https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU

On 01/07/2023 05:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU

We had a steamstitution on the Southern in recent living memory.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 05:25:17 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU

I must have missed something? I watched both videos and saw no sign of a steam loco rescuing a diesel.

In the second video, the huge Big Boy articulated loco was hauling a demonstration train that included a diesel loco,
but I don't think it was 'rescuing' it. It's probably the other way round, with the diesel assisting the steam loco as
needed (both with power and braking). The FAQ in this video says that the diesel is now mandatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYzhjUzCOU

I've only seen a Big Boy in a museum, and that's impressive enough. Watching one actually hauling a train would be
amazing.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/46864223475/in/album-72157678094828287/

On 01/07/2023 05:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU

Way back in the 1980s a Class 40 on a freight train on the S & C broke
down somewhere near Ribblehead. The nearest available loco was "Leander"
waiting at Hellifield for a clear road. 5690 was sent to clear the line
by pushing the freight into the loop at Blea Moor. The charter train
left Hellifeld rather late...

--
Dave,
Frodsham

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 09:25:27 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 01/07/2023 05:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU
>
>We had a steamstitution on the Southern in recent living memory.

Perhaps you were thinking of this incident in Southeastern territory?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8428097.stm

On 01/07/2023 14:01, Recliner wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 09:25:27 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/07/2023 05:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU
>>
>> We had a steamstitution on the Southern in recent living memory.
>
> Perhaps you were thinking of this incident in Southeastern territory?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8428097.stm

It's not what I had in mind but thanks as my search didn't find what I
was looking for.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 05:25:17 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU
>
> I must have missed something? I watched both videos and saw no sign of a
> steam loco rescuing a diesel.
>
> In the second video, the huge Big Boy articulated loco was hauling a
> demonstration train that included a diesel loco,
> but I don't think it was 'rescuing' it. It's probably the other way
> round, with the diesel assisting the steam loco as
> needed (both with power and braking). The FAQ in this video says that the
> diesel is now mandatory:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYzhjUzCOU
>
> I've only seen a Big Boy in a museum, and that's impressive enough.
> Watching one actually hauling a train would be
> amazing.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/46864223475/in/album-72157678094828287/

You didn’t watch the first video, then? The diesels being rescued are
about 2 miles in front of the Big Boy.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 14:01:06 +0100
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 09:25:27 +0100, Coffee
><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 01/07/2023 05:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU
>>
>>We had a steamstitution on the Southern in recent living memory.
>
>Perhaps you were thinking of this incident in Southeastern territory?
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8428097.stm

Impressive the BBC still make stories that old available.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 05:25:17 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkJRslmY-0U
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kgtzVj79ZU
>>
>> I must have missed something? I watched both videos and saw no sign of a
>> steam loco rescuing a diesel.
>>
>> In the second video, the huge Big Boy articulated loco was hauling a
>> demonstration train that included a diesel loco,
>> but I don't think it was 'rescuing' it. It's probably the other way
>> round, with the diesel assisting the steam loco as
>> needed (both with power and braking). The FAQ in this video says that the
>> diesel is now mandatory:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYzhjUzCOU
>>
>> I've only seen a Big Boy in a museum, and that's impressive enough.
>> Watching one actually hauling a train would be
>> amazing.
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/46864223475/in/album-72157678094828287/
>
>You didn’t watch the first video, then? The diesels being rescued are
>about 2 miles in front of the Big Boy.

I did watch it, but missed the Big Boy. I don't know how that happened? Maybe I accidentally skipped past it, but
definitely watched a different video.

I see that the commentator refers to the 'fireman', as we would — I thought he was called the 'stoker' in America? Or,
is that only for coal-powered locos?

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>You didn’t watch the first video, then? The diesels being rescued are
>about 2 miles in front of the Big Boy.

How far into the video is that? I got bored after about a minute!

Mark

It appears that Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> said:
>I see that the commentator refers to the 'fireman', as we would — I thought he was called the 'stoker' in America? Or, is that only for coal-powered locos?

It's always fireman, and the driver is the engineer. We never had
enough oil powered steam locos for them to get their own vocabulary.

For many years unions forced US railroads to include a fireman in
diesel crews even though he had nothing to do.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> It appears that Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> said:
>> I see that the commentator refers to the 'fireman', as we would — I
>> thought he was called the 'stoker' in America? Or, is that only for coal-powered locos?
>
> It's always fireman, and the driver is the engineer. We never had
> enough oil powered steam locos for them to get their own vocabulary.

