Help with 22 yr old Photo!

trabpc

Date on back of photo is Spring 1990.

I remember seeing this pass between Portlaoise and Ballybrophy in early 1990 and saying to myself "that this is the 1st time I saw a steam train" so I rushed home for the crappy old Film camera and took this. i only found it again tody after loolking through some old family snaps. I remembered waiting for hours for it to return. sorry about quality. I was about 14 at the time.

The carriage is a cravens the the engine Im not too sure. Is it 461?

foggy_lad

trabpc wrote: »

Date on back of photo is Spring 1990.

I remember seeing this pass between Portlaoise and Ballybrophy in early 1990 and saying to myself "that this is the 1st time I saw a steam train" so I rushed home for the crappy old Film camera and took this. i only found it again tody after loolking through some old family snaps. I remembered waiting for hours for it to return. sorry about quality. I was about 14 at the time.

The carriage is a cravens the the engine Im not too sure. Is it 461?

2-6-4 Tank loco No4 built in the UK in 1947

CIE

Something else that they were still building new steamers in 1947. No less withdrawing from service in 1971. Wonder why an engine that new/modern didn't get disc or boxpok driving wheels?

Niles

More info on No.4 available here.

At this stage she'd easily spent more time in RPSI ownership than she did under the NCC/UTA/NIR combined!

foggy_lad

CIE wrote: »

Something else that they were still building new steamers in 1947. No less withdrawing from service in 1971. Wonder why an engine that new/modern didn't get disc or boxpok driving wheels?

They went mad building steam locos in England after the war when every other country was scrappin steam in favour of electric and diesel-electric.

Some say it was to give jobs to returning soldiers on the railways but it was more because most other European railways had been almost bombed out of existence and they were happy to start from scratch with new rail lines and new trains.

But in England much of the railway network was ok with a bit of patching up, and with the ready supply of coal and everything set up for steam they took the dirt cheap option and decided that steam would see them into the 70s at least lol but Dr Beeching burst that bubble!

corktina

it was LACK of labour and POOR coal that did for UK steam eventually plus they didnt have the foreign exchange to pay for Oil.

German and French steam lasted longer than UK steam

The UKs network and rolling stock were totally knackered after WW2 thats why they had to build lots of new engines, the last in 1960...all gone by 1968, on the face of it a waste but once you get dieselisation rolling , its wasteful and costly to run two systems alongside each other.

The advent of Diesel Shunters and DMUs in the fifties caused more steam to be scrapped than Beeching did.

CIE

I wouldn't blame the end of steam on Beeching either. The economies of scale, and efficiency/easier maintenance of diesels (even though they're mechanically more complex than a steam engine) didn't favour the continuation of steam traction. There's also the bit about one crew operating several engines in tandem if needed (the other "multiple-unit" operation) and of course having eight driving wheels at the very least (with traction-aiding smaller wheel diametre) with the smallest of diesel units.

corktina

yes and of course the real villain was the rise of road transport abstracting away the freight and passengers.

trabpc

Got a Reply from the RPSI they say its no.4 (2-6-T) probably from comeragh Railtour may 1990.

I asked him to confirm the train.

is it 2-6-T or 2-6-4-T?

is it this train?

http://www.steamtrainsireland.com/locomotives/loco4.htm

lord lucan

trabpc wrote: »

Got a Reply from the RPSI they say its no.4 (2-6-T) probably from comeragh Railtour may 1990.

I asked him to confirm the train.

is it 2-6-T or 2-6-4-T?

is it this train?

http://www.steamtrainsireland.com/locomotives/loco4.htm

That's the one. It's a 2-6-4T.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

I wouldn't blame the end of steam on Beeching either. The economies of scale, and efficiency/easier maintenance of diesels (even though they're mechanically more complex than a steam engine) didn't favour the continuation of steam traction. There's also the bit about one crew operating several engines in tandem if needed (the other "multiple-unit" operation) and of course having eight driving wheels at the very least (with traction-aiding smaller wheel diametre) with the smallest of diesel units.

Funnily enough, when BR finally went for diesel power in the mid 1950's the call was made to go with a lot of manufacturers of loco in order to see who would prove to be the more reliable company. The resultant was a lot of small batches of locos, which neglected the point of standardising the fleet for economies of scale, servicing etc. Had Oliver Bulleid have remained on with BR in some role, dieselisation and indeed electrification would undoubtedly have taken a smoother path.

trabpc

Losty Dublin wrote: »

CIE wrote: »

I wouldn't blame the end of steam on Beeching either. The economies of scale, and efficiency/easier maintenance of diesels (even though they're mechanically more complex than a steam engine) didn't favour the continuation of steam traction. There's also the bit about one crew operating several engines in tandem if needed (the other "multiple-unit" operation) and of course having eight driving wheels at the very least (with traction-aiding smaller wheel diametre) with the smallest of diesel units.

