Its safer by road ???

This is a spin off from the Scotsman Overhaul Thread and is a discussion about if its truly more dangerous moving traction by road...

I've heard this trotted out for 20 years, can anyone name one engine which has recieved new frames due to road haulage damage ? Or one that can definitely say "going by road did it" ?

Probably the most traveled by road engines are the " Thomas the tank" lookalikes- any of them need new frames ?

 

6023 needs new mainsprings already. Possibly due to exceptional stress when loading/unloading from an artic..

 

Out of interest what part of the lorry movement damages the springs ? Is it the ramp or just general lorry travel?

 

I suppose when the loco spans the point at which the gradient changes from flat to 15% some wheels are off the ground and all the loco weight is re-distributed to the other wheel's suspension..

 

The amount of stress caused by road movements must be related to the wheelbase. A Thomas lookalike will as an 0-6-0 present little flexing during the transitioon from flat track to loading ramp. A pacific will have significantly more than design weight placed on the bogie or pony truck than designed. Whilst this may not produce significant damage if it can be avoided it should. Even a 4-6-0, if nose down the ramp will probably at some point have considerable weight on the bogie and an almost unloaded front driver. I am an electrical engineer, we do study mechanical stress in our training, and can see the logic of Riley's preference for rail movements.

 

Has Cromwell had any problems due to road movements to and from the GCR?

 

Why wait until a problem arrises before using engineering logic to avoid a problem. Note I said avoid. Cromwel has a base on GCR which is not rail connected. It is therefoore necessary to risk stresses which may be induced when loading. Rileys are main line connected and are in the lucky situation of being able to choose if they use road transport for their own locos. They have no obligation to offer thir locos to non main line connected railways and may choose not do so if they wish.

 

So if it's he loading ramp cold you not just over come that by craning engine of an on . I know that's exspensive but would it solve the issue of weight distribution and flexing ?

 

An interesting sugestion. It would most likely involve 2 cranes and take a large area to set up. Craning brings its own risks, see the class 70 which was dropped. On balance the least risks are with the loading ramp method

 

But the Big difference is its a ft and a half to load it on to a lorry. Unlike the class 70 which was being unloaded from hull of a cargo ship if I recall .

 

It's a pretty dire ramp that changes from level to 15% and I've yet to see a loco with wheels in the air when being transported by one of the reputable hauliers. As for breaking springs, the axleboxes have positive limits of travel and if the spring won't tolerate this, there is something wrong.

Playing devils advocate, you could argue that, moving a loco from A to B in steam by rail induces far more stresses than taking it by road as a steam loco in motion is effectively two or more hammers, knocking itself to bits.

 

On the subject of loading/unloading I have often thought it is surprising that there are not loading/unloading docks at preserved railways- presumeably this would go some way to alleviate any potential issues and ease the process of loading and unloading? Is there a reason (space/cost I'm guessing?) we do not see them.

Chris

 

Steve - if you watch many of the videos of loading and unloading large locos there are many instances when one of the drivers is obviously clear of the rails and not taking any loadThis introduces stress in the vertical plane which was not a design consideration. Driving itself along at 60 or 75MPH iy is agreed knocking itself to bits but in a way for which it was designed.


To put it simply if I owned a loco its my toy and I will take what risks I think appropriate. remember just running it on any railway is a risk - sideswipes and rough shints are knot unknown

 

There is one at Welshpool Raven Square but then most narrow gauge railways have no alternative to road transportation.

PH

 

When the Network Rail wagons were unloaded at the Bluebell recently, they were craned rather than rolled directly off the lorry. However, a wagon (even a bogie one) is considerably lighter than most locos and easier to control - only a single crane was used. You still need a skilled operator to ensure that the load is adequately supported as the vehicle meets the ground.

Tom

 

I could be wrong (and will no doubt be corrected) but I believe any suggestion of road movement as playing a part in 4472's issues is entirely conjecture. I seem to recall trying to avoid road movements when finished was recommended by the engineering report, but there are a number of reasons why this is preferable for a mainline approved tender loco - there is a lot to disconnect and reconnect between loco and tender, for example!

I am sure that there have been a number of other factors, which have been detailed here, that had more of a bearing on the need for extra work than occasional movement by road, especially those occasions which were frames only.

Steven

 

Are you suggesting the springs of a steam loco will handle a bounce of 1.5 ft ?
Not even Hornby models made for kids in the 1980's could do that.

 

Can't say that I've watched such videos. I have, however, watched a lot of locos loaded onto road trailers in my time and, whilst I have seen wheels in the air on rare occasions, it has never been with the more reputable hauliers, who generally have good long ramps. I've even seen a loco pivot on its centre wheelset, which is frightening, but the haulier was the choice of the loco owner and he realised the error of his ways when he saw it. He used someone else for the return journey.

I can't argue with that and I don't think anyone else can.

 

'New frames' is too extreme, but damage, certainly. What about Royal Scot, which I think suffered from an exploding lorry tyre? (Granted that was probably the least of its problems!). And wasn't there a narrow gauge engine a few years ago which actually fell off the lorry and ended up on its side?