Talk:Lickey Incline

Descending the Lickey - speed limits
In the 70s I often used to return on a Sunday night from Derby to Gloucester/Cheltenham, and the descent of the Lickey was often memorable. One night I'm sure that I didn't hear the brakes used at all, and the train was travelling like the clappers at the bottom! Not long after that, there was an incident, I recollect, and trains were _governed_ down to a rather tame 70mph. So, question - are the new 220s on this route speed-limited, and if so to what speed. Linuxlad 09:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lickey Hills, Lickey Ridge, Lickey Country Park - ... we are grinding exceeding fine here dear chaps & chapesses! as far as the railtraveller is concerned. What she will notice (less so these days it's true), is travelling rather slowly uphill from Bromsgrove to Barnt Green, through open countryside of some pleasant character, with the prime mover on full bore. Lets try Lickey Ridge...:-) Linuxlad

Ps I'm told the speed limit down is now 80/90.


 * In LMS days descending trains were strictly required to slow to 10mph at the top and not exceed 27mph on the way down (including I presume through-braked passenger trains). Freight trains had to stop at the top to apply wagon brakes and not exceed 11mph. 213.78.101.13 12:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Steepest Sustained etc
I think we have to be careful not to overclaim for the Lickey. Firstly, numbers:- 1 in 37.7 rounds to 1 in 38 in my maths book. Secondly, I don't think the 'steepest sustained' can be regarded as unarguable. There are lines with steeper sections I gather (the old GBoR gives 3 steeper examples, one of 1 in 36 for 2 miles) - these could be _argued_ to be more steep and sustained.Conversely the Wath/Worsboro gradient up to Woodhead (for example) was slightly less steep at 1 in 40 but possibly longer - and certainly heavier work for the coal trains (often double-headed double banked, I gather) which plied it Linuxlad 12:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In case you hadn't noticed, both the Cromford and High Peak Railway and the Woodhead Route are closed...
 * I have never seen it as 1 in 38, always 1 in 37, but if you get you're way no doubt you'll be wanting to describe the details of the vertical curve; " most is 1 in 37 but at the bit at the top it goes to in 40 for ten yards and then 1 in 50...".  You're weasling your way around the subject for no good reason.  Learn how to write English! Dunc|&#9786; 11:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of gradients in and around 1 in 40 so the fact that the much vaunted 1 in 37 is really 1 in 38 IS relevant. The old Record Books were quite careful in qualifying the claim of the Lickey (*) - I suggest it behoves us to do similarly. Or do you have shares in the outcome! Bob aka Linuxlad (*They gave 3 steeper examples, neither of which were CHPR or Worsboro - namely
 * 1) Mersey Tunnel bottom to James St station - 1 in 27;
 * 2) two miles of 1 in 36 just south of Ilfracombe
 * 3) Folkestone Harbour - 1 mile of 1 in 30.

Please check these out and report back if you wish to continue this issue constructively.)


 * Er, the LSWR main line is closed. The Folkestone Harbour branch is closed.  There are more that are shorter sharper sections, elsewhere, but clearly you know what you're talking about! Dunc|&#9786; 12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so! So why not leave it as it was - a carefully qualified claim or a qualitative one, but NOT a specious numerical one, with bad numbers to boot - Thank you for demonstrating your intelligence and patience :-)! Bob


 * Oh yes, too many hair-splitting qualifications would put off the less-informed visitor to the page.