I knew the driver was the engineer (ie, the engine operater), but was under
the impression that the coal was handled by the stoker, as in steam ships.
It appears that term is sometimes used, but fireman is the more common
term.

>
> For many years unions forced US railroads to include a fireman in
> diesel crews even though he had nothing to do.

Didn't UK unions try the same thing, but less successfully?

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 21:42:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>> It appears that Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> said:
>>> I see that the commentator refers to the 'fireman', as we would — I
>>> thought he was called the 'stoker' in America? Or, is that only for coal-powered locos?
>>
>> It's always fireman, and the driver is the engineer. We never had
>> enough oil powered steam locos for them to get their own vocabulary.
>
>I knew the driver was the engineer (ie, the engine operater), but was under
>the impression that the coal was handled by the stoker, as in steam ships.
>It appears that term is sometimes used, but fireman is the more common
>term.
>
>>
>> For many years unions forced US railroads to include a fireman in
>> diesel crews even though he had nothing to do.
>
>Didn't UK unions try the same thing, but less successfully?
>
Doesn't the second man get the job of walking to the back of the train
when something goes wrong?

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 16:46:50 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You didn’t watch the first video, then? The diesels being rescued are
>>about 2 miles in front of the Big Boy.
>
>How far into the video is that? I got bored after about a minute!
>
You can always fast/step forward.
IIRC one of the locos on the freight train had failed so there was
insufficient traction available without getting assistance.
Presumably you would not have got as bored as the people waiting for
the train to pass slowly over the level crossing further down the
line.

On 2/7/23 12:00, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 21:42:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner

>>> For many years unions forced US railroads to include a fireman in
>>> diesel crews even though he had nothing to do.
>>
>> Didn't UK unions try the same thing, but less successfully?
>>
> Doesn't the second man get the job of walking to the back of the train
> when something goes wrong?

The US ended up with THREE people in the cab, engineer, fireman and
conductor. The conductor had to walk the train if necessary. The fireman
was there 'because'.

According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
>I knew the driver was the engineer (ie, the engine operater), but was under
>the impression that the coal was handled by the stoker, as in steam ships.
>It appears that term is sometimes used, but fireman is the more common
>term.

I've lived my entire life in the US and never heard the fireman called the
stoker.

Ships had stokers, railway engines didn't.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
>> I knew the driver was the engineer (ie, the engine operater), but was under
>> the impression that the coal was handled by the stoker, as in steam ships.
>> It appears that term is sometimes used, but fireman is the more common
>> term.
>
> I've lived my entire life in the US and never heard the fireman called the
> stoker.
>
> Ships had stokers, railway engines didn't.
>

Perhaps I was confused by (mechanical) stokers? When I heard the term, I
assumed it was referring to the person operating the apparatus, rather than
the device itself.

https://www.steamlocomotive.com/appliances/stoker.php

According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
>> I've lived my entire life in the US and never heard the fireman called the
>> stoker.
>>
>> Ships had stokers, railway engines didn't.
>>
>
>Perhaps I was confused by (mechanical) stokers? When I heard the term, I
>assumed it was referring to the person operating the apparatus, rather than
>the device itself.
>
>https://www.steamlocomotive.com/appliances/stoker.php

Yes. that makes sense.

Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
not big enough to need them?

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:57:36 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
wrote:

>According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
>>> I've lived my entire life in the US and never heard the fireman called the
>>> stoker.
>>>
>>> Ships had stokers, railway engines didn't.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps I was confused by (mechanical) stokers? When I heard the term, I
>>assumed it was referring to the person operating the apparatus, rather than
>>the device itself.
>>
>>https://www.steamlocomotive.com/appliances/stoker.php
>
>Yes. that makes sense.
>
>Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
>not big enough to need them?
>
One or more 9Fs apparently -
https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/9f-92000-92250-2-10-0-br-standard-class-9/

and a Southern Merchant Navy -
https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/35005-canadian-pacific-sr-21c5-br-s21c5-35005/
"It generally made little difference to performance but increased the
already high coal consumption of the engine."

Even the LMS Beyer-Garratts were hand fired -
https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/m/fire_box.html
but with a mechanised bunker - "Thus as the bunker is revolved the
coal is fed down to the shovel plate, whence the fireman transfers it
to the fire-box."
Also in that same article - ".. as long ago as 1904 the GWR were
experimenting with a mechanical stoker."

