©Steam Library: Ex-GWR ‘Castle’ Class 4-6-0 No. 5029 ‘Nunney Castle’ 

I have watched this multiple times and still not bored. It's sound's so awesome too skip past.

So where does this dire coal come from??

The same thing happened to 4930 Hagley Hall in 1985 in the GW 150 when she was coaled with rubbish at Bristol Bath Road to work a Bristol-Plymouth train with 5051 Earl Bathurst. The end came on Dainton bank where 4930's fire turned into a solid lump and with 600 tons behind 5051 she slipped to a stand and a following class 50 had to push the train over the summit to Totnes where it terminated. It was the second run west over the south Devon banks for the first with 7819 Hinton Manor and 6000 King George VI both failing at with hot axles boxes. That run was saved by 4930 coming straight off SVR workings and running to Plymouth light engine overnight. After that only east bound runs were made and only with 5051 and 7029 Clun Castle. The closure of Swindon Works made GW 150 a bit of a fizzer.

Probably not fed the Welsh steam coal her firebox was built for and which was used by the Western region up to the end of steam (hence the unique tarry smell that marked Paddington from all other London terminals) although by then the quality was deteriorating. The black smoke suggests that either the coal or the firing techniques were unsuited to the fuel.

@@andrewdarley8988 On test, GWR locos did pretty well with non-Welsh coal. I think the problem here is an inexperienced fireman, always a problem in preservation days because they simply don't get the day-to-day practice that BR fireman got. A well-practised fireman would have adjusted his technique according to the fuel. Maybe the coal was no good. There is such a thing as crap Welsh coal and I say that as someone of 100% Welsh ethnicity (if that doesn't sound too pompous) although actually a suburban Londoner. Nunney Castle lives to fight another day - just about.

It’s interesting to compare this run with last weekend’s ascent by 45596 ‘Bahamas’ with an extra coach and (from speaking to the driver at Plymouth) imported coal of ‘dubious’ quality at best. The double chimney turns the nominally LMS Class 5XP loco into something considerably better - I think the steaming output is thought to be improved by up to 30%? Interesting that BR never distinguished between single and double chimneyed locos in its loading book calculations.

@@limeyfox The double chimney certainly improves the steaming of a loco but mainly at a high rate of evaporation/steaming. In steam days a single-chimney Castle was rostered for 9 up this bank and never failed , to my knowledge, but of course it would have had an experienced fireman. The actual steam rate on climbing Hemerdon is not particularly high but the pressure must be kept right up. With Nunney the steam rate was not high but the pressure was down to about 175 psi (my estimate) and the loco was absolutely flat out. Hate to say it but the fault was the fireman. I really hope he gains experience from this daunting task

Single.

She was running well under 225 psi boiler pressure here, for whatever reason. Not even the smallest wisp coming from the safety valves even when she was down to 10 mph. Should have been blowing off furiously by that point with the demand from the front end Decreasing.

They would insert a pilot loco between the train engine and the carriages if it was a diesel hauled train, say a Warship, or in front of the train engine if it was steam hauled, to avoid the pilot engine inhaling the soot - often an NBL type 2 was used as pilot.

Full gear, 75%, almost without question. And full regulator. This was a close-run thing and in preservation days drivers like to show off but this was just a case of keeping going. In steam days a Castle with 9 would have needed 55-60% or possibly full gear with the regulator not quite fully open. The load limits for all types on the South Devon banks were pretty high and demanded that the boiler pressure was well up.

I wondered that. 50% probably with boiler pressure down

It’s coal. What do you think you feed a mainline steam locomotive on?

@@harryrobinson2901 I agree. However what I saw loaded on the tender when coming back from Kingswear had a greater affinity to porridge than a tidy load of coal. Think they kept the good stuff for their own engines.

The gradient is 1 in 42 up to the curve near the top where it changes to 1 in 51. You can hear the slight acceleration.

@@Rosie6857 cheers , yes I noticed the exhaust note change,👍

@@johnjackson1106 Probably a great relief to the crew because this was a close-run thing. Foot-on-the floor in bottom gear, in motoring terms.

@@Rosie6857 Yes indeed. It was a little bit nail biting just watching. Never mind firing it .

(JB) My guess is that they'd be allowed 11. Kings routinely took 11 up the South Devon banks and they have roughly the same tractive effort and steaming capacity as a 9F. I have a log which shows a steady minimum speed of 18 mph with 11 on. This needs a huge amount of steam.

@@Rosie6857 I thought 9fs could take maybe 20 coaches up that bank because it has 10 driving wheels, I did see a 9f pull a 2198 ton stone train on a video.

In that case Castles have 4. Someone has obviously nicked the rear coupling rods. Also it would mean an LMS 2P 4-4-0 could get 8 up the bank whereas in reality I doubt if one of those dreadful things could get itself up the hill, let alone pull a train. In 1906, apparently, a 28XX hauled a 2000-ton train Swindon to London.

@@jamesbradford4550 What???? 20 up Hemerdon? You're having a laugh aren't you? That 2198 ton train pulled by a 9F was on level track, not the 1 in 42 for 2½ miles of Hemerdon!

@@Rosie6857 And yet....appearance can be deceptive. The 2Ps worked over the Somerset and Dorset for many years and were the principal motive power for passenger services before the war. According to S&D fireman Peter Smith, they regularly worked 6 bogies over Masbury summit - a notorious seven-mile slog in either decoration, much at around 1 in 50. At the other end of the line, they would haul 240 tons unassisted up Parkstone bank, including a stop in the middle at Parkstone station. Stalling was apparently unheard of!

It's in full gear; you can hear the sharpness of the exhaust. With the full BR-allowed load of 9 it would have stalled as it would have done on Dainton West later in the run. In steam days drivers may well have allowed the speed to fall as low as this one but this is the preservation era and drivers like to show off a bit where they can. With full pressure a speed of 15 mph is quite feasible.

Rosie6857, you talk so much shit it’s unreal.

That's a bit rude isn't it? Two can play at that game, you'll find.

Rosie6857, you slam every locos performance and suggest it’s bad coal or firing, just be quiet.

This is a poor performance - no question about that. As a GWR fan I find it embarrassing. Another half mile and it would have stalled. Bad coal or bad firing is exactly the problem, not the engine, so I don't understand your reaction. Maybe you're just a thicko or maybe you should go back to reading Thomas the Tank Engine. Either way you seem to know absolutely fuck all about the performance of steam locos. There you are - I told you two can play at the game of rudeness. Not nice, is it.

It's an ex-GWR loco. They built it about 1932.

@user-4tx5qc2e) Yes, you'd think so but that is a long way from what actually happened. I have a log which shows a West Country (34023) taking 9 (330 tons) up the bank at a steady 23 mph from a stop at Plympton. This needs a huge steam rate and must have been a case of full gear and full regulator. The previous day 34081 took 6 up at a steady 25 mph. The source of this info is "Bulleid's Pacifics" by D.W.Winkworth. I have no reason to doubt the figures because the author is sceptical about the whole class and one chapter is titled "How Bad Were These Engines?"