|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 8, 2019 15:46:09 GMT
Started at the suggestion of the Mods! Amd perhaps timely, as the line celebrates its 150th birthday on 26-4-2020
stapler
POSTS SO FAR
Mar 6, 2019 at 9:56pm QuoteEditlikePost Options Post by stapler on Mar 6, 2019 at 9:56pm
norbitonflyer Avatar
Mar 6, 2019 at 10:16am norbitonflyer said:
stapler Avatar
Mar 6, 2019 at 8:25am stapler said:
the 305/1s had to be replaced with units from the LM region in the north-west.I'm afraid I don't remember which class they came from. They also had a slightly different livery, AIRI.
The only AC units the LMR had in the early 1960s were the AM4s, which looked very similar to the AM5s, so it was probably them. Forty years later, towards the end of their working lives, ex-LMR 310s found their way onto the Great Eastern and Tilbury routes, but I doubt they worked the Chingford services.
Thanks; it was indeed the AM4s. They had a different shade of green from what became AM5s, with twin yellow lining bands at waist level. AIRI, they were also 4-car units, making a rush hour Chingford train 2x4 rather than 3x3 cars
norbitonflyer
norbitonflyer A
P
yesterday at 7:26am QuotelikePost Options Post by norbitonflyer on yesterday at 7:26am
stapler Avatar
Mar 6, 2019 at 8:25am stapler said:
They also had a slightly different livery, AIRI.
For some reason most LMR units were in lined green rather than the plain green favoured by the Eastern and Southern regions
Mar 6, 2019 at 8:25am stapler said:
There was considerable disruption on the Chingford line when the 305/1s had to be replaced with units from the LM region in the north-west.
(still just about on topic, as these were what are now Overground services, where the 710s will eventually run),
According to Wikipedia this was not because of delays in production of the AM5s, but were a loan to cover for the AM6s and AM7s whilst they were being converted from DC to AC - the 304s having been built before they were needed on the LMR for precisely that reason. From what you say it seems that the AM4s were actually used on the Chingford line as well (or instead), possibly because the AM5s were better suited to the Shenfield/Southend route for some reason - maybe the AM4s couldn't work on the 6.25kV sections? These were a legacy of the smaller clearances needed for the old 1500V system, and a source of many of the issues with the transformers, which had to switch between the two supply voltages on the move - but sometimes didn't.
A pity what is now the LMR has no spare units to help out this time - it has its own problems with delays in delivery of units both new (class 331) and converted (319Flex aka 769).
stapler
Member is Online
yesterday at 8:13am QuoteEditlikePost Options Post by stapler on yesterday at 8:13am
<< the AM4s were actually used on the Chingford line as well>>. The Chingford line was all 6250v at the time, of course
Yes, I think this was documented in the Line 112 Group's "Railway to Walthamstow and Chingford" published some 50 years ago. I also seem to remember the AM4s mostly ran with the lavatories locked out of use (unwelcome to a small boy), and lavatories were not seen on the Chingford line till the 317s started helping out..
I thought the LMR (or rather, its successors) were actually to *blame* in the present situation, by demanding release of the 172s!
norbitonflyer
norbitonflyer Avatar
Posts: 6,010Male
Member is Online
yesterday at 12:04pm QuotelikePost Options Post by norbitonflyer on yesterday at 12:04pm
stapler Avatar
yesterday at 8:13am stapler said:
The Chingford line was all 6250v at the time, of course
I didn't know that - I had understood it was only the former 1500V dc lines which initially ran at the lower ac voltage, to save raising the clearances a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Mar 8, 2019 22:40:57 GMT
I've not too much to add in the way of history, but at the time the line was electrified and the 305s appeared I was a young pupil at Leyton County High School for Boys. The school playing fields were not in use so we all de-camped once a week to the wastes of the marshes on the Lea Bridge Road for our football, hockey or whatever. The new units tantalisingly passing just far enough away to prevent individual identification are well remembered, along with their steam predecessors. To get to the playing fields we were issued with free Bell punch tickets for the short journey from the Bakers Arms to Lea Bridge on trolleybus route 557.
I developed a dodge which saw me saving my fare from school back home to Forest Gate on the 685/687 or 697/699 trolleybuses and use that money to catch a train from Lea Bridge into Stratford for a spotting session. The spare bus ticket from that would then be used to get to school the next morning. I don't know if my parents ever knew what I was up to, but I was never challenged!
|
|
|
|
Post by ashlar on Mar 8, 2019 23:18:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simran1966 on Mar 9, 2019 14:52:19 GMT
So in the end, what did the 315s replace on the Chingford branch? AM4/304, AM5/305, something else?
