9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

I think even that is unrealistic though. I've made the point before that this country is not short of preserved locomotives. It is somewhat short of operational preserved locomotives, on account of scarce money, labour, space, workshop capacity, time etc. Given that, I don't see how wasting money on what is essentially a wild goose chase would be in anyone's interest (for which read: in the interests of those who wish to make money operating steam-hauled trains on the national network; or those who have an non-operational 9F lying around awaiting sufficient resource to complete a restoration / overhaul).

Put it this way: which do you think would be the best use of scarce resources in order to get another operational mainline locomotive? Putting your effort into a currently existent, but non-operational, Merchant Navy, Duke, A2 / A4 etc., good for 75mph and likely to be able to shift anything that can reasonably be attached behind the drawbar? Or spending a ton of money redesigning the chassis of a 9F, followed by more money to restore it complete with extensive modifications, so that it can then run at no more than about 50mph, thereby providing a less useful loco at greater cost?

Tom

 

Oh, don't go bringing logic into this...

 

Absoloutely, Logic would mean that there would be more Bulleid Pacifics , Kings, Castles Plus another 2 Stanier Pacifics out there working Mainline- and fewer Jubilees and Black 5's.
( ok what ? ah, someone just reminded me that the only thing Better than a Black 5 is Two black 5's...)

 

8. Build a new railway especially for 9Fs. Freight only, of course, so that they could go faster than 25mph. With trackside photographer 'hides'* at a safe distance.

*to hide the photographers - so the rest of us don't have to look at them.

 

I really don't understand the fuss for a mainline 9F. You can see plenty of them at work on preserved lines going at a pace the originals normally would have done - if you go to the GCR you can see one on a main line anyway and if under strict operating conditions could probably witness it go quicker than 25mph if you really want.

Far better to put money into one of the many more useful 75mph+ machines or supporting locomotives like the go almost anywhere standard 4MTs.

 

This thread should have finished some time ago for the following reasons.
1 NR wont allow a 9F out again for two insumountable reasons
2 No 9F owner has expressed any desire to run on the mainline
3 The money isn't there or the desire to raise it
4 See Tom's very sensible post above
9Fs were built for a certain purpose and we should just be thankful that example survived to enable us to replicate a typical 9F scene from back in the day as seen here, not a lot to say this isn't the early 60s

 

A thread is folk having a chat, exchanging opinions etc so will come to a natural end sooner or later.
I find it odd that some posts appear annoyed by the discussion taking place as well as being hostile towards hypothesising on the subject.

 

Yes, because it's a waste of time, rather like sending letters to Santa Claus up the chimney and putting teeth under the pillow for the tooth fairy. You could also hypothesise about Stanier pacifics running Euston to Glasgow on a daily basis, A4s again on a regular 'Elizabethan', Castles again working the 'Bristolian', and Bulleids back on the ACE. After all, the locos are there. All we need is someone to fund the feasibility study into relaying the water troughs and a few tweaks of the current timetables. Wouldn't it be nice?

If people see that something is very, very difficult then they are often prepared to try. If they see that it isn't possible, they don't even make the attempt.

 

I believe that about 10-15 years ago there was a serious attempt to get a 9F on the main line but it foundered for the reasons we have discussed.

Of course some of these discussions may well lead to a 'OK that seems do-able' - as a for example (OK, it was my idea) a 9F on the Esk Valley seems perfectly possible so they can lead to a positive outcome

 

Let's be honest though, the Esk Valley is not the main line - even if you go up to Battersby.

 

Water troughs? No, all we need is 10 coaches each with 6,000 litres in underslung linked tanks.

 

I know the world's moving in favour of retention tanks, but asking each passenger to contribute a litre is a bit much, isn't it?

 

The point is its only a waste of time discussing it if you choose to do so. Its just a forum thread, not a lobby group campaign.

 

So what is the point? A sensible discussion leads to a practical outcome. Shall we start a discussion about an expedition to walk through the forests in search of the elves and fairies? Shall we approach NASA to launch a mission to seek out the man in the moon?

Every questionnaire I've had to do puts me down as 'pragmatist', and it's correct: I don't bother with the unattainable. I don't open threads of the 'Wouldn't it be nice' variety or the 'What if...' format. Things have happened so speculation over what might have been is pointless. This thread's title instead suggests a definite subject with definitive answers. If only I'd known it should have started, 'Once upon a time...'

 

At least you have reached one conclusion, that the thread is not of interest or relevance to you.
I have found it to be an interesting thread in several ways yet remain convinced really of what I set out believing. If somone was determined and had sufficient resources some solution would emerge. I remain equally convinced that is unlikely to happen.

 

I agree with your final conclusion, because it would need not just resource and determination, but also need. In today's world, I'm struggling to define the need that running a 9F would meet.

Just to be clear, "need" means more than "because I never had a chance to have a ride behind a 9F on the mainline" or similar enthusiast desire.

 

Which is exactly the point. As far as I can see, the only operational advantage of a 9F over most other large mainline locos is enhanced adhesion and TE, allowing slightly heavier loads on hilly routes - for which advantages you are going to pay a penalty in allowable maximum speed and therefore pathing in any case.

But ... without wishing to open a can of worms about diesels, it is pretty clear these days that the operational constraints at many likely start and end points are such that a diesel on the back is going to be a requirement for most mainline trips anyway, if only to shunt the stock. At which point, the advantages of enhanced load hauling largely disappear - you've got an extra 2,500hp on tap any time you need it - while the disadvantages of being restricted to a low speed come into sharp focus.

Remind me again which operational niche having a mainline-certified 9F is designed to fill?

Tom

 

Just to clarify something that may not be obvious from my earlier post. Nothing that I've written should be interpreted to mean that I wouldn't like to see a 9F working under mainline conditions; merely that the hurdles are so high that I cannot see how even the deepest of pockets will be able to persuade Network Rail that this is a project worth investing time and money in.

 

My belief is that were there no operational restrictions for 9Fs there would be more than one gainfully employed regularly on charter duties.
The supposed drawback of limited max speed is not a real problem for many northern routes as the 8F and K4 have demonstrated.
However this is probably not any sort of justification to attempt over turning the present reality, granted.

 

Just to note I timed 92220 at over 60mph between quarter mile posts using my then fashionable digital watch, in the early 80s between York and Church Fenton and between Leeds and Harrogate.

On at least one occasion there was a grinning John Bellwood on the footplate when I went up the front after leaving the train.

Sawdust.