Because she is female......

Makes me smile to read that the female driver at the Bluebell is given charge of 34059, the most powerful loco in their fleet, and no doubt handles it well.
Owning groups of other WC/BB locos might take notice.

 

Why is this "Super D" of which you chaps speak so different? Wheel arrangement, mechanical stoker, cab-forward, oil fired or what? What is a "Super D" anyway? Is it a diesel!? (That would explain a lot!). Never heard of it, it can't be a GWR loco then!

 

There was a younger female on the footplate crew of 34028 going up Cauldon Lowe last saturday.

 

LNWR 0-8-0 49395 is the Super D.

 

No, but it's cussedly awkward enough to qualify as one! :behindsofa:

 

It's a conventional steam loco but it has many idiosyncrasies. For example:-
* If you wind the handbrake too far, it falls to pieces as there is no 'stop' on it
* There is no scale or indicator on the reverser so you have to guess where you have put it
* The regulator opens (and closes) the opposite way to virtually every other loco
* Once open, the regulator is best adjusted by tapping the handle with the palm of your hand. Anything else is too extreme
* The injectors are of Webb design, virtually just one step up from the original injector designed and patented by Giffard and certainly no improvement on it.
* You can't see the injector overflow when you're in the cab so you have to use your intuition and experience to know it is working
* The vacuum brake control arrangement is unusual and unique to LNWR locos
* It has Joy valve gear (fairly rare, nowadays)
* The axleboxes are fed by fountain lubricators
* It's got flangeless driving wheels
* It is not tolerant of poor firing. Get it right and it will steam; get it slightly wrong and the pressure soon disappears.
* On the NYMR, at least, if you don't have more than a 7/8 glass full of water showing when you enter Goathland, you won't have any showing in the glass when you come to a stop.
There's probably more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Having said all that, it's not a bad loco to be on when things are going OK.

 

Oh, I see, thanks! So this is what is also known as a G2A? I think I saw it on the GCR. Sounds like a candidate for the smelter to me! I can understand some of the idiosyncracies but things like injectors could be replaced during the locos service. I wonder why they didn't bother, cost I guess. Like you say, if you know this 0-8-0 is going to be "different" you can at least prepare for it!

 

Not all of them I hope!!!!

One of my Santa turns on the Mid Hants sees both the diver and cleaner as females :shocked:!!! still, at least there will be someone to do the washing up! :smile:

Ian

 

Diver? Expecting a lot of rain are you?

Richard

 

LOL. Ah, a case of too much Thatchers Katy and not enough keyboard skill.

 

Thank you for that definitive piece of information.

 

No - certainly not. Not unless it's during a historic re-creation photo-shoot event, perhaps.

 

which to be fair is probably more than a lot of gc based locos get these days although at least it got regular dates at nene... As for the thread subject why should it make the slightest difference that shes a woman?

 

Slightly twisting round the original question:

Not a WSR driver but responsible for bringing 500 tons of rocks to Minehead yesterday...

http://www.wsr.org.uk/cgi-bin/gallery8a.cgi?h=Snapshot&p=2010/11/251110_2_mso

A competent driver is a competent driver. End of.

Steve

 

If that is the reason given - NO. But, I don't think you are asking that question anyway. Surely you mean to ask, "Do you think that loco owners should have the right to request a driver doesn't drive their loco?"

As a member of a loco Group that actually has that clause in its contract with said railway, I suppose I have answered my own question.

 

Why would you NOT want a particular driver to drive your loco? I can understand the need for specialist technical knowledge (such as the Super D described earlier) but if the contract clause is worded so openly, it could easily be misused to block a driver due to their sex or ethnicity.

Richard

 

This is the $64,000 question isn't it? My own view has to be that it is entirely up to the Operating Railway as to who is qualified to drive any locomotive on THEIR railway, and NOTHING whatsoever to do with the owners! That may sound harsh, but I remember the early years of preservation where owners made some outlandish claims, such as wanting their engines wax polished and other entertaining conditions. In today's more heavily regulated world, it is the Railway which is likely to get hung drawn and quartered if something untoward happens to a locomotive, no matter who owns the thing. What qualifications do most owners have, to decide who is competent to drive a particular locomotive? Only a fully qualified inspector can do that, something most loco owners are decidely not.

There is certainly a case for having an "owners rep" aboard, with authority to take action if the loco is being driven badly or otherwise abused, or is in the "specialist" category such as the "Super D" or a Sentinel loco, but the railway as the operator should be the only organisation to decide if someone is competent to drive, NOT the owner. if the owner wants such powers, then don't take your locos to other railways, build your own as one or two folks have done!