Class 8 shortage

How many class 8 locos do we have headed into 2015. I'm going to try my best so here goes the list
6233- healthy
4488(60009)- healthy
4498(60007)-healthy, but going into overhaul later?
35028- healthy but going into overhaul
Is that it?
I'm not putting Brittania and Ollie in because they are out for repairs heading into this coming year.

I think the situation shall be better by the end of the year but by how much?
60163, 6201, 6023?, 60103? 35018? Am I missing anything?

 

Dont think that Britannia and Ollie count as 8's , 60103 wont be allowed to work a class 8 Roster, Yes i think thats the lot.

 

There aren't really many more class 8's at the best of times. 6024, 6201, 6203, 60019, 60163, 60532 and 71000 but how many have been operational at once? 60103 is a cl 7 in my books.

 

Was just about to post likewise, there's only so many class 8's anyway, take out those for the usual things like overhauls, maintenance, owner no longer interested etc, I woulden't call it a shortage at all, more promotors demanding train lengths and itinaries that make anything else unworkable, there's a number of class 6 and 7 types that could be used with a coach or two less or on flatter routes, or shock horror, a pair of Black Fives, Halls, or even the B1's.

I doubt 60103 can be considered for general use either as I'd suspect the NRM would restrict where it goes and what it does after all the outlay on it.

 

4472 always worked in the class 8 pool usually working in conjunction with 4498. When fitted with a double Kylchap the A3 class was used almost indiscriminately. Scotsman largely worked in single form during preservation in this role and was sometimes found to be lacking because the advantages of the double chimney were not present. When Ian Riley has finished with the protracted overhaul the engine will be well and truly fit for service. You cannot compare an A3 with a Castle, for example, since the design stems from a requirement to handle 600 ton trains. What the NRM choose to allow the locomotive to do is up to them. The more work it is safely able to do the better in terms of balancing the books as it were. And in order for the Charter operators to run tours with fares that are largely affordable trains are usually substantial.

Double heading presents both an extra attraction as well as an extra cost. Some of the class 7 supporting cast do not inspire long term confidence. Royal Scots crack frames for fun; it is only a matter of time. The Standard Pacifics have not proved any more dependable than designs that are twenty and more years older. Tangmere is erratic, lacks adhesion and it's exhaust system is suspect. The Castles out of Tyseley are highly dependable but the sole surviving LN is a non starter. Where is Green Arrow when you need it?

As to the class 6s the two Jubilees are are still shaking down, should you want to put them on a load that would ordinarily require a class 8. Leander has done it but would you want to do it on a regular basis? The K4 has little problem with loads but has modest coal and water capacity and is a 60mph machine (officially anyway) The K1 tends the stick to the West Highland.

Now to the class Fives and double heading. But at least IR's Black Fives are supremely dependable.

What does the future hold? More frequent diesel assistance. Get ready for it.

 

Or more smaller class double heading

 

Not suggesting the A3 isn't capable, more I'd expect it to be wrapped in a bit more cotton wool after the run into the ground state it arrived at York in.

 

Theres 10 class 8P's that have never been mainline, 8 of which have yet to steam at all...

35006,9,10,11,18,22,25 + 46235, and 6023/35027.

Plenty of reserve, short on brass. If the demand was there, they'd be up and coming...
35005 should be the bell weather of this, if there was demand enough for it to go mainline to be justified, I'm sure someone would be making a deal with the MHR.

I think the long term issue is it's becoming a 7/8 only railway, as running rail tours continues it's move towards a professional entertainment business the "fun" aspects of rail tours drains away.. small locos, unusual routes etc.

 

class 7's: 7029, 4079, 46100 should make up the shortfall ?

 

And how many of them currently plan on going mainline when in steam? 35006 certainly isn't, not unless we get to Honeybourne, there'd be very little point. I'd be a bit disappointed if it ups sticks and left once they'd finished restoring her at Toddington as well. Apparently when 35005 visited some years ago everyone was surprised how economical she was, before a certain someone starts complaining....

 

Did you sleep through the bit where FS regularly worked heavy hard trains and knocked itself into pieces? Why supercharge it beyond the strength of its frames - just for the same to happen again?

In reality, or is this just enthusiast myth? An ex-mainline driver of my acquaintance, who drove plenty of Bulleid pacifics back in the 1960s, reckoned they had no problems starting smoothly once you knew how to drive them. Once the boiler pressure was lowered to 250psi, and with rather small cylinders, a Bulleid actually has a rather low nominal TE to adhesion ratio. I've watched quite a number of charter trains depart from Salisbury towards London (quite a hard start, uphill and sharply curving) and I don't think Tangmere is particularly more prone to slipping than any other big pacific. Unfortunately, the supposed propensity of poor adhesion of Bulleid pacifics mean that people are as likely to judge them on reputation as on actual observation.

Tom

 

I suppose this may be a good outlook for the P2 project?

 

I suspect on the modern network largely restricted to 75mph but needing to carry big loads to make ends meet, a Shire or a Percheron may be a wiser equine investment than an Arabian Stallion!

Tom

 

What's happening to Bittern, is she going off?

 

Being withdrawn for overhaul at the end of the year. Last run 30/12/14.

 

Thought she was off to run on a "preserved railway" for a few years ?
has gone quiet as to which one though.

 

I do think familiarity tends to mask the slightly outrageous mismatch of power and route availability Bulleid managed with the original Light Pacific design. It's a 7P that went places no class 5 could go*, with axle loads to match. They've slightly less adhesive weight than a Black 5 or Standard 5, a bit more tractive effort and a wheel arrangement that tends to promote slipping, hence the 7P5F classification.

But that boiler makes as much steam as any other class 7, and Tangmere is loaded accordingly, so is it any surprise if she's a bit slippery sometimes?

*Yes, I know N's are 4P5F, but then U's are 4P3F. I think of them both as basically class 4.

 

Original A1 produced with 600 ton trains in mind. Long travel valve gear fitted to the design offering improved economy and performance. Number of problems to deal with, excess wear on inside cylinder and fractures of the same being one. The better known issue is that of the frames. These tended to crack from the horn gap to the lightening holes. These holes were at first reduced in size and then largely eliminated. The main difference between the modified frames to be found on the A3 design and the frame design as used on the A4 was the much improved horn stay design fitted to the later design development. All Gresley Pacifics found to be capable of handling trains in excess of 800 tons if called upon to do so. Last significant development of these engines was the universal fitting of a double Kylchap exhaust system. Everyone happy to this point?
Single survivor of A3 design into preservation. This is where things get, shall we say, a bit foggy. We have no real idea about the quality of the work carried out on this machine at points during this period of the engine' life. What we do know is that the Gresley Pacifics have been fitted with 20" bore cylinders, 250 psi working pressure boilers and the previously mentioned exhaust system. But never all three together, not in railway company ownership. However it was done as we are now aware to this sole survivor.
Now folk have modified locomotives before. Quite frequently frames are improved to make sure that they can withstand the increased power output aimed for. This was not done in the case of the A3. It could have been, there would have been a weight penalty, an agreeable one? Who knows? The engine took a double hit, the modifications were unbalanced and then the money ran out.
A simple reversion to the double exhaust system was all that was desirable if the maintaining of the original fabric was required in conjunction with acceptable improvements in power output and steaming.

As to Tangmere, 57 tons of adhesive weight compared with 67 tons does mean that the locomotive is better compared with a class 5. If you read Peter Smith's books on the Somerset and Dorset it helps to understand the problems faced trying to work trains with locomotives that are neither predictable nor dependable. Being outstanding on the odd good day is not enough.

 

Whilst not perfect, the originals were better than that.