I notice that the Wikipedia Class 315 article says they replaced 306s, but I assume this was only the GE mainline.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 9, 2019 17:28:22 GMT
The 305/1s which operated the inner suburban Enfield and Chingford lines were indeed replaced by 315s. The outer suburban 305/2s, which had an extra carriage and some first class accomodation, and usually ran to Hertford and Bishops Stortford, were replaced, I believe, by 310s displaced from the LMR - some of them having a new lease of life replacing firstly 506s when Manchester/Glossop was converted to AC, and then on the newly-electrified North Berwick branch in Scotland.
Some of the top-up order of similar AM8s ended up in West Yorkshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 9, 2019 18:20:31 GMT
So in the end, what did the 315s replace on the Chingford branch? AM4/304, AM5/305, something else? I notice that the Wikipedia Class 315 article says they replaced 306s, but I assume this was only the GE mainline. Class 305s I believe. When I moved to London my first commuting experience was catching one of them into Liverpool St. It was like taking part in a TV sketch that I'd seen so many times on TV but had never experienced in my home city. Here's the only photo I have of one on the Chingford Line. 
British Rail 305 409 St James St by plcd1, on Flickr And here is a NSE era class 315 on the line. 
Class 315 Wood Street by plcd1, on Flickr I really should get some more LO era photos before they head for the scrap heap. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 9, 2019 22:27:45 GMT
What really improved the 305s was the duo-tone grey/blue livery. In olive green they were boring, and in rail blue, brash; but the 6-car train photographed by snoggle above looks elegant to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by simran1966 on Mar 10, 2019 0:08:16 GMT
Thanks, guys.
I agree, the blue/grey is/was very smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by rdm on Mar 10, 2019 17:44:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:51:37 GMT
Good to read about my old train potting location when young(many years ago!) watched the wires going up and the odd dmu,s used for workings when line closed for wiring etc.First units were okay and seemed reliable did not realise they were midland region units just glad clean and reliable ,missed the old orderespecialy cabbing an N7 as it changed platforms! Any photos of current ops please?
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 12, 2019 21:36:59 GMT
Not all the units were LMR. Just a few, presumably ekeing out the 305s as gremlins were sorted out.
During the electrification process, I don't actually remember DMUs in use. It was mostly N7s and quints, but of course sometimes routed via Hall Farm Jc and Stratford. You were then apt to get N7s the wrong way round, till someone thought to reverse them on the triangles at Clapton-Coppermill etc.
The DMUs were certainly used after 1960 when the juice was off; I can remember an 8-car DMU train (4 units, I suppose) leaving from platform 16 at LV one Sunday in October 1964...route via Stratford and the curve.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 12, 2019 21:43:52 GMT
You were then apt to get N7s the wrong way round, Tank engines spend half their lives going bunker-first - why did it matter which way round they were? |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 13, 2019 8:13:38 GMT
You were then apt to get N7s the wrong way round, Tank engines spend half their lives going bunker-first - why did it matter which way round they were? There speaks a man who grew up far from the GE! Whether an old wives tale or through scientific exploration, the N7s were always oriented "chimney towards Chingford", because it was held they pulled better up the 1 in 70 from LV that way round. Wood Street shed was fanatical about it. If a loco was received from lackadaisical 30A wrong way round, it would promptly be despatched to Hall Farm Jc and run round two of the triangles... |
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Mar 13, 2019 9:30:00 GMT
Tank engines spend half their lives going bunker-first - why did it matter which way round they were? There speaks a man who grew up far from the GE! Whether an old wives tale or through scientific exploration, the N7s were always oriented "chimney towards Chingford", because it was held they pulled better up the 1 in 70 from LV that way round. Wood Street shed was fanatical about it. If a loco was received from lackadaisical 30A wrong way round, it would promptly be despatched to Hall Farm Jc and run round one of the triangles... I would image 'chimney first' is better when the line is predominantly uphill to maintain a better water level in the boiler. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 13, 2019 11:34:11 GMT
Given the size of railway gradients it's not really an issue (with perhaps the sole exception of the Snowdon Mountain Railway), 1 in 100 would give a drop of 1cm for every metre of boiler - so for a tank engine maybe an inch or two less in the gauge glass (yes, I know I'm mixing my measuring systems). Compare this to a road engine which has to go both up and down much steeper hills (but which aren't steep enough to deserve warning signs) and hopefully my point is illustrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2019 14:04:08 GMT
Ah, it was to do with gradients - I wondered. Bethnal Green bank is 1 in 70, so maybe three inches?
You do see on other lines (e.g the Worth Valley) that locomotives generally go "chimney first" uphill. This reduces the likelihood of (liquid) water getting in to the cylinders. (Physics: Water, unlike steam, is virtually incompressible so can do damage to a piston trying to compress it) Even banking engines, which you might imagine would have been easier to couple up to the trains they are to assist if they were running cab/bunker first, usually seem to have run chimney-first.
