9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

Going slightly O/T, one of the things that we are in danger of losing is the experience of compounding in the UK. Driving a Midland/LMS compound was quite different from a simple locomotive and required a different skillset. This is one reason why I'd like to see 1000 back in steam again, before it's too late and we are unable to pass on these skills to another generation. If it is not too late, already.

 

Few pennies towards completing the tender and electrical signal gubbins would no doubt help this come sooner...!

Skills alive and well on the RPSI!

 

Absolutely, well said that man. I am still trying to establish how the cut-offs were linked. Van Riemsdijk is long on pictures but short on useful info.

 

K1 is a compound and that's in GB (quite apart from the RPSI's base in NI still being part of the UK last time I checked!)

 

Don't see why not, the line is already maintained to 75mph standard for testing work. The main issues as I understand it are that the safety case doesn't allow it and to change this would presumably need various additional mitigating measures which would have to be agreed with the HMRI of course. There are enough GCR volunteers who would like to see a modest speed increase in future, myself included, though this is neither a universal view nor policy! But never say never.

The MHR has also had a higher line speed than most heritage lines in the past.

 

As I discovered in May with some splendid running from no.85.

 

Three thoughts:

1. Could the ORR requirements be met within the current legislative protections for preserved railways, or would the increase in speed make the GCR subject to full main line conditions?
2. Would the cost of maintaining the track to 75mph standards for everyday use be sustainable - I don't read the numbers closely, but I don't detect signs of cash to spare when I read Main Line.
3. Would the impact remove the current flat access to the platforms at Quorn and Rothley - the platform is already inaccessible from the yard when the TPOs run?

At the risk of sounding like @paulhitch, this feels like a "wouldn't it be nice", but without the advantages of either special historical experience or efficiency gains.

 

Glad to hear a bit of thought is being given!

PH

 

In answer to question 1, all the legislative exemptions that make life easier for heritage railways fall by the wayside if you want to go over 40 kph (25mph). You're then in the big railway league, with all the legislative requirements that go with it. Secondary locking on coach doors is just one of them. That isn't to say that a heritage railway can't go down that route, though.

 

Though I have had good experiences with 1000 (+Jubilee) and City of Truro I suspect that the limited amount of mainline work available for such modest types in addition to the costs of fitting TPWS and OTMR will limit these machines to preserved line activity.

If only the 9f design owed less to the desire for simplicity. It is possible to build into the design features that would permit the negotiation of the required curvature but these would make the type heavier, more complicated and more expensive to build. Riddles has been criticised for being overly fond of simplicity, the engines he was responsible for never achieved the power to weight ratios that might have been expected in the light of work carried out in the 20s and 30s. Would it be worth taking a 9f and modifying it to include chassis design features to be found elsewhere in the World? It might be. The improved sure footedness and acceleration that would be available would be very welcome on excursion work. The machine would be most unlikely to "sit down on the job". Have a look at the S & D and compare and contrast the experiences that the line had with the Bulleid Pacifics and the 9. It would be fair to say that no crew would take Tangmere rather than Evening Star.

You could say that the 9f is not a 75mph machine. True enough but it is better than a 50mph one. Modern valve design complete with associated lubrication improvements would eliminate the old concerns about this area. If only the design had achieved its ability to negotiate a minimum curvature of 6 chains through inclusion rather than the reverse.

 

A steam locomotives at Thornaby depot in the 1980s.

Photographs courtesy of Mr.Richard Watson. How did evening star get to thornaby depot by rail or road FISH7373 81C

 

Rail. 92220 moved itself from York to Grosmont and back in 1986 and 1987. It also moved me into becoming involved with wooden carriages but that's another story.

Sawdust.

 

what did Donald Beale say about the 9Fs and the S&D? was it 'ideal engines'?

the raised check rail thing is i believe relatively 'modern'.

unfortunately that is the end of 9Fs on the mainline, and the sooner some of you accept this fundamental fact the sooner this thread might conclude!

cheers,
julian

 

deleted

 

Nothing wrong with dreaming - as long as you recognise the realities. Personally I quite like the idea of a 9F out on the mainline, but I am also a realist and accept the fact that the 9F as designed and as running on many Heritage railways is totally incompatible with modern trackwork and as such NR are quite correct to ban it from their infrastructure. No amount of dreaming / stamping of feet / name calling / bag of a fag packet solutions / threatening legal action / etc is going to change that so get used to it.

However if a bunch of enthusiasts come up with a real, durable, and provable solution that (1) does not require any modification to NRs infrastructure (2) Does not cause excessive wear or track maintenance issues and (3) Can be proven to be reliable and robust in service then I do not see why NR would not review their policy with regard to the 9F class. That does not necessarily guarantee success for those behind the revised 9F of course, and as I said earlier there is no legal obligation for NR to accept a revised 9F as it would still not be complaint with group standards, but providing everything is done correctly their is a good chance of NR coming back with a yes.

So the ball is very much back in the dreamers court - come up with a viable solution backed with the necessary finance to make it happen and make your dreams happen.

 

As a consumate dreamer even I have accepted that the 9F will probably never run on NR, you would have to 'make it into something else' for that to happen

 

If you find the thread so annoying, why frequent it?

 

Some folk have a dream, others have a question or two. Though there is little doubt that a 9f would be a very useful addition to the ranks of mainline certifiable steam, most know that they used to be used but are not sure why the design as it was built is now deemed unsuitable.

Hopefully there is now greater clarity concerning the difficulties raised by some details of more modern trackwork and the cheap and easy solution taken to the question of negotiating curvature taken at the time the class was designed.

So yes, a potentially very useful machine but totally unacceptable today as designed. As to whether the design could be modified in order to make it acceptable? There is no doubt that it could be. But you would need very deep pockets. In order to produce such a modified machine much time would be needed. So would the investment prove worthwhile? Or, bearing in mind the rapid changes taking place on the railways, would you be better served by a genuine new build as opposed to a rehash and re-creation of an earlier design?

Worse. This has not been a good year for steam on the mainline. The ongoing situations with WCR, undependable locomotives, and the realization that steam is not viewed as being capable of handling the trains it is meant to haul (unless in some fairly remote places) does raise the question as to how much longer have we have to experience network access.

 

1. Don't entirely agree with the earlier post. All railways now need a T&WA Order regardless of speed or form of traction; it's down to the applicants to say what they plan to do with their railway and how they intend to ensure safety, and the ORR/HMRI to accept or reject that. Yes, there has been a lot of talk that heritage railways above 25mph would require this, that and the other, and there is clearly some truth in that as railways proposing higher speeds will undoubtedly have higher risks and require more risk mitigation as a result, but has anybody actually tested it? I don't think so. Even the MHR which used to run at 30mph found it easier to just accept the lower speed and fall in line with the rest.
From the GCR's perspective the existing line south of Loughborough runs under a Light Railway Order (=older legislation) and depending on what this stipulates it could be that a T&WAO would be needed to upgrade the speed, which would probably be a prohibitively expensive exercise in itself. That said, I believe a new T&WAO is needed for the "gap" anyway so maybe a few paragraphs could be snuck into that at marginal cost. Pure speculation on my part and unlikely in reality!
2. Probably not. I think when it was looked at a few years ago they were talking about 40-45mph, hence my use of the word "modest". Does a higher speed necessarily mean more wear-and-tear on the track if you're just running the same number of trains? I have my doubts.
3. Who knows? Who cares? Details!

By the way this has all been debated previously in another thread; probably not worth re-hashing it all here, beyond this.

 

You did ask the questions Agree on previous threads, though I think the consensus was that there is an increase in costs even for a minor speed uplift.