6023

But most heritage lines are restricted to 25 MPH or so, though? Although ISTR that the GCR can run faster?

Noel

 

I believe the GCR can run at 60 for testing only (no passengers on board)

Keith

 

Whilst I do like GWSR, and I'm impressed with the Broadway experience, let's not kid ourselves - the GWSR is effectively downhill both ways and offers little challenge to many small locomotives let alone a Class 8 Express locomotive.

Best chance of seeing such locomotive stretch its legs now will be a more challenging line - the NYMR and WSR being the main offerings in terms of length and gradients. However shall have to wait and see what the future holds. If 6023 returns to original size, she wont be able to leave Didcot will she, as to cross over to the loading point she needs to travel over Network Rail metals? And you still need to fit within the loading gauge whether you travel 1 mile or 100 miles surely?

 

I merely meant stretching her legs in comparison to just being stuck in Didcot.

I shouldn't think so, not if the most restrictive bit is on a bit of line that you have no intention of traversing? We know that virtually every steam loco has parts of the network that it isn't allowed on because Network Rail says it doesn't fit, as long as the King fits along that short stretch it should be fine.

 

On the one hand it's a shame for all involved not to have this loco achieve its full potential. On the other hand I will be delighted to see it restored to its proper proportions, and I will be at the front of the queue to see it in its natural form.

Not a criticism, but the Kings look deformed in their cut-down condition.

 

They do, although I do think 6023 looks a little less sat on than 6024 but that might just be down to the livery!

 

Whilst that may be true, dare I suggest you're looking at things from an overly logical standpoint? If there's one thing the 'big engines' do, on a scale directly linked to their sheer physical presence, it's to really impress the casual visitor.

Horses for courses, of course and whilst a 'King' on a one coach train on, say, the Helston Railway, is overkill in anyones' books, the same isn't true of a Merchant Navy lugging six from Arlesford (even if it could manage twice that) or an A4 on the NYM (perhaps one-and-a-half times that, from what I've seen of adhesion issues on the route!).

Would anyone seriously suggest Didcot's demo line be limited to locos no bigger than a 57XX?

 

Hope they keep the New blast pipe arrangement, should be more rather than less effective with a full height Chimney...

 

Not at all, but they have a Manor and a 53xx much more suited to the job than a King or Castle.

 

I think that rather misses the point of the demo line... Its there so you can see a locomotive running and have a quick trundle behind it. Which is the most practical locomotive for a half mile trip is hardly relevant.

 

More effective for what though? Trundling along at 25 mph? Fortunately we have another King that will be able to stretch her legs on the main line. <BJ>

 

I saw 6023 at Didcot early in the year with valves and pistons removed. Not a great deal of metal around the cylinder bore (about 1 - 1/2" from memory) so there would appear to be little scope for reducing the overall width.

 

That's not how gauging works. The full route is designated as whatever, and either you fit or you don't. With the Kings, I've a feeling full size they are too tall to comply with OHLE - which is what is now installed at Didcot, hence my query.

 

Fair enough, I guess we'll see then, although I'd have thought Didcot will be well ahead of the both of us!

 

https://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/1636/early-2018-for-king-edward-is-return-to-main-line-service/

 

More effective at using less coal and water whilst trundling around all day at less than 25mph.
Trundling is a lovely word.
Sounds like 6023 is going to need new cylinders (or the old ones lining out) before long ...

 

.... and the double chimney.

 

I think you would struggle to notice the difference in consumption on the vast majority of heritage lines.

In my experience, for the same line and load, the things that make most difference to coal and water consumption are, in order:

1) Whether you are steam heating or not
2) The condition of the front end (i.e. whether it leaks a lot or is nice and tight straight out of repair)
3) The crew, and how it is driven
4) Diagramming, both daily and per sequence of days in duty).

None of those is affected by the geometry of the chimney or blastpipe, or whether it is superheated, or whether it has long travel valves, or anything else...

Remember as well that on a heritage line, most of the time a loco is stationary (or coasting downhill) with the regulator shut. When it is being driven, generally it is a part-open regulator and long cut off, on account of the low speed. Pretty much the entire history of twentieth century improvements to boiler and front end efficiency of locos really only come into their own for locos doing long, sustained, high-speed duties: not the kind of running you get on a heritage line.

And even beyond that: the key metric is not coal consumption on its own, but total cost per mile, including repairs and overhaul. Coal consumption makes a fairly low contribution to that. For a site like Didcot - and indeed many heritage railways - once a loco is big enough to haul the traffic on offer, the critical cost difference between, say, a Pannier and King is not the daily cost of coal, but that the Pannier will have been be cheaper to overhaul.

(For mainlines, the economics of improved draughting will be subtly different, since a higher proportion of the duty cycle is done at high output, though overhaul and repair costs will still almost certainly be the major component in per mile running costs. I'm also not making any comment on whether a large loco is a driver of additional visitors).

Tom