Stainmore route?

General discussion about Train Simulator, your thoughts, questions, news and views!

Moderator: Moderators

michaelhendle
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 8189
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Peterborough originally Hounslow &Durban

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by michaelhendle »

I think it depends on what era that you use this is mainly a steam era route, as I think it closed in the early 1960s,it just might have seen BR class 20,24,25, and just probably class 37
But of course, as it is a simulation you can run virtually anything you like on it
Mike
User avatar
Carinthia
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:07 pm
Location: at the end of the regulator

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by Carinthia »

rkk01 wrote:Does anyone know what the axle loading limit was for the line / Belah viaduct?
It was pretty low. As far as I can trace, the only locomotves used over the various viaducts were:
  • Worsdell J21 0-6-0
  • Worsdell J25 0-6-0
  • Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0
  • Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0
  • BR 3MT 2-6-0
They ran in pairs if need be.

John
michaelhendle
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 8189
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Peterborough originally Hounslow &Durban

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by michaelhendle »

I know they are including an Ex GER 2-4-0 that was used for a while over the Stainmore route.
Just looked up West Aukland shed

listed loco for the steam era 2MT, 3MT, 4 MT, J26, J39, J71, J72

Up to 1956, there was an allocation of A8 4-6-2T (NER)

Mike
rkk01
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:42 am

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by rkk01 »

So, if the 4MT has an axle load of 17t...

Then the WD 2-8-0, 2-10-0 or S160 would be fine (by axle load, rather than all up weight)
michaelhendle
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 8189
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Peterborough originally Hounslow &Durban

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by michaelhendle »

The axle weight of a standard 4 was 17.25 long tons

Mike
User avatar
locomotiveman1994
Established Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:00 am
Location: Bundesbahndirektion Saarbrücken, Germany

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by locomotiveman1994 »

Going by that, even the mighty 9F would be suited for the route, considering she has a axle load of only 15.7t...
Greetings from the continent,
Gaëtan

The Railway Operating Division - A Commemorative Train Simulator Project: http://sem34090.simplesite.com
michaelhendle
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 8189
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Peterborough originally Hounslow &Durban

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by michaelhendle »

The Ivatt Class 4 had a RA 4 and the BR Version as well

Mike
marcusboon
Well Established Forum Member
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 1:58 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by marcusboon »

locomotiveman1994 wrote:Going by that, even the mighty 9F would be suited for the route, considering she has a axle load of only 15.7t...
As fas as I know the route availability (RA) of the Stainmore line was raised from RA2 (with some RA3 allowed) to RA4 in 1954, with some engines of RA5 and RA6 allowed (although rarely seen). The 9F's had a route availability of 9...

Marcus
User avatar
locomotiveman1994
Established Forum Member
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:00 am
Location: Bundesbahndirektion Saarbrücken, Germany

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by locomotiveman1994 »

The RA system seems to be somewhat confusing. According to Wikipedia, the 9F has an axle load of 15,7 tonne, with a RA of 9. According to Wikipeda's site on Route Availability, an RA of 9 restricts engines with an axle load of ≤25.4 tonne.
You say the route has a RA of 2, respectively 4 from '54 onwards. With RA 3 limiting to ≤16.5 tonne per axle, the 9F would still be suited for the line, going ONLY by it's axle load.
Could someone enlighten me, please, as I do not understand the logic behind it...
Greetings from the continent,
Gaëtan

The Railway Operating Division - A Commemorative Train Simulator Project: http://sem34090.simplesite.com
brysonman46
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:30 am
Location: Larbert Central Scotland

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by brysonman46 »

Whilst axle load is the major factor, there are other considerations. Many steam locomotives had minimum curvature limits - ie they couldn't safely negotiate curves with a smaller radius than one specified. This was particularly true of the 9F, which had flangeless wheels on its central axis - otherwise it would have been very strictly limited to where it could safely run. The flanges on the second and fourth coupled wheels were reduced in depth. This enabled the locomotive to round curves of only 400 feet (120 m) radius. I am not sure what the minimum curve radius is on the Stainmore line.
For early diesel locos, many had leading pony bogies on the axles (eg the 1Co-Co1 set for Cl40s) for similar reasons. In game, the AP/RR Cl40 has such a bogie, so can tackle much tighter curves than the DT Cl40, which has the pony fixed to the bogie.
michaelhendle
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 8189
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: Peterborough originally Hounslow &Durban

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by michaelhendle »

Just a thought could it be the overall weight of the locomotive and tender makes it to heavy for the route
Mike
Stone75
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 1170
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by Stone75 »

Surely axle loading has to take into account distance between axles to give an idea of how heavy a load is being put say on a bridge span. Lots of small wheels versus one with few and the same axle load will be completely different weight locos.
marcusboon
Well Established Forum Member
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 1:58 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by marcusboon »

I think an engine's RA is also influenced by hammerblow (especially with 2-cylinder engines), as its effect on underline bridges can be more important than dead weight.

Marcus
User avatar
749006
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 9862
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:17 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by 749006 »

locomotiveman1994 wrote:The RA system seems to be somewhat confusing. According to Wikipedia, the 9F has an axle load of 15,7 tonne, with a RA of 9. According to Wikipeda's site on Route Availability, an RA of 9 restricts engines with an axle load of ≤25.4 tonne.
You say the route has a RA of 2, respectively 4 from '54 onwards. With RA 3 limiting to ≤16.5 tonne per axle, the 9F would still be suited for the line, going ONLY by it's axle load.
Could someone enlighten me, please, as I do not understand the logic behind it...
I'm unsure how the BR 9F got a RA of 9 as they system was, I think, only introduced with Diesel Locos?

Is the Wikipedia entry confusing the Power rating of 9 Freight with an axel loading?

Peter
http://peter749.piwigo.com/
My Railway Pictures
marcusboon
Well Established Forum Member
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2002 1:58 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Stainmore route?

Post by marcusboon »

My ‘Observer’s Book of Railway Locomotives of Britain’ (1958) gives the RA of most ex-LNER and BR standard engines. The GWR had her own system using coloured dots. Accoring to Wikipedia the system originated with the LNER and was later adopted by BR.

Marcus
Locked

Return to “[TS] General Discussion”