GWR "King" cut downs

As we may all know, 6024 King Edward I has had its chimney, safety valve bonnet and cab roof cut down for gauging and loading fro running on the main line. I have heard that 6023 King Edward II will be ahving an interchangable cab roof, bonnet and chimney for when running on the main line.
Theres some things I just want to clarify. Was it only certain areas that 6024 could not go, so for durability they changed the height? Now if you take the "Castles", which are a taller locomotive than the Kings, they don't seem to have any parts cut down on them and yet they still run on the mainline - bearing in mind they only run on like the Birmingham to Oxford runs, Paddington to Bristol and on the odd occasion down to Cornwall.
Im asking this because if 6023 is only going to run on the main line in certain areas of the country, no mods will probably need to be done.
I live in a Somerset village called Yatton. It's always very nice to see the Torbay Express come storming through the station, especially when with 6023. It would be nice to see some other locos pulling the Torbay. Now if they could get 6023, that would be great. I can't see any problem with gauging apart from may going through Dawlish through the cliff tunnels and yet they've had castles through there.
If anyone get shed some light on the subject that would be great.

 

.????? We run 5043 Edgcumbe all over the network. It was modified in much the same way as the Kings to enable this.

Nunny is modified. Clun will be modified, etc.

I think you will find the majority of large mainline steam locos have been adapted in one way or another to comply with the lower gauge.

When we are dealing with inches, tyre size also must be considered. A loco on scrap tyres will need to be lowered less than one one new tyres.

 

A loco on scrap tyres would not be running on any railway. I think you'll find that gauging for any loco class is done assuming the loco is dimensionally in as new condition done to the height and width restrictions applicable.

 

Oh sorry, didn't realise Edgcumbe does a lot of areas. The modificatictions are so unoticable compared to 6023.

 

Welcome Wavodavo. You are of course correct, 6024 has a cut-down upper, and 6023 will be interchangeable. This is to fit in with NR's standard loading gauge, which if I remember correctly is 13' 1". As far as I am aware, nothing under any circumstance may be taller than this on the National Network as a matter of course.

Simply, if they were not cut down, they would not be out on the mainline - it isn't to allow them into certain areas and that they are free to roam in others. Many other locomotives have been similarly dealt with - the Castles as mentioned above (which have been all over the shop, not just ex-GW lines), and I know that 46229 (so presumably 46233 too) has had it done as well - you can see the original cab sides from 46229 in the NRM.

I think one of the main reasons behind this lower loading gauge is the deeper ballast used these days, so whilst bridges and tunnels are no lower, the track is higher. Couple this with the overhead electric network (and yes, Castles and 6024 have both operated 'under the wires') and the lower universal loading gauge becomes clear.

 

Arrrrr I see now, thanks guard_jamie. I never knew those othe locos have been modified. I knew that NR keep making the tracks higher but I didn't realise there was an actual height restriction.

 

Care to make a small bet on that one?

 

Which one?

 

Also, Tornado was built to the newer "go anywhere" gauge, rather than to original A1 dimensions, I believe. And as such is an inch or two lower than Blue Peter, for example. (Yes I know BP is not an A1........)

And though 6024, the Castles and the Halls can run on the mainline, they definitely can't run everywhere. 5029 could not come round the Ascot route last year. 6024 could not get to Alton last week. 5972 could not do the Scarborough Expresses last Summer. Tornado, the Brits, the Black 5's can run all those routes. So there is not only one mainline gauging standard, that's for sure.

 

Think you'll find that's more to do with the width rather than height where platform facings tend to get too close to GWR-shaped cylinders - a legacy from Broad Gauge days perhaps ?

 

Yes, that's right. Safety Valves are lower than on the originals, whistle (Original A1 Style) is mounted on the opposite side and lower to that it would have been on an original A1, the chimney is shorter overall, and the cab roof is actually a different profile altogether to the originals. It made interesting viewing at Barrow Hill, the comparison between the two Peppercorn Pacifics.

