71000 Matters

Getting back to 71000, in principle I'm happy with the tie-up with VT but am glad that, as I understand the article in SR, the loco may possibly be available for a few tours with another operator. I have a very high regard for VT, but it's a long way to go to travel on one of its tours if (as I do) you live south of London. If UKRT could organise a few trains using 71000 with a similar arrangement as it has for Clan Line's non-British Pullman work, that would be fantastic news. Alongside 35018 and the two "Kings", the Duke is at the very top of my personal list of locos behind I am keen to travel on the main line but have yet to do so. I did manage a short run behind her in 1995 when she was marooned at the West Somerset Railway, but even the 1 in 74(??) of Kentsford Bank with 6 of 7 coaches posed no challenge whatsoever.

 

Not seen the duke for long time now. Having a tie up and having a level of guaranteed work from being part of VT, no doubt give group more security. VT is tight operation and has superb reputation.

 

Wherever you start a trip from it’s going to be far for someone?

 

True, but look at Tornado's programme and the number of different start points. Same with RTC's programme. You can usually find at least one train which starts from somewhere reasonably near where you live (unless you live in somewhere like Stornoway or Lerwick!) VT's decision to concentrate on running tours almost exclusively from the West Midlands area does make perfect sense. Both Ben Mason and Bob Meanley have explained to this forum the reasons why they don't want to start tours hundreds of miles away from their Tyseley base. I totally respect their viewpoint, but it doesn't alter the fact that for people such as myself, it's a long way from home.

 

I live in Greater London, so VT's trips are not very convenient for me, but I have managed a few, either spending the previous night somewhere in their area or joining the train somewhere a bit nearer, such as Oxford. I have had a few rides behind The Duke but I hope to do some more.

 

For most one off trips, not living in London makes it very difficult to travel without additional and, given the unreliability of mainline steam operations to actually happen as planned, risky costs such as accommodation (and ridiculously early starts).

At least VT gives a very populous area of the UK the chance for steam trips, or will do when they have their own licence.

Steven

 

Accomodation near Tyseley using a well known chain, which has a number of premises in the area, is usually £ 50.00 - £ 55.00 per night( when booked a number of months in advance and taking the option that you can cancel up to 1pm on the day) .
Driving up after 8pm on a Friday can be done in 2.5 hours EG and 2.5 to 3 hours after the trip( - varies because of lanes being closed for overnight works Sat/Sun).

 

???? Never heard of them dropping off yet.....

 

No, but they are there to resist the up and down forces from the connecting rods, and in doing so they will deflect very slightly up and down, nothing being perfectly rigid. All that is true of any loco, but the more they deflect the greater are the up and down forces on the piston head and therefore the more wear on the rings.

 

Correct. The outside slide bars on DoG are only supported at the centre, not the ends, which exacerbates vertical deflection of the piston rod which leads to faster ring wear compared to those of the inside cylinder. The design is similar to some LNER locos but their slide bars were also anchored to the rear cylinder cover to provide the necessary rigidity.

 

I see. So presumably with all this deflection on the slidebars the loco has also experienced high crosshead, piston rod, piston head and cylinder bore wear too....

 

Is the slide bar design on DoG significantly different to that on a Britannia? (Just thinking about the modifications to the attachment of the slide bars on the Britannia’s after the 1960 Settle rail crash, and whether DoG was similar or fundamentally different).

Tom

 

Well it the same principle on a Clan, so I'd say quite likely.

 

I have just checked the relevant drawing, Tom. The slide bars on the Duke are the same as on a Britannia.The modification was to the bolts at the front of the slide bars. It was applicable to the slide bars fitted to the Brits, Clans, Duke, Std 5s (not the Caprottis) and 9Fs.

 

The vertical deflection forces derived from the connecting rod are greatest at - or very close to - the middle of the slide bars, and act on the upper slide bar when going forwards, lower in reverse. So the mounting point is actually where the greatest force acts and more able to meet it than bars secured only at their ends.

 

Re a bright future, can Tyseley can commit to any particular level of usage? Seems unlikely, but they may be funding part of the costs to avoid that issue. Be interesting to know what benefits Tyseley sees in this arrangement, and why they could not have done a similar deal for 6201, which I would have thought was a more commercially attractive loco and obviously held in affection by some at Tyseley. I wonder if a deal re 5596 is on the cards which would explain the lack of interest in Kolhapur?

 

That's true, but when you model the forces (as has been done) there is still a 'figure-of-8' motion to the cross-head which leads to avoidable additional wear towards the ends of the stroke. By anchoring one or other end of the bars this can be overcome.

 

Regarding 45596, the BLS has commented getting the loco run in, tested and certified has become more complicated as a result of the WC/VT support issue. I inferred from this BLS might be hoping to use the VT TOC. The earlier news was that 45596 would be based at 10A upon completion.
There is also the added complication of WC no longer prepared to operate locos owned by members of MSLOA, according to Tony Streeter (latest issue of SR, Down Main).

 

From Steam Railway " Ben Mason said that 71000 would be used on around 12 Tyseley trains per year including 'West Marches' , 'Cotswold Express' and Cumbrian Express ' trains.