6023

If I had I'd have deleted it from my browsing history sharpish!

 

Let's see: a 4-8-0 with driving wheels 6' or so, using the patterns for the Halls or Counties, boiler based on no. 12 (King) with the same firebox but a slightly longer barrel. But perhaps this belongs in the Proposed New-Builds thread rather than here.

 

Yes it does , but hey . Never a good idea to make a boiler longer to suit the wheels...

 

Far more appropriate. Then we could talk about the colour too....

"The Great Bear of the Night"?

 

Surely 'The Great Bear Lady of the Night'??

 

Perhaps Lady of Leisure in view of the timescale?

 

Deleted. I posted the same as Weltrol before I had read his post!

 

"The Grizzly Prostitute"?

Ain't nobody paying to ride that one....

 

One could have fun posting most inapproriate GWR loco names. But perhaps a new thread.

King Eric Bloodaxe might be a good one (King of Northumbria in the 10thC)

 

To summarise story in SR this month...

• She may not be going mainline at all due to gauging issues, so far been unable to move to WSR or SVR due to gauging issues, whilst height is sorted she is 8'11" across the cylinders (Suggests that 6024 would have the same problem were it not for the new slimline cylinders being cast) which is 3" wider than a Britannia, plus there are problems with buffer beam throw.
• Apparently the move to London was only possible due to 'weaving it across various lines' and thus is not viable for normal use. May be possible that gauge 'enhancements' planned on the WR will help associated with ICE trains?
• NR still in direct contact with GWS (which is apparently rare as its normally via a TOC) and plan to visit Didcot again to discuss.
• Decision likely to be made over the winter whether to just limit to private lines.

I suppose and this is a personal opinion they could always try and use the patterns for 6024's cylinders at a later date but is it worth it?

 

Hindsight is a marvellous thing.
Really will be like a great bear pacing up and down in a cage , quite sad really, and wherever she ends up will be accused of big pufferitis by PH.
Send her to Poland ?

 

Not sure whether it is hindsight, when they started the project 6024 fitted, now she doesn't and 6023 seems to just be is further victim of NR apparently reducing the loading gauge in this country with little consultation?

 

Apart from the gauging issue, is this locomotive really ready to be tested for mainline running? If it is, and considering all they've gone through to get this far, surely the cost of new cylinders should, at least, be considered. A single chimney King on the Devon banks really would be a goal worth aiming for.

 

Would be interested to see what 6024 looks like finished as it may look peculiar, if the patterns are available whats the likely cost of casting and machining two cylinders?

 

Yes - We are in agreement here. If, however many years ago, someone had considered that by 2017 we might be out of gauge anyway...

 

The width of the cylinders seems very narrow to too wide for Network use. The width of a Mark 1 carriage, excluding door handles and grab rails, is 9' and that will be at a higher point than a King's cylinders, but these are nothing like as low as a Hall and actually the same width and I would have said effectively height about the rail as a Castle. OK, the King will have a different kinetic envelope but it seems amazing that 5043 is still able to run pretty widely, but Kings are totally banned.

It may be that increasing problems are not a failure to maintain loading gauge but due to deliberate changes made in order to reduce the gap between platforms and modern passenger vehicles. Recent accidents including fatalities make this a far more urgent issue for Network Rail than enabling steam locomotives to operate, and it seems it may have been deemed to be an issue that should be tackled by modifying infrastructure rather than passenger stock.

Steven

 

8'11" is pretty damn wide for 16.25" (nominal) cylinders. A while back I quoted a width over bores of 8'5.75" for an LSWR N15; it's the only figure I have readily to hand right now. So if the cylinder flanges and cladding are a mere 2.5" wide combined each side, that would be narrower than a King, and yet accommodating 22" outside cylinders.

I don't know what the width of a Mk1 is at platform height, but with those curved sides I'd say less than 9'.

 

Remember that the King is also accommodating two 16.25" cylinders between the frames as well.

 

Surely the amount of cladding on the cylinders is down to the bare minimum anyway ? (Aerogel insulation ? ) no doubt the generous size of things like crankpins and rods on a machine of this power means the cylinders are 'Further out'

 

Drawings Here http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/loco_draw.htm suggest that Halls are 8' 11 1/4" (modified being 8' 11 1/8") across the cylinders, cannot find to hand section drawings of a Castle or King.

Again showing my ignorance the SR pieces suggest she is only 3" wider than a Brit which have big route ability, however would not a Brit being 2 cylinder wiggle about more at the front end when compared with a more balanced 4 cylinder.

Edit - Possibly more worryingly for the GWS is what a 29xx and 47xx are across the cylinders as it seems little bigger than Shannon at Didcot will now fit on the mainline.