The Snowdon Mountain Railway locomotives, and those on other rack railways, have boilers that are set at an angle to the frames, so that they are level on the steepest sections where they are working hardest.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 13, 2019 14:12:23 GMT
The risk of priming (water being carried into the cylinders) is not really relevant as most locomotives have a steam dome where the live steam is taken from the boiler barrel, this dome is generally located at the mid-point of the boiler so that gradients can go up and downhill without risk of priming. In a similar way the gauge glass on a Wallis Advance roller is located just ahead of the firebox rather than on the blackhead so the reading is consistent no matter the direction of the gradient.
I suspect it is one of those things where intuition would say chimney uphill, bit it doesn't actually make much difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 13, 2019 15:01:40 GMT
It did put the bunker, rather than the chimney, nearer the concourse at Liverpool Street when a loco was standing at the stops. Can't imagine it made much difference to the atmosphere though.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 13, 2019 15:27:14 GMT
Hmmmm, but if the smoke hoods in the loco shed were set up to only be over the chimneys, then a loco the wrong way around would be a bad thing.
This assumes individual hoods rather than one long fixed thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by billbedford on Mar 14, 2019 10:22:47 GMT
The risk of priming (water being carried into the cylinders) is not really relevant as most locomotives have a steam dome where the live steam is taken from the boiler barrel, this dome is generally located at the mid-point of the boiler so that gradients can go up and downhill without risk of priming. In a similar way the gauge glass on a Wallis Advance roller is located just ahead of the firebox rather than on the blackhead so the reading is consistent no matter the direction of the gradient. I suspect it is one of those things where intuition would say chimney uphill, bit it doesn't actually make much difference. I have a copy of a BR document that lists classes of steam locos that were allowed, or not, over vertical curves of 11 chains radius. A few of the disallowed class have the following note appended: "For Eastern Region, These locos may pass over 11 chain convex curves provided that the water level is not below half glass on level track & that they are not allowed to stop either on the hump or on the inclines immediately entering or leaving in order that the danger of uncovering a fusible plug may be obviated" The classes this applied to were O1, O2, O4, WD & 8F So it seems to me that "They pull better chimney first" may be a rationalisation of "We really don't want to deal with the consequences of some dosey tyro fireman exposing a fusible plug" |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 14, 2019 10:32:24 GMT
All five of those classes are 2-8-0 tender locomotives. I would guess that the long coupled wheelbase might be a problem on vertical curves (aka humps).
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 14, 2019 16:49:32 GMT
And none of those locos were ever seen on the Chingford line, though Stratford sent Britannia on its first trip round to Hoe Street on a parcels train...
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Mar 14, 2019 20:20:11 GMT
The end of the bay platform at Greenford has a steep slope down to the main network. In tank engine days, the engine was NEARLY always at the Greenford end, and I've only ever seen one photo with the engine at the Ealing Broadway end. Also, nearly every photo I've seen portrays the engine "funnel first"
This was perpetuated in DMU days, but this might have been because the bubble car often left the trailer at the end of the Ealing Bdy bay siding during the off-peak when 1 car was enough. Using a single car also helped stop fare evasion too.
|
|
35b
Posts: 449
Member is Online
|
Post by 35b on Mar 14, 2019 21:46:52 GMT
Ah, it was to do with gradients - I wondered. Bethnal Green bank is 1 in 70, so maybe three inches? You do see on other lines (e.g the Worth Valley) that locomotives generally go "chimney first" uphill. This reduces the likelihood of (liquid) water getting in to the cylinders. (Physics: Water, unlike steam, is virtually incompressible so can do damage to a piston trying to compress it) Even banking engines, which you might imagine would have been easier to couple up to the trains they are to assist if they were running cab/bunker first, usually seem to have run chimney-first. The Snowdon Mountain Railway locomotives, and those on other rack railways, have boilers that are set at an angle to the frames, so that they are level on the steepest sections where they are working hardest. In context of that theory, it always amuses me that the NYMR normally has locomotives pointing south, so boiler first up the 3 miles or so of 1:49 out of Grosmont. However, the longer slog is from Levisham, which includes equally steep stretches. |
|
|
|
Post by pgb on Mar 15, 2019 9:26:52 GMT
The risk of priming (water being carried into the cylinders) is not really relevant as most locomotives have a steam dome where the live steam is taken from the boiler barrel, this dome is generally located at the mid-point of the boiler so that gradients can go up and downhill without risk of priming. In a similar way the gauge glass on a Wallis Advance roller is located just ahead of the firebox rather than on the blackhead so the reading is consistent no matter the direction of the gradient. I suspect it is one of those things where intuition would say chimney uphill, bit it doesn't actually make much difference. I'll disagree with that as a generic statement on the basis that priming can occur quite easily even with the dome in the middle of the boiler. The act of priming can be very much one down to management of the boiler by the crew rather than anything else. If they know the road, then the boiler will be adequately filled to avoid priming or to avoid the water disappearing down the grade. However, you have to take in to account braking where the water will disappear on holiday every time the brakes are applied. We run Garratt's on 1:40 gradients for five miles or so in both directions and it is all down to training. Occasionally a double Fairlie will make an appearance - these locos have the gauge frames quite a way up the barrel meaning we run around with only a couple of inches in the glass to avoid priming. When you're going up a 1:40 then you've got virtually nothing showing in one glass and about 2 inches in the other. It's all down to training to keep it going. Yes, priming can occur for other reasons, but generally, training and competence will keep it at bay. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2019 10:01:24 GMT
Heavy braking is of course much more likely going downhill.
