If they had to change Warnambool bound train R class at Geelong in the 1950's, how come West Coast Railway ran their Rs on scheduled Saturday services the whole distance at the turn of this century? Was it the improvements that have now, sadly, been removed like the double chimneys, etc?
In early 1950 s VR only had few R so they were kept close to Melb plus 4 on two Overland consists. So R only ran Geelong Melbourne in those days and A2 and K or J ran beyond Geelong . WCR R was oil. whereas VR early 1950 s were coal fired.The Overland alone would have occupied near enough to 10% of the R class fleet.
So in the 1950s trains bound for Warnambool hauled by R class locomotives changed engines at Geelong, whereas at the turn of this century the R class went the whole distance, often solo without the assistance of a diesel 'banker'.From a Q&A with West Coast Railway driver Bob Buttrims in "Anatomy of West Coast Railway's "Super" R Class" in Steamrail Victoria's "Stack Talk" magazine, Issue 2, Volume 12 (August 2001):
Was this because:I've listed them roughly in the order that I suspect applies, but I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I'd be happy to be corrected.
- The modifications installed by WCR like double chimneys, etc. made the R class a more efficient and reliable machine?
- The V.R. of the 1950s was overstaffed and unaccountable, so they could get away with feather-bedding operations?
- Oil firing reduced the build up of ash, clinker and gunk, allowing a locomotive to go further without having it's innards cleaned?
- Other reasons?
Q: What was the general brief for modifying a steam locomotive?
A: The criterion set out by the owners was that R711 had to maintain a diesel schedule on the normal Warrnambool passenger train.
...
We knew we would not have time to clean fires on the Warrnambool line and a coal burner would not make it through without cleaning the fire. Power output however was a problem, particularly due to the Geelong tunnel. We knew we would have to take eight cars through from a standing start. An ordinary R class would have been lacking to take it through.
...
The biggest difference the [modified] front makes to an R class is the method of driving. R711 handles its best, and is designed to be driven, at full throttle with as short a cut off as possible. If driven like this the power difference between a modified R class and an ordinary R is phenomenal, however if driven on the throttle with a long cut off the power difference is much less pronounced. This of course raises the question of how good is R711 in comparison with an ordinary R class. The simple answer is that we do not know. By feel and my manual calculation there would seem to be a 23 or 30 per cent increase in power, but without a dynamometer car it is impossible to say. What I can say is I would happily take R 711 and eight cars through the South Geelong tunnel from a standing start at Geelong and have done it many times. It would worry me with an ordinary R class.
...
Q: Regarding the tender. People have spoken of the remarkable range of your modified R class. It seems to go a long way on a tender-full of fuel and water. What sort of range are we talking about?
...
A: The tender capacity has been changed a little, but not by much. R711 will run Melbourne to Warrnambool with a light train on a tender of water but, on say eight cars, it will be down below the crossbars at Colac. It is hard to judge if the water consumption is better than an ordinary R or not.
So in the 1950s trains bound for Warnambool hauled by R class locomotives changed engines at Geelong, whereas at the turn of this century the R class went the whole distance, often solo without the assistance of a diesel 'banker'.Just spent an hour of comments on this post that Railpage gobbled up and deleted under some pretext or other.
Was this because:I've listed them roughly in the order that I suspect applies, but I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I'd be happy to be corrected.
- The modifications installed by WCR like double chimneys, etc. made the R class a more efficient and reliable machine?
- The V.R. of the 1950s was overstaffed and unaccountable, so they could get away with feather-bedding operations?
- Oil firing reduced the build up of ash, clinker and gunk, allowing a locomotive to go further without having it's innards cleaned?
- Other reasons?
Thanks for that. Just as a matter of interest, what sort of communication did they have between the R class leading locomotive and the S class diesel banker?Didn't WCR R class have a diesel control stand so that the diesel could be driven from the R?
Thanks very much Lance, that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. It's a real shame we don't still have the "Super Rs".No probs Bogong - keep smiling - as I said it was a different world then with double line block, electric staff, staff and ticket, few diesels, many steam locos, mechanical signal boxes, manual level crossings and the in house maintenance thereof. All of these were labour intensive and very many were 24/7 rosters.
I should apologise to YM-Mundrabilla. By using the term possible "feather-bedding" in the 1950s, I didn't mean that most staff may not have worked hard, I meant inefficient engineering and work practices resulting in people not being deployed effectively.
I was thinking of the parallel of the unlamented old SECV when they had a monopoly of electricity generation in Victoria. After that monopoly was broken up, it famously became a case study for bad job design and work practices. The ordinary employees probably worked harder than most, but the way the company was run and the employees were deployed meant that average productivity per person was shockingly low at the SECV. After it was split up, reviews of how labour was deployed resulted in every single one of the new stand-alone generating companies producing as much (or more) electricity with significantly less employees.
I just had a gut feeling that the VR 60 years ago, might have suffered from the same sort of management incompetence and poor job design that the SECV infamously had and it was wrong for me to describe that as (possible) feather-bedding.
I have just finished reading a very informative book "Fire and Steam A New History of the Railways in Britain" by Christian Wolmar (called 'Britain's most astute transport observer' by the New Statesman newspaper) which gives some relevant figures of the cost of privatisation of Britain's railways. He says in 1987/8, state owned British Rail had a subsidy of 495m pounds "which is far lower than anything achieved under privatisation". He goes on to say "Privatisation also brought with it a lack of transparency about the financial affairs of the railway, making comparisons difficult, but a reasonable estimate of the cost to taxpayers (is) 5 billion pounds annually". Even allowing for inflation, that is a huge increase, by a factor of at least 5.That is what I was trying to say in my last post or so but puts it much more succinctly.
I have not seen figures for Victoria, but newspaper articles I have read indicate a similar scenario here, i.e. privatisation has resulted in a substantial increase in the cost to us from privatisation of the rail system.
At the outset let me say that I am not doubting anyone's words or experience but would like to ask the following question.Q: What was the general brief for modifying a steam locomotive?
A: The criterion set out by the owners was that R711 had to maintain a diesel schedule on the normal Warrnambool passenger train.
...
We knew we would not have time to clean fires on the Warrnambool line and a coal burner would not make it through without cleaning the fire. Power output however was a problem, particularly due to the Geelong tunnel. We knew we would have to take eight cars through from a standing start. An ordinary R class would have been lacking to take it through.
...
The biggest difference the [modified] front makes to an R class is the method of driving. R711 handles its best, and is designed to be driven, at full throttle with as short a cut off as possible. If driven like this the power difference between a modified R class and an ordinary R is phenomenal, however if driven on the throttle with a long cut off the power difference is much less pronounced. This of course raises the question of how good is R711 in comparison with an ordinary R class. The simple answer is that we do not know. By feel and my manual calculation there would seem to be a 23 or 30 per cent increase in power, but without a dynamometer car it is impossible to say. What I can say is I would happily take R 711 and eight cars through the South Geelong tunnel from a standing start at Geelong and have done it many times. It would worry me with an ordinary R class.
...
Q: Regarding the tender. People have spoken of the remarkable range of your modified R class. It seems to go a long way on a tender-full of fuel and water. What sort of range are we talking about?
...
A: The tender capacity has been changed a little, but not by much. R711 will run Melbourne to Warrnambool with a light train on a tender of water but, on say eight cars, it will be down below the crossbars at Colac. It is hard to judge if the water consumption is better than an ordinary R or not.
Subscribers: Duncs, Pressman, TheMeddlingMonk
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.