Funnily enough, when BR finally went for diesel power in the mid 1950's the call was made to go with a lot of manufacturers of loco in order to see who would prove to be the more reliable company. The resultant was a lot of small batches of locos, which neglected the point of standardising the fleet for economies of scale, servicing etc. Had Oliver Bulleid have remained on with BR in some role, dieselisation and indeed electrification would undoubtedly have taken a smoother path.

RPSI confirmed you are all correct re 2-6-4 no4. Not that any of you needed confirmation. Well done and thanks. Do I see a murphys model of it on eBay at the moment. Probably go for mad money.

corktina

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Funnily enough, when BR finally went for diesel power in the mid 1950's the call was made to go with a lot of manufacturers of loco in order to see who would prove to be the more reliable company. The resultant was a lot of small batches of locos, which neglected the point of standardising the fleet for economies of scale, servicing etc. Had Oliver Bulleid have remained on with BR in some role, dieselisation and indeed electrification would undoubtedly have taken a smoother path.

Bulleid? you jest...he'd have blown the budget on more Leaders... he did that on the Southern and then did the same here when usable steam was really needed. A genius engineer but not popular on Railway Boards or in Operating depts Id say.

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

Bulleid? you jest...he'd have blown the budget on more Leaders... he did that on the Southern and then did the same here when usable steam was really needed. A genius engineer but not popular on Railway Boards or in Operating depts Id say.

Bulleid had his faults, no doubts about it, but he was one of the few in the UK who knew that steam, as it existed, was doomed. At the time this didn't rank well with the powers that be in the UK and to a large extent he had to do their bidding, as powerful as he was as a CMO.

When he came to Ireland, he made a lot of progress in addressing the revamp of the mechanical end of things as there was less agendas at play; even then he still had some meddling to deal with such as the Metro Vickers order and some pressure to take on the Turf Burner project. CCI, as with the Leader class, had some benefits and some decent test returns but with the onset of diesel, the drawbacks outweighed the positives and both were shelved as he moved on.

trabpc

Losty Dublin wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

Bulleid? you jest...he'd have blown the budget on more Leaders... he did that on the Southern and then did the same here when usable steam was really needed. A genius engineer but not popular on Railway Boards or in Operating depts Id say.

Bulleid had his faults, no doubts about it, but he was one of the few in the UK who knew that steam, as it existed, was doomed. At the time this didn't rank well with the powers that be in the UK and to a large extent he had to do their bidding, as powerful as he was as a CMO.

When he came to Ireland, he made a lot of progress in addressing the revamp of the mechanical end of things as there was less agendas at play; even then he still had some meddling to deal with such as the Metro Vickers order and some pressure to take on the Turf Burner project. CCI, as with the Leader class, had some benefits and some decent test returns but with the onset of diesel, the drawbacks outweighed the positives and both were shelved as he moved on.

I just realised I know nothing about the history of Irish steam!

trabpc

Losty Dublin wrote: »

corktina wrote: »

Bulleid? you jest...he'd have blown the budget on more Leaders... he did that on the Southern and then did the same here when usable steam was really needed. A genius engineer but not popular on Railway Boards or in Operating depts Id say.

Bulleid had his faults, no doubts about it, but he was one of the few in the UK who knew that steam, as it existed, was doomed. At the time this didn't rank well with the powers that be in the UK and to a large extent he had to do their bidding, as powerful as he was as a CMO.

When he came to Ireland, he made a lot of progress in addressing the revamp of the mechanical end of things as there was less agendas at play; even then he still had some meddling to deal with such as the Metro Vickers order and some pressure to take on the Turf Burner project. CCI, as with the Leader class, had some benefits and some decent test returns but with the onset of diesel, the drawbacks outweighed the positives and both were shelved as he moved on.

I just realised I know nothing about the history of Irish steam!

corktina

the few who knew steam was doomed?

Hawksworth initiated 18000 and 18100 in 1946 (Gas Turbines)
Ivatt initiated 10000/1 about the same time (Diesel elctircs)
Bullied had 10201/2 and eventually 3 planned ( ditto)
Raworth had 20001/2/3 built largely before BR days (straight electrics)
the LNER had the EM1 and 2s ready to go at the end of WW2 (26000 Tommy was lent to Dutch railways before nationalisation) Straight electrics.
and thats only main line locos

All four pre nationalisation UK companies had diesel shunters in service.
Many lines including nearly all the SR lines had third rail electric EMUs running.
The GWR had diesel railcars running since the mid 30s

I could go on.

Bullied is a person favourite of mine but an economic disaster for the railways he touched. His pacifics were so unreliable (all 140 of them!) that most of them had to be totally rebuilt to a conventional design to make them usable, and he built these massive machines at a time when the SR was running droves of turn of the century locos crying out for rationalisation. A lot of his Pacifics spent their days hauling three coach trains in Devon and Cornwall!

101sean

I have a number of books about Bullied inc one about the turf burner, he is a favourite of mine as well. Surprising number of his pacifics made it in to presevation inc some un-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain examples.