6023

I wondered about a King Arthur, given that one was running about on the mainline until comparatively recently.

The GA drawing in Bradley shows 9' 0-1/2" for a Urie N15. That is measured over the running plate; from the drawing it looks like the cylinders (which are lower) sit within that. I'm not sure whether that dimension was tweaked on the Maunsell King Arthurs.

Tom

 

But would there not be a degree of grandfathers rights associated in this, in very generic terms 6000,6024 both operated prior to this and if NR are going to make your equipment essentially obsolete one would hope they would at least have consulted with the owners/operators of assets registered on the system and thus who depend on the system to make a commercial living, likewise with the various Halls, 4965 for instance has been mainline for a fair period but seems unable to leave Tyseley due to gauging issues, where would that have left Tyseley commercially if they hadn't had 5043 to step into the breach?

No idea of the intricacies of it (Tyseley correspondents help), but you would have thought as NR like to make much of one rule for all that they would consider the commercial impacts on all users, good grief I am sounding evermore like TBird Frank once of this parish....

 

My understanding is that NR are under pressure to minimise platform to carriage distance because of the increasing numbers of instances of passengers getting caught in sliding doors and then falling between train and platform. If that is the case no amount of bleating about grandfathers rights will have any effect.

 

I believe the cladding on the new cylinders of 6024 is even being attached with countersunk screws to minimize every bit of width they can.

 

There was a photo on Facebook of the cylinder cladding bolt heads on 6023 being ground down before its trip to Paddington the other week.

 

Chris Denton mentioned on the facebook page of the King Edward II Group on the
26th of august that he had turned down the cylinder cladding bolts to within gauge.
kind regards
Jos Koopmans
just a few seconds later

 

Brittanias are 8 feet 8 3/4 inches over cylinders angled higher up than platform edges that are 8 foot 8 apart (shrinking ) and 3 feet4 up from rail level.
Not really feasible for GWR locomotives with 4 simple horizontal cylinders and two inside valve gears.
Owners can do a reverse Thomson and move outside cylinder up front and let them have conrods inside coupling rods

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_sv7XSzffWJA/So06RWA8hWI/AAAAAAAAKk0/YUhQFP6Qpd8/CFR 231.050 at Dej Triaj Depot 01.jpg



Or remove outside cylinders and emulate B12 or Belgian Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMBS/SNCB_Type_12

 

Not in the north west they ain't, there are certain stations on the little North Western and Furness Lines when it would be advisable to use a ladder to board, both in terms of height variations and distances between stock and platform edge.

 

Should a campaign be started to get City of Truro steaming again as the only GWR express loco fit for the 21st century?

 

Setting the small issue of gauge to one side I would think that the VoR tanks might still just fit within the envelope that NR is creating?

 

I think they have "gauging" issue for use on Network Rail ...

Tom

 

Maybe we now know why the GWS are keen to build a Dean Single at some time...

 

Doesn't matter, they're well ahead of the outside cylinders and comfortably narrower than the standard gap between the frames. You might make an argument for beefing up the coupling rods (certainly not the connecting rods), but probably not compared to a Urie 4-6-0; nobody ever described them as: "Of sylph-like construction, plagued by delicate motion and hopelessly inadequate bearing surfaces."

The reason for the wide cylinder spacing on the Kings is a bit more fundamental; the trailing bogie wheel is right behind the outside cylinder and needs room for lateral play. Castles have the same problem, of course, but the cylinders are marginally smaller and I should guess an inch higher. In addition, because they have a shorter fixed wheelbase the required lateral travel on the bogie will be less for a given curve radius; whether they were actually designed around less lateral movement I don't know. 6201 has the same configuration and cylinder size, but an even shorter fixed wheelbase. Most other big engines have the cylinders roughly between the bogie wheels, where the scope for interference is much less, so the cylinder centres can be closer in.

 

Webbinring

Mr Webb is somehow to blame.
Due to very narrow LNWR loading gauge two small outside high pressure, one inside high pressure and no coupling rod on his compounds.
One went to Austria and got no ofsprings and one went to france and got an awfull amounts of ugly children called Bosquet- de- Glehn(English?).
Churchward fell in love with three french ladies of this dubious ancestry and made them even more unnoble and simple.
As far as I know only humans from Swindon made fourcylinder simples after WW1.WW2 maybe?
Having the outside cylinders close to boggie wheel made wide centerdistance nessecary.

 

You would think it would be cheaper to screw some aluminium step plates on the sides of the carriages rather than move all that heavy track

 

My understanding is that NR have an obligation to maintain clearances with respect to the stock that normally operates over the lines in question. It is arguable whether the occasional use of a steam loco over a length of track constitutes normal operation.

 

That word "normally" certainly opens several cans of worms!

 

The gauging issue with 6023 is a big disappointment and hopefully a solution will soon be found.
In the meantime, surely it could still go to the SVR by road, for testing and occasional use. It would certainly be a big attraction...

 

I suspect there wouldn't so much of a problem if folks got their noses out of their mobile phones and watched where they are walking when getting on/off the train. Here's an idea - NR bans the use of mobile phones whilst folks are on NR property. Much cheaper than rebuilding platforms/modifying locos and rolling stock.

 

I haven't seen mobile phone usage implicated in any of the RAIB reports I've read. Some of them have been really bizarre - If I recall correctly I think one was a tie string on a coat swinging into the doorway as a door closed and the passenger stepped back. The cord wasn't thick enough to activate the door detection, but the toggle on the end was big enough to prevent the cord being pulled out. Cord and toggle were strong enough to pull the passenger off their feet.

But in any case we have to deal with people as they are, not how we'd like them to be. here's a few incidents from the RAIB on passengers dragged and passengers falling between train and platform. The only one I spotted in a quick scan for mobile phone use had mobile phone use by the train *driver* as a factor.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Hayes&Harlington2015.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_WestWickham2015.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Holborn2014.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Newcastle2013.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_KingsCross2011.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_ClaphamSouth2015.pdf
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Jarrow2012.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/411977/070430_R112007_Huntingdon_v2.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/411017/111128_R192011_Brentwood.pdf