9F why does not having a flange on the centre wheels stop it being mainlined

Not quite correct. There are two separate stories.
92220 was rostered by Cardiff Canton for use on the Capitals United to Paddington. On one of the trips, an unauthorised water stop was made at Reading. After the subsequent investigation, Western Region management restricted the use of 9Fs on passenger work.
The other incident in the early 1960s took place between Crewe and Weaver Junction when a 9F was pulling a train of empty carflats. It was clocked at 86 mph. After doing various calculations, management decreed that 60 mph should be the maximum speed for a 9F.

 

An unauthorised water stop was sufficient to attract management attention ?

(Was water that strictly prescribed ?)

 

Add to those at least on 90mph exploit with a 9F on the GN.

 

If memory serves correct it was 92193 which replaced a failed Pacific on a "named express" and managed to keep time to Kings Cross. When the inevitable failure report reached management I understand that concern was raised at a "named express" being hauled by a freight locomotive and the subsequent calculation of the reciprocating mass upset both the Region's Mechanical and Civil engineers of the day.

 

But the express was late into Paddington. Management not happy.

 

P N Townend states in Top Shed 2nd Ed that the named express was the Heart of Midlothian. Also the first time a 9F was used the General Manager was on the train, the loco reached 93 down Stoke Bank, and it made up time to London.

The calculation for the max speed was apparently based on wheel diameter, giving 63 mph for the 9F, but this then meant the pacifics would be limited to 80mph, so "no more was heard of a locomotive speed limitation"

 

92220 was used on one of the Cardiff Canton Britannia diagrams to London for a few weeks and put up a good performance. I think it hauled the up Red Dragon from Cardiff, returning on the down Capitals United Express from Paddington. But the experiment soon came to an end due to excessive piston/valve wear apparently.

The problem with the flangeless centre driver arises mainly from the introduction of cast manganese steel point noses (the "vee") some of which have integral cast wing rails (the check rails) which project well above the running rail. I think these first appeared after the end of the steam era although I have not seen many recently - perhaps they have gone out of use again ? I don't think they were used much in third rail territory because of the risk of contact with conductor shoes maybe. But I doubt that any proper risk analysis has been done on the 9F to prove that the sideplay on the middle axle really would be a problem on these crossings.

David

 

Apparently, according to H.C.B. Rogers, the train had to stop at Reading for water as a preceding train had emptied the troughs at Goring. After this, the 9Fs were banned from heading express trains by Paddington.

Remarkable performances from a remarkable locomotive; some considered the 9Fs as the best Mixed traffic locomotive on British Railways. Their performance is even more exceptional when you consider that a 9F was much lighter in weight than say, a Britannia and weighed almost exactly the same as a Castle. Shame that we can't see one on the main line again.

Cheers

Alan

 

This starts the old one again, of what could have been achieved with a correctly proportioned 2-8-2 mixed traffic version of these machines. They would probably have obviated the need for the Britannia and 9F classes, and been a good anywhere do anything machine.

 

Indeed, and having written that post this morning, my thoughts immediately drifted to the subject of the proposed 2-8-2. With a "Britannia" boiler it would have had a greater steaming capacity and may well have achieved even greater exploits on both freight and passenger duties, as you say, a good go anywhere, do anything machine. That it came so close to being commissioned is one of those quirks of history. Here's a question to warm things up, what colour would the 2-8-2s have been painted?

TAXI!!

Cheers

Alan

 

Going back to the original question, forget what British rail did or did not do it's today's railway which is not set up for steam loco's.
There are many 'diamond crossings' with a 'raised lip' opposite the nose area to stop the wheel flange riding up.
This raised lip is around two inches higher than a running rail, thus a wide flange less wheel would hit this virtually straight on with no ride up.
At slow speed a wheel could possibly ride up over one, but a loco's springing is not designed for instant two inch rises. The faster a loco travels damage to the tyre, springs and frames would no doubt occur.
This is of course if the Diamond crossing casting doesn't shatter or the loco, plus train derails.
Off the top of my head as I read and write this, I can not think of the location of one. Reading west junction used to be littered with them. Reading Oxford road junction had one until just recently but was removed with track renewals.
To try and spot one, look at where a set of tracks cross another (not the points diamond) where a 'up' line crosses a 'down' line for example.
Perhaps one of the photographers could get a shot of one and post it?
I know I would not like to be in charge of a 9F hitting one of these crossings.
Wayne Thompson DB Schenker driver.

 

The whole point of the flangeless driving wheel is that it can slide itself over the top of check rails on sharp curves. It follows that if the check rail is raised, it can't, so you then get excess and unexpected forces between the check rail and the inside edge of said wheel. Whether this leads to the loco trying to straighten out the track, or the wheel riding up, or what, I don't know, but the fact remains that neither component is designed to take those forces so the result could be unpredictable.

I must admit it surprises me that NR don't know where raised check rail is and can't therefore come up with specific routes without it, but perhaps it is just too prevalent these days to be worth the bother.

 

According to Colonel H C B Rogers' book "Riddles and the '9Fs'", the 9F had been used for a slow passenger train from King's Cross to Grantham, the driver selecting this rather than a rundown V2 from the very small number of locos available that Saturday. Grantham used the 9F to take the 'Heart of Midlothian' from Grantham up to King's Cross, as they'd already used the allocated A4 on another train. It so happened that the General Manager and other VIPs were returning from Colwick on that train in the GM's saloon. They went to congratulate the driver on arrival on the good run and found the 9F, much to their surprise, and started asking questions when they were back in their offices on the Monday!

 

And yet these calcs - (1mph x wheel dia inches plus 3) would be to my mind quite acceptable for the modern railway
Black 5 75mph, most pacifics 77 with 83-84mph for the big wheelers...

Not going to mention the 2-8-2 again without a lottery win to make it happen as some folks dont like it.....

 

This?

Ordsall lane Junction, Salford.

 

A couple of people have made 'might have been' models of this - I saw this one at a model railway show

 

It ought to be possible to carry out some research and analysis on a heritage railway with the will and the right resources. For owners there is potentially a lot to gain if positive findings gain acceptance.

 

That really does look superb!!

Cheers

Alan