Garratt for sale !

Depending on where this NGG16 goes, isn't there a case for restoring it to standard spec for better interchangability ?, say for example it ends up on the WHR in the future, you can't swap round the bogies, boiler etc if it's been modified well beyond the spec of most other examples.

 

There would be if 130 was a 1958/68 batch machine - however like 87 130 would have to be regarded as non-standard. There are just too many detail differences to make swapping parts easy amd worthwhile. The SAR did swap parts with little regard for whether it was the right bit for that particular engine (see boiler 9061 - half pre-war spec, half post-war spec, adaped to fit 140), they just modified it to suit. Fine when you have a fleet of nearly 50 engines (NGG13 & 16) to mix and match, not so useful for a fleet of 5 or 6.

Only 138/40/43 are really capable of full parts interchangability, as they are all 1958 engines.

87 is unique in the UK as a 1936 Cockerill machine (85/86/88 are all at Sandstone in SA), There are several major differences and lots of minor ones between them and all the later '16's, and 87 has been considerably altered from 1936 condition anyway.

109 is different again, and like 87 is considerably different to how it looked when built by Beyer, Peacock in 1939.

On that basis, I see no issue with modifying as it would be non-standard anyway.

 

So not being a Garratt expert in any way shape or form, taking then that there are major differences between the batches of Garrett's, would it be worth doing in the rebuild of 109 to bring it up to the same spec as 138/140/143?

 

That is hopefully what Waterman and his team at LNWR Crewe wish to achieve, but until its finished, its probably not worth trying to dip your nose into the progress.

 

I'd totally agree, that's why that even today you've got Garratts running places like Zimbabwe, which have been more than satisfactory for the railways. Their service life must be over 60 years by now.

 

I'd guess they will aim for the same engineering standards, but will leave the fixtures and fittings as they are now. 109 is very similar already to a '58 machine (the bunker and tank are SA replacements of welded construction with the same profile as '58 and '68 machines), with the exception of sight feed lubrication (not overly difficult to fit mechanical lubricators, 87 has been converted). Some of the larger differences though are harder to retrofit, such as the postwar bogie pivots and boiler top fittings. Nothing is impossible of course, but it's extra time and money.

109 did actually run with a postwar boiler for a period in SA but was given a prewar boiler at its last overhaul, altered to mount a postwar-spec SSJ ejector.

 

Thanks, that's the first time I have heard that was the plan for 109.

 

The word he used was 'hopefully' - I don't think that confirms any sort of a commitment on behalf of Mr Waterman?

 

Further to my last message, after looking at pictures of 109's current boiler it would appear to have been modified in a similar fashion to boiler 9061 (i.e firebox top fittings modified to postwar spec, but topfeed still close to the dome.

I wonder if the SAR workshops were trying to standardise boiler fittings?

 

Whilst doing some digging on the history of the NGG16's I came across this rather good Wiki site, which describes the different batches and a list of where they are now .... South African Class NG G16 2-6-2+2-6-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Well the progress on Mr Waterman's project is not quite public knowledge and so it's hard to predict when it will conclude.