Loco 76017

Life tip for you. Life is not black and white. It's full of many, many shades of grey. If you go in with an attitude of 'This is what I think, I'm going to state it as fact and refuse to listen to anybody with a different opinion', you will find many situations like this, where people challenge you on what you have stated as 'fact' when others with a view from a different angle can see another side or perspective. Don't shut yourself off from debate, but learn to engage with it in a healthy manner. Listen to other people's perspectives and gently present your own.

Also, if you don't want people disagreeing with things you've said, not only will life be difficult, but a forum probably isn't the best place for you to spend your free time!

 

I know, just don't want to be digging deeper and deeper holes, that's all.
Besides, this is all about 76017 anyway.

I seem to recall on of my new DVD's, one of the three shot in Scotland, talking about the only STD based on the West Highland was a 4 Mogul weither it was 76010 or 76110, I really don't remember.

So possible venture for it?
That is, if West Coast Railways go that far.

 

Is 76017 still on the Bluebell? There were rumours on here of a potential move over the weekend, but I think the entry on RTT then got removed.

 

A move earlier this month got cancelled due to a landslip; but I understand another move is now planned.

Tom

 

Of the loco or the land Tom? (from a very wet Swanage)

 

The loco - I hope. But the land is very soggy …

Tom

 

It was 76001 that was based at Fort William in the early '60s in the dying days of steam, ostensibly to replace the ageing K2s. While it was fine on the lighter trains to Mallaig it often doubleheaded on the heavier ones.

76001 returned in the guise of 76079 in 2008 to participate with 45407 in the end of season photo charters that year. It was fine on 5 coaches to Mallaig and could possibly manage 6 but not the current normal 7 coach load. I gather that the front number plate carried in 2008 was the original off 76001. Here it is at Lochailort during a pause to let the car chasers get ahead on a run to Mallaig.

Wharever plans the owners of 76017 have for the engine I would be very surprised if they featured the West Highland line in any shape or form

Peter

 

Lovely "in service" look to that loco Peter.

 

Has to be said that 76079 was the perfect tool on the Cambrian trains when they were revived by West Coast. I enjoyed several trips behind it and the short sections between stations and tight timings, really warranted its 'Pocket Rocket' nickname - with many sprints into the mid 50's mph and cracking sound effects to go with. It was also light enough not to cause too many concerns with Barmouth Bridge. After its sale and move to the NYMR, the use of a Black 5 the following year took a lot of persuading with Network Rail and came down to how much water would be in the tender by the time the train reached Barmouth - to prove the loco and tender were within weight tolerances.
Should we ever see steam on the Cambrian again (I am the eternal optimist on this one!), it will be interesting to see if the recent upgrade works on Barmouth bridge have eased these headaches - although I suspect it will be 44932 leading the return, or maybe 76017?!

 

If its overall weight that is the issue, there have been a number of workings with class 37s recently- which are heavier than a black 5.

The rail bearers have all been replaced I think from memory- I don't know if that has changed matters.

I don't know if other structures on the line may have restrictions as there are a number of smaller timber structures too.

Chris

 

It's not just weight that needs to be considered. Axle loading and length also plays a part. A Black 5 and tender is about 25 tons heavier than a class 37, but if the amount of coal and water carried is reduced, the axle loading is quite similar. A Black 5 is also marginally longer so the weight is spread out.

A Std4 2-6-0 is shorter than a class 37 and about the same weight, and the maximum axle loading is about a ton lighter, but the spread of the weight is nowhere near as evenly distributed. The difference between the pony truck and the leading diving axle is 9 tons for example, and the tender axle loading can be a few tons lighter than the loco, depending on how much coal and water is being carried. A full loco and tender weighs 59t + 42t, an empty loco and tender is 55t + 20t. Obviously the levels will never get that low in service, but you'll still have a loco that weighs nearly 60 tons and a tender that weighs about half that.

 

No steam loco has been fitted with ETCS yet and the version used on the Cambrian is slightly different to that planned for the East Coast which I believe is being test fitted to Tornado so until this is sorted and approved it is all conjecture. There is then also the problem of pathing as TfW are using all available paths so a timetable re-write will be needed to allow steam to run on the Coast. In summary, steam on the Cambrian won't return anytime soon, certainly not before 76017's boiler ticket runs out. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

 

44932 is being fitted. See post from J Shuttleworth on this thread https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/tornado.10750/page-318#post-2755971

 

Thanks, I missed that. Presumably 44932 won’t be able to work on the Cambrian until the ECTS systems are aligned?

 

If the Cambrian version of ETCS is sufficiently different to the version being installed on the main lines, would 76017 (or any other loco) qualify for 'first in class' fitting (i.e at Network Rail's expense)?
Pat

 

This could/should have happened years ago when ERTMS was first introduced but I think it was just too difficult and too costly and was therefore not pursued. I'm not sure if enough has changed to make it viable now unfortunately.

 

Speaking of which:

https://www.a1steam.com/tornado/news/tornado-details/etcs-installation-progress

 

There's been a fair amount on both detail and chronology (unindexed ..... plus, it has to be said, a fair bit of invective) concerning this saga on Barrie Hughes' www.isengard.co.uk unofficial WHR(C) website. T'is alleged that, when first mooted, "certain assurances" were given, though now so long ago I doubt anyone involved it still in post, with quite a few of 'em likely long retired.

AIUI, the main stumbling block was that the equipment needs to be mounted on the locomotive, with the tender not being counted a part thereof. If it's all that tightly specified, quite how the system copes with either MU or P-P operations is far from clear to me.

 

If you've followed what the A1 Trust are doing with 60163, that's clearly not the case. Why would it be? Does a loco ever run on the main line without its tender?