 

I have always understood "scrap tyres" to mean they are on their last legal turn. Next time they need to be turned, they will have to be scrapped. even then, you can sometimes modify the profile to get a few more miles out of them!

I will of course not name any, but I can think of at least 4 mainline locos that are running with "scrap" tyres.

My docs say the height of a Castle when new was 13ft 4 1/2 inches. The max height on Net Rail is either 13ft 1 or 2 inches (can't remember - I haven't had an espresso yet!).

If you get a chance to look at the cab roof of 5043 Edgcumbe you will notice that the top has been flattened and the profile of the sides is slightly steeper than as new.

We are in he process on making the same alterations to Clun Castle only the roof will need to be modified slightly more at Clun is getting new tyre and therefore will be slightly taller that Edgcumbe.

GWR mainline engines, especially Halls have an issue with the distance that the cylinders swing out when cornering due to the forward placement of the cylinders relative to the driving wheels. In a straight line a Hall is pretty much the same width as all the rest. But when you build a station on a corner, a Hall (and a Castle to a lesser extent) has the tendency to get very close to the platform.

This is demonstrated extremely well with model railways due to the exaggerated radius of the corners. Send your 00 Hall round a corner and see where the cylinders stick out to, then do the same with a Black-5 (the go-anywhere engine!) and you will see the difference. I have never watched the A1 corner, so I cannot comment.

I'm not saying one is better than the other - just noting the differences.

PS - How did a thread titled GWR King cut downs become about the A1? lol

 

I always thought so, but lately a few things have made me wonder about that...
- the GW narrow gauge was well established before the Broad gauge was doomed and I think over half of post group mileage had never been broad gauge
- the clearance between the platform and the nearest rail must have been identical on broad and narrow gauge because of mixed gauge stock
- broad gauge locomotives were nearly all inside cylinder as were almost all pre Churchward locos
- when the Saints were in design stage a Dean Single was sent round all the system with a pair of wooden outside cylinders on to see where they'd hit.
- there were locos, notably 47s, prohibited from various places because of clearances.
All the pre group lines had fractionally different loading gauges, so maybe it was mainly coincidence that the GW had one of the larger ones?

 

I'm no GWR expert, but I'd hazard a guess that the King has a larger diameter boiler, so the 'top works' are shorter to start with, and therefore any reduction in their height is more noticeable?

 

5029 (as far as I'm aware) has only had its capuchon removed from the chimney and its cab roof lowered. I believe it was the cab sides that were reduced in order for the roof profile to stay original. However, this means the cab side lining disappears under the roof!

Its a shame the Kings (6024 and 6023) have to be chopped down so much. In my opinion it really doesn't do anything for their looks.

 

With more & more restrictions apparently creeping in to schedules for locomotives it does make you wonder how long it will be before we're having to make even more modifications.? A recent Network Rail publication states... "Recent analysis in connection with locomotive gauge identified that around 46% of the route sections comprising the network have one or more structures that do not comply with loco gauge – clearly a significant issue if a loco needs full network clearance."

As for our original poster, I don't think he'll be seeing a King going full chat through Yatton on the up this season (or Bridgewater).

 

Just to clarify, are you saying that we have new restrictions for 6024 at Yatton and Bridgewater? Last season we sometimes eased for Bridgewater but with the easy schedule Taunton to W-S-M didn't really matter. Still losing the final romp over Flax Bourton would be a real shame however these things are sent to try us. At least the restriction at Tiverton was lifted last year resulting some exhilarating running.

 

Will it affect how it looks anyway? Its only a few inches after all -- hardly noticeable when at speed with masses of steam spilling over it, surely?

 

It isnt just the overall height, or even the overall width that can be the problem. For instance, the arc of one bridge on the North and West near Church Stretton has a 10mph restriction for clearance of the firebox front top corner and the cab roof/side sheet corner.