) at least 28,500 pounds would need to be exerted on the railhead by the locomotive. This is within the rated tractive effort of an O2, which is 36,470 pounds (from the statistics on this site). A key question is whether this force could be applied reliably, day-in day-out, given such variables as railhead conditions and locomotive condition, boiler pressure etc. Another question is whether it needed to be applied at all, because 'a run at the bank' introduces a different set of calculations from those that apply to the simple 'steady state' situation which these basic calculations describe.

The rolling resistance above only applies once on the move (and at lowish speed). To start the train off from stationary the resistance will be much greater, around 10,000 pounds, reducing to the 4,000 pounds once under way. This means that starting such a load up 1 in 100 would be very difficult for our O2 even in near-ideal circumstances (34,500 pounds of tractive effort required and 36,470 theoretically available).

Roy says that he never had a problem on Ancaster Bank so I expect that the loading was comforably within the operational limit. If a reasonable chance of a start from a dead stand on the bank had to be allowed for it may be unlikely that the load described would have been approved. However, if the bank was short, with every opportunity to take a run and maintain some speed over the summit, it may have been acceptable. I'm not at all informed on the determinants of operational loadings, but I expect others on the forum may be.

The sequel, in the opposite direction, is that while a brake force of 14,500 pounds is needed to hold the train static on the gradient (the 24,500 pounds gravitational force is resisted by the same 10,000 pounds static resistance), the braking force needed to maintain 'equilibrium' rises to 20,500 (24,500 pounds less only 4,000 pounds rolling resistance) once the train is on the move. This situation led to many cases of runaways down gradients when vehicles, which were sufficiently braked on the incline when stationary, were accidentally nudged into motion and could not then be stopped.

[workev]

I have a headache coming on............

[workev]

On another topic

In this photograph there is a rack behind the shed which held wooden boards to be inserted into open gangway ends to prevent water getting in during tender filling. Does anybody have a photograph of these racks.

I have several photos of the rack from a distance (there was one at the south end of the Up platform on some photos); but not one close up. In facvt does anybody have a photo of the water column, equipment shed and rack at the north end of the Down platform?

I want to model this as a little diorama, but cant find any close-up/detailed shots.

Ian