Tender Austerity at Ribble Steam Railway

Probably fitted snow chains to the tyres.

 

Badly.....

 

And it ended up over here... sold a pup were we ?

Back to 'Hunsletstein' would an Austerity Boiler not make a good starting point for an E3 0 -6-2 tank ?

 

Designed for a purpose... very light axle loading, much lighter than anything comparable on the GWR at least. I would guess that provided the regulator is good enough so the driver can keep the locomotive from excessive slipping it would be very useful for a line whose trackwork was not to mainline standards. I imagine they were intended for lightly built lines.

 

As its a superheated engine it's probably better to drive the engine on the reverser rather than the regulator if slipping is an issue - assumes it's got screw reverse?

 

Wasn't the E3 just a smaller-wheeled E4 (or the E4 a bigger-wheeled E3)? That being the case, just use Birch Grove's boiler as a template...

 

Would be interesting to compare the dimensions...

 

As 'Norwegian' suffered quite badly from its final NSB use as a snowplough it would be interesting, if Bressingham ever overhauls 'King Haakon' again, to get it down to the KESR and compare the performance of the two. 'King Haakon' came to the UK in better nick and since then has only ever hauled passenger trains on the fairly flat GCR and NVR, so a direct comparison based upon existing data is presumably difficult. My guess is that it is probably a slightly stronger engine.

 

An awful lot of work went into "Norwegian" at the last overhaul, to try to correct the issues caused by the use as a snow plough. I believe that the frames were straightened and strengthened, as this was believed to be required for her to be able to manage 4 coaches on the bank. Prior to this overhaul, she was effectively limited to 3.5, (although I have yet to figure out how you haul half a coach). Am I right in thinking that "Haakon" is air braked only? That could cause some fun trying to test them!

 

I've seen photos of her hauling Mk.1s at the GCR in the Seventies. The coaches may of course have been dual braked, but was BR really disposing of dual braked Mk.1s that early on?

 

Anyway Back to the thread, Is the stretch-Austerity going to finished of in unlined Gloss black ? which will look quite handsome and 'realistic' but any livery/paint scheme would be perfectly acceptable for this one...

 

It was vac fitted when at Loughbrough from memory it appeared to be quite a crude system, whether it retains any of that pipe work or indeed the ejector I can't comment although from the recent photos I can't see any of it.

 

Indeed although I do keep looking at photos of this conversion and whilst the recent enhancements are much more aesthetically pleasing I can't remember any 0-6-0 tender locomorive with such a high running board (above the wheels) - lower running board and splashers being the norm or the Q1 with no running board? I suppose such a mod would be difficult and indeed expensive.

 

The LNER J38 and J39 had a similar kind of arrangement

 

Thanks - I just knew I should have said "many" rather than "any".

PS However having had a quick look at J39 is that a splasher I can see - very small one's true but still there - however the bulk of the wheel is below the running board.

 

Would a BR crest and renumbering to 62890 help in making the loco acceptable ?

 

Out and about on Saturday - quite impressive methinks




Looking like a L&Y engine should it be 52890 [ I know the original 52890 was an 0-8-0 design BUT 52890 puts it into the BR range of ex L&Y locomotives].

 

Pleased to have found this thread, was just last week having a conversation about this loco with a couple of MHR colleagues and we weren't sure where "Douglas" had ended up! Looks fine, glad to see it in use again. IIRC the MHR found this loco struggled bit with the gradients here, and it never looked much like a black motor anyway!

 

Definitely doesn't need a BR crest or number to be acceptable! Far too many engines in that utterly boring livery. Looks great just as it is - we need more engines with large tender numerals! Very smart indeed.

 

i still think for a line that has extended from its earlier days, where they have Tank engines that have limitations its an option to convert them to tender locos if it leads too more operationally flexible locos, An Austerity as essentially the same as a jinty tank, in the design of it, i believe, so in the BR power classification of 3p 4f so quite a powerfull engine but as a tank engine the necessity to return to shed to top up with coal during the day can be a problem, along with a cramped footplate if i were training a fireman, the more roomy cab of a tender engine allows you to observe without getting in the way, so lets do a quick scenerio, You are the manager of an heritage railway, and you have a ten mile line, and you only have one tender engine that can run a daily timetable without the need to coal up during the running day, and you need more simular engines, you have 3 Austerity tank locos, but their use isnt a practical option because they carry to small a coal load to see them through a normal day, but they are powerfull locos, so do you Park them up, look for larger ex BR designs, that may, or may not be available, ot look at what you do have ? an engine that whilst powerfull enough for your needs, isn't practical , do you make it practical? its a bit like the new build question, Would a tender vesion of an otherwise unwanted, at many of our longer lines locos be an economic answer to big chuffer itis?
For the record, i would love to see something similar to the latest re incarnation of Douglas, in KESR Prussian Blue, with a freight behind it climbing Tenterden Bank.