 * I think the reason most people think of the Lickey is the fa=ct that it was and is on a heavily worked through route carrying heavy long-distance passenger and freight trains. Ilfracombe etc were not in the same league of importance. Afterbrunel 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
MR 0-10-0 Lickey Banker describes a loco of which a single example was built, for working the Lickey Bank incline; I suggest it is merged into this article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Dunc|&#9786; 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be opposed, too. Andy Mabbett 16:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Into which article? I'd be opposed anyway. Lickey Incline, Lickey Banker etc. are each sensible length self-contained articles. Chevin 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Moorsom, the Lickey, & the CHPR
Josias Jessop is usually credited with the CHPR and his role is confirmed by the plaque on the Newhaven tunnel near Parsley Hay. But he died in 1826, apparently, so someone must have carried on. Was it actually Moorsom, as implied here? Info to CHPR Talk page please? Bob aka Linuxlad 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Moorsom probably later see CHPR talk page Chevin 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The Lickey Incline article includes a reference to the following paper: Hodgkins, D.J., (1983) Captain Moorsom and the Attempt to Revive the Cromford And High Peak Railway, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal Vol 103 Pp 137‑159 Chevin (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Class 150s Not Banned
Class 150s are certainly not banned from the lickey, as I had one over it yesterday on the 1613 off Bromsgrove, which according to driver is booked a Class 150, as it does Stratford - Worcester Shrub Hill via Moor Street then Shrub Hill - Birmingham New Street via Bromsgrove,Lifford East Junction,Bordersley Junction and Proof House Junction. 94.192.241.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lickey Incline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050201053246/http://lickeyarchive.photobook.org.uk/ to http://lickeyarchive.photobook.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hercules and Bristol Bankers
No question these were used as bankers ... (probably from 1855/6). But these is a question about when rebuilt to welltanks, were they rebuilt in 1860 and 1862 or disposed ? and when MR numbers applied. I think I now seem discrepencies. It may be how I have read the sources Long-Awdry and Maggs; but I think both agree the official records may also have discrepencies. I will re-read things and revist; making article as dubious until I do. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the problems of tracing Midland Railway locomotives is that the MR renumbered some of their engines very frequently, for no apparent reason other than to confuse the historian. Some engines carried as many as five different numbers in thirty years; it only settled down after Deeley became locomotive superintendent, and during 1907 renumbered the entire fleet in a logical fashion - some locos then ran for the next forty years without being renumbered at all.
 * According to
 * numbers 222 and 223 were carried by six and seven different locos each. These entries are relevant:
 * If we examine the pages for the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway, we find:  Now the 1855/56 rebuildings may have been to do with banking, certainly the original cylinders seem far too small to perform any useful work (rather like Brunel's early Broad gauge engines on the Great Western), but there is no mention of tanks. As noted above, page 201 shows two new engines are listed for 1860/62 and these are towards the end of the chapter on Kirtley's locomotives :   It's clear to me that the well tanks numbered 222 and 223 and built in 1860/62 engines are replacements for (not rebuilds of) the old B&G engines. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Thanks for this, really helpful.  I've attempted to sumarise into the article.  I'll possibly have to tweak it; and there's a couple of bits I feel I need to add to the article, including stationary engine prep work by Bury; gravity working; perhaps some more on climbing performance and perhaps incidents.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See if you can get hold of these:
 * The publisher's address is Wild Swan Publications, 1-3 Hagbourne Road, Didcot OX11 8DP; their telephone number is 01235 816478. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also info in Casserley. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The publisher's address is Wild Swan Publications, 1-3 Hagbourne Road, Didcot OX11 8DP; their telephone number is 01235 816478. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also info in Casserley. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also info in Casserley. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Issues July 2020
I'm particular concerned the need to WP:VERIFY is continuing to be ignored and looking particularly in the section "Operation in steam days" there is multiple issues of use of failure to cite, non-wikilinked railway technology and reading (Maggs,2013,Ch. 5 "Working the Lickey Incline") possible discrepencies. This section is likely to be subject to a heavily pruned re-write to that which has been or can easily be cited. Thankyou.08:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

Bury challenge claim
Per in which the summary was dubious and in view of the longer explanation at  I am minded the suggestion that this story rooted from a Stretton suggestion may be true, and may need to thank  pointing this out. I have therefore removed the claimed performance of the Bury 0-4-0 in climbing the Lickey as that comes as part of the same claim. I understand it to be the case P. C. Dewhurst did do some theoretical comparisons of contemporary locomotives against the Norris Type A extra bank locomotives in a presentation to the Civil Engineers. I need to look at this more fully. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

GWR 9400 class
The Lickey was transferred to the Western Region in 1958 and the 3F tanks were replaced by GWR 9400 Class pannier tanks. - this is definitely supported by Casserley, I need to dig it out and check the page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)