According to Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>:
>>Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
>>not big enough to need them?
>>
>One or more 9Fs apparently -
>https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/9f-92000-92250-2-10-0-br-standard-class-9/

Ah, that's Evening Star. If I ever get back to York I'll have to take a look.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:45:43 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
wrote:

>According to Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>:
>>>Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
>>>not big enough to need them?
>>>
>>One or more 9Fs apparently -
>>https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/9f-92000-92250-2-10-0-br-standard-class-9/
>
>Ah, that's Evening Star. If I ever get back to York I'll have to take a look.
>
Wonkypaedia says-
"Locomotive numbers 92165–92167 were built with a mechanical
stoker..." (so just three).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_9F
which excludes Evening Star 92220.
The article suggests that only locomotives of the size used in North
America were big enough to exceed the amount of coal that a skilled
fireman could supply.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:45:43 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
> wrote:
>
>> According to Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>:
>>>> Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
>>>> not big enough to need them?
>>>>
>>> One or more 9Fs apparently -
>>> https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/9f-92000-92250-2-10-0-br-standard-class-9/
>>
>> Ah, that's Evening Star. If I ever get back to York I'll have to take a look.
>>
> Wonkypaedia says-
> "Locomotive numbers 92165–92167 were built with a mechanical
> stoker..." (so just three).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_9F
> which excludes Evening Star 92220.
> The article suggests that only locomotives of the size used in North
> America were big enough to exceed the amount of coal that a skilled
> fireman could supply.
>

This triggers a different thought in my mind: bogie tenders. As far as I
recall, UK tenders never/seldom had bogies, but the larger tenders in other
countries routinely had bogies. Is this correct?

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 21:49:16 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>This triggers a different thought in my mind: bogie tenders. As far as I
>recall, UK tenders never/seldom had bogies, but the larger tenders in other
>countries routinely had bogies. Is this correct?

It's not correct that UK tenders never had bogies. It is correct that they
seldom had bogies. One of the most notable exceptions is the "water cart"
bogie 8-wheel tenders used on Drummond's LSWR T9 class, so that it could run
longer trips without any risk of getting low on water.

In general, UK railways never needed tenders big enough to justify bogies,
because a single coal load in a standard 6-wheel tender was enough for
pretty much any non-stop passenger run anywhere in the country and the
preferred solution to water capacity was the use of water troughs to
replenish supplies en route on non stop runs[1][2]. The Southern's
constituents were slightly unusual in having few lengthy runs where water
capacity was an issue at all, so it didn't use water troughs. And hence it
did use higher capacity tenders where necessary.

The use of larger tenders, thus requiring bogies, in other countries is
generally a reflection of the longer distances travelled. Crossing the
Nullarbor Plain in Australia required a second, water-only tender in
addition to the normal one.

[1] For comparison, a Gresley A4 tender had a coal capacity of 8 tons, which
is about 800 miles worth of fuel, and 5,000 gallons of water, which is just
over 350 miles of water usage under typical conditions. So water was the
limiting factor, not coal, but water could be replenished in motion.

[2] Interestingly, Tornado's tender is a modified design which carries more
water and less coal than the original Peppercorn A1. That reflects reality
on modern railways where water troughs, towers and cranes are no longer part
of the network infrastructure, thus making it harder to replenish water when
away from the depot.

Mark

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You didn’t watch the first video, then? The diesels being rescued are
>> about 2 miles in front of the Big Boy.
>
> How far into the video is that? I got bored after about a minute!

Starts about 1:40.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 19:45:43 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> According to Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>:
>>>>> Did locomotives in the UK ever have mechanical stokers or were they
>>>>> not big enough to need them?
>>>>>
>>>> One or more 9Fs apparently -
>>>> https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/9f-92000-92250-2-10-0-br-standard-class-9/
>>>
>>> Ah, that's Evening Star. If I ever get back to York I'll have to take a look.
>>>
>> Wonkypaedia says-
>> "Locomotive numbers 92165–92167 were built with a mechanical
>> stoker..." (so just three).
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_9F
>> which excludes Evening Star 92220.
>> The article suggests that only locomotives of the size used in North
>> America were big enough to exceed the amount of coal that a skilled
>> fireman could supply.
>>
>
> This triggers a different thought in my mind: bogie tenders. As far as I
> recall, UK tenders never/seldom had bogies, but the larger tenders in other
> countries routinely had bogies. Is this correct?

ISTR asking a similar question some time ago, but if I did I don’t remember
the answer! I note that the Big Boy’s tender seems to have a two-axle
bogie in front of 4 more fixed axles. The following water tanks have a
typical dual bogie configuration.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply