Baldwin "Lyn" new build.

That's not how I read what Colin wrote - just that the full story isn't known and he doesn't have any answers.

I'm not sure how much I agree with this. Discussion boards are for discussion (as it says on the tin), but I think there is a difference between informed speculation/thought exploration and idle speculation, which can be incredibly damaging to projects

 

I think everyone was patient enough waiting for the promised futher information from the railway, but eventually in the absence of any update whatsoever speculation and rumour is inevitable and understandable.

 

Meatman,

As stated on Exmoor-NG, that discussion group is INDEPENDENT of the L&B Trust and all other organisations. Whilst I do personally communicate with several Trustees and Directors on a fairly regular basis, as all members (and even non-members) are able to do, I must reiterate that none of those people has any control over the admins of the discussion group, and although they seldom respond, they are aware of what is posted.

The one post you submitted that has not as yet been published contained what we considered to be unhelpful personal comments and hearsay relating to members of the Trust, and that is why it is being withheld at present. I will respond to you directly off-list once we (the Exmoor-NG admins) have considered the best course of action.

That is all I will say here on the matter.

Thank you

Martyn, Exmoor-NG moderator

 

As someone who held a position of responsibility on the L&B for 13 years, starting from when all we had was four hundred yards of Parracombe bog and a few mouldering relics, I am dismayed at accountability of the current regime. Big announcements when everything is going well, near silence when the wheels come off ( forgive the pun).
I am surprised that Lyn, of all types, was chosen to have this technological makeover. The original loco was a bag of nails that never fully achieved parity with its Manning Wardle stablemates. By 1935 it had the suspension altered to give over 10 tons on the rear driving axle to improve adhesion but still became a 'back of the shed' loco to be hauled out dead for photographs and deputising on boiler washouts or major overhauls of the Manning Wardles.
When Steve Philips told me of the technical upgrades to this design I said "it'll never keep its feet".
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

When you have been a member of one group for almost 40 years there are only so many discussions you can have with different people before you start to repeat yourself or the same questions come up and the same answers also appear, so to that end there is nothing new, it is only when you get forums like this one start years afterward do you find the same questions being raised again but on a different format.

As for the LYN issues the one thing which my colleague in Argentine has indicated and would appreciate and that is photo evidence of the damage to the track, as MR GWRman was so keen to tell us what was wrong with LYN may be he would like to prove us with the photographic evidence so that I can sent it to Argentine to get an informed answer as to the problem and hopefully come up with the possibilities of a solution.

Maybe one of you guys who constantly put this project down can answer a very simple question for me what is it about success you don't like? I admit it might not be perfect yet, but it is a start and we shall learn things along the way, we have if I recall something like 120 year of technical progress to add in to the building of steam locos and the railway across North Devon.

I am out of here for a while, what with job training, on call and shift rota means it will be difficult for me to get to look at or reply to comments on here at NP

Colin

 

You're not Colin Rainsbury, by any chance?

 

Yes, lynbarn is Colin Rainsbury


Keith

 

Who said anyone was putting the project down? Those are your words, not mine, or (from what I can see) anyone else's here.

There are 2 problems here:
1. The lack of communication from the 762 club and (to a lesser extent) the L&B.
I don't see what the problem would be if the L&B had issued a statement saying that there were issues with the wheel profiles and further requests for information should be directed to the 762 group. Equally the 762 should have issued a statement outlining the problems and detailing what work is going on to resolve the issues.
2. The incorporation into the loco of a new wheel profile which as far as I can see has never been tested on a NG loco before and certainly not in the UK.
It's all very well to say that we have "something like 120 years of technical progress to add in" but what's the point in incorporating ideas if they haven't been tested? The new build 'Lyd' seems to be working very well on 'normal' wheel profiles, so was there really a need to change to a new type? What were the perceived benefits and could these be proved before commitment by the 762 group?


Keith

 

It's nothing to do with me, but up-thread someone said this wheel profile has been used on Camilla on the FCAF in S Argentina, on a heavily used tourist line not entirely dissimilar to the L&B.

 

Possibly so, but still doesn't explain why it was thought necessary (bearing in mind the likes of the FR/WHR which are considerably longer than the L&B and haven't thought it necessary to use this new profile), or indeed whether the results of Camilla were actually any good!

Keith

 

762 club just sent out email updating members on issue

 

Post no704 from "Ellenbee Pioneer" could, if viewed in a certain light be thought somewhat critical...

 

Perhaps it's something to do with check-rail clearances etc. If so, are the pony wheels a problem too?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Yup - got mine too.
Unsure whether this is for further broadcast, but it seems there are 2 ways around the profile problem one of which would be relatively easy and cheap to do.

 

You'd be right, too.
I really cannot understand why these technical 'improvements' were ever deemed necessary. Adding further complication to an unfamiliar design is just asking for trouble. What was the point? It's not Lyn as she was, it's a 'Look-Alike Lyn', that would operate differently to a proper replica.
It's like putting a 1936-design telephone box at a station that lost its rails in 1935, totally pointless and hopelessly inauthentic.
I hope I'm wrong about Lyn but the L&B is in grave danger of becoming a parody of itself.

back-to-backs?

 

I think the Porta tyre profile was worthwhile experiment to try out on Lyn. Particularly as the new loco is supposedly more powerful than the original so could make good use of the extra adhesion.

It seems disappointing that more information hasn't been made available about the problem encountered - is returning the tyres to a conventional profile unavoidable, though I suppose there may be a reluctance to have to re-turn them more than once. At least only four wheels are involved and at this stage the L&B's locos aren't too hard pressed. I don't think, for instance, that Boston Lodge would consider turning out the eight wheels of a set of Fairle bogies for such an experiment with DLG or JS.

I confess to being a bit confused by earlier posts suggesting that the original Lyn had adhesion problems when I have read other accounts of her taking an extra coach over the Manning Wardles.

 

How often do you see a heavy Ffesterbahn train leave T-y-B without (sometimes truly frightening) wheelslip? Even Double Fairlies with the line's most experienced drivers frequently lose their footing between water tank and the loop's top points .... on dry days.

 

Does it have tyres?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

From the photos I've seen the answer is "not yet" I suppose it depends on how many turnings you need before you get the profile right!

Yes this is a lighthearted reply and not to be taken seriously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That's interesting, I didn't realise before that it has tyre-less wheels - I see photos of the carrying wheels at Allan Keef's clearly show flanges cast ready for turning.

Incidentally the 500mm gauge Southern Fuegian Railway's Garrett no 2 had tyre-less wheels of a poor material which failed after 22,000 km, it had originally been delivered complete with a spare set which were turned to Porta's design, but these too soon started to fail and were expected to last only 3 years (of course I'm not suggesting poor quality steel has been used for Lyn's wheels).