How does it work in a Garrett? Is there a single live steam feed at one end of the boiler serving both pairs of cylinders? A Double Fairlie must be a difficult proposition as it is impossible for both chimneys to be at the uphill end!
(Garrets were once a common sight on the Midland Main Line, but I doubt any of them was ever seen at Liverpool Street, let alone Chingford!)
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Mar 15, 2019 10:46:06 GMT
Heavy braking is of course much more likely going downhill. How does it work in a Garrett? Is there a single live steam feed at one end of the boiler serving both pairs of cylinders? A Double Fairlie must be a difficult proposition as it is impossible for both chimneys to be at the uphill end! ( Garrets were once a common sight on the Midland Main Line, but I doubt any of them was ever seen at Liverpool Street, let alone Chingford!) Used I think for coal trains between Nottingham collieries and Cricklewood? |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 15, 2019 10:46:34 GMT
I suppose the nearest equivalent to a Garrett would have been the Decapod, but I don't that ever got closer to the branch than Coppermill Junction!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 15, 2019 12:27:08 GMT
The risk of priming (water being carried into the cylinders) is not really relevant as most locomotives have a steam dome where the live steam is taken from the boiler barrel, this dome is generally located at the mid-point of the boiler so that gradients can go up and downhill without risk of priming. In a similar way the gauge glass on a Wallis Advance roller is located just ahead of the firebox rather than on the blackhead so the reading is consistent no matter the direction of the gradient. I suspect it is one of those things where intuition would say chimney uphill, bit it doesn't actually make much difference. I'll disagree with that as a generic statement on the basis that priming can occur quite easily even with the dome in the middle of the boiler. The act of priming can be very much one down to management of the boiler by the crew rather than anything else. If they know the road, then the boiler will be adequately filled to avoid priming or to avoid the water disappearing down the grade. However, you have to take in to account braking where the water will disappear on holiday every time the brakes are applied. We run Garratt's on 1:40 gradients for five miles or so in both directions and it is all down to training. Occasionally a double Fairlie will make an appearance - these locos have the gauge frames quite a way up the barrel meaning we run around with only a couple of inches in the glass to avoid priming. When you're going up a 1:40 then you've got virtually nothing showing in one glass and about 2 inches in the other. It's all down to training to keep it going. Yes, priming can occur for other reasons, but generally, training and competence will keep it at bay. Fair to say priming is complex and yes, related quite a lot to the crew. When I was still learning I had my Advance priming when going up a steep hill with only half a glass but blowing off, though that's arguably linked to the water being sucked up by the valves. In this case the valves and steam to the cylinders is taken from the front of the boiler, so going uphill risk of priming should reduce. I think we'll agree that steam engines are complex beasties! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 15, 2019 13:18:09 GMT
Garrets were .............Used I think for coal trains between Nottingham collieries and Cricklewood? Exactly so. The LNER also had a Garrett, built for banking duties in Yorkshire. When that line was electrified it was moved to similar duties on the Lickey, replacing the LMS's only ten-wheeler. That loco had been built by the Midland Railway in 1919. To get back to the GER, the previously-mentioned "Decapod" was the only other ten-coupled loco in the UK until the British Railways era 9Fs. As far as I am aware, the Decapod, built in 1902, was never used in passenger service. Although its axle loadings were well within limits, the all-up weight would have been too great for some bridges, but it proved its point, that steam could accelerate just as fast as the new electric railway that was being promoted in competition with the GER. With the electric rival seen off, the necessary bridge strengthening work was never done and the loco was redundant. It was converted to an 0-8-0 in 1906, and scrapped as non-standard in 1913) |
|
