6023

As water is a continuing issue for mainline operations, the loss of water space has possibly deterred some owners positioning the compressor on the tender. I don't know how many gallons are 'lost' for Clan Line.

 

Is it not the case that the tender is intrinsic to the registered 'vehicle' (locomotive / traction unit) so the pump is in fact loco mounted?

 

Re 35028's air pump, have found this which might be interesting.
https://clan-line.org.uk/air-brakes/

 

The other point must be that a MN tender has a big water capacity anyway, so a relatively small volume loss still means that the water carried is towards the generous side relative to other locos that might be rostered for similar duties.

Tom

 

I see 6023 has been in action at Didcot this weekend, I guess the move to the SVR will be very soon....

 

If the envelope has closed around 6023, isn't it likely that 6024 won't 'fit' now either…?

Simon

 

Hasn't it got smaller cylinders?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I understand that 6024 has been given smaller cylinders but the people responsible for 6023 have decided that that would be one change too many for the time being. I still find it remarkable that 6201, with exactly the same size cylinders in pretty much the same configuration, doesn't have the same problem.

 

Ahhhhh…

 

gwr - Geet wide railway

 

Yes, it is disappointing that 6023 is at present unable to demonstrate its capabilities on the main line. However, there are many people who are looking forward to simply seeing and riding behind the loco on heritage lines.

It is sure to be a big attraction at the SVR and later at the GWR. It'll be far better utilised than simply running on the demonstration line at Didcot.

It's a very minor point, but it would be nice to see 6023 running in original "taller" condition again . To swap the safety valve bonnet should be easy. I don't know how difficult it would be to reinstate the taller original single chimney once the revised draughting has been proven.

Nevertheless, tall or cut-down, it will be fabulous to see this beautiful blue loco in action again.
To the general public and to many enthusiasts, it'll be far more appealing in blue than if it was in GWR green.

 

If the GWS statement is to be believed, the reasons for deferring mainline ambitions are:
• A need to conclude the testing of the revised draughting.
• The limited time left on No. 6023's boiler current certificate.
• The general turmoil within the steam charter train business at the present time.
• Route restrictions and limitations.
• Cost of loaded test runs.
only one of which is to do with gauging, but presumably no-one was anticipating that it would be a go anywhere loco.

 

I'm not sure any was lost, Clan Line has a third series 6000 gal tender which has a longer wheelbase than the previous 5000 and 5100 gal versions. Post preservation a new tank was built resembling the 5100 gal tenders but withthe longer wheelbase. If you look at it compared with the original it looks a lot bulkier. Perhaps a MNLPS expert can confirm this or otherwise.

 

Same internal diameter perhaps != to same external width. The LMS composite gauge seems to have been quite small. AIUI at least some Scots lines had a larger gauge then the GWR. I wonder how well the Jones Goods would fit on modern Network Rail.

 

I saw 6023 some weeks ago at Didcot with the valves and pistons out. From what I saw there is very little scope for removing metal from the outside of the cylinders, perhaps 1/4", but that is all. How was 6024 made narrower over the cylinders other than having smaller in the bore too? Anyone know?

 

IIRC by using a different grade of iron the wall thickness could be reduced but keep the bores the same. I'm sure the mods. to 6024 were detailed on this forum - but it was a while ago.
Ray.

 

Sounds like they used SG iron instead of the plain grey iron of former times.