92134

My understanding is that the tenders paired with the class 4's are not compatible with the larger BR standards.

 

Spaceship has now landed at Grosmont! Very pleased to see a 9F at the NYMR again.

 

I'm very pleased to see that 9F at the NYMR again.

Sawdust.

 

Im looking forward to seeing her running especially climbing the 1 in 49 grade to Goathland?

 

Looked a major restoration project on its loader on the M 62 eastwards yesterday.

 

Oh god - no!!

While I tease over the Southern engines that are based on the Moors, I'm sure they could be Whitby capable if needed. Repton was seen there (*sighs*) when the B1 and 8F tour was in. If anything a year or so ago, the Moors had an excellent and capable group of BR standards and Black 5s which were easily able to do the Whitby turns, supported by the B1 too. Its a shame 75029 had to be withdrawn and that some of these are due overhaul. Really if anything it should have highlighted the need for 80135 to get her overhaul completed if the Moors want its in house engines to be on this working.

As for some other things mentioned - I'm sure the use of large LNE designed engines is down to the four wheel tenders not liking the tight curves on the approach to Whitby, so they have not been allowed down. Also I think 9Fs are banned due to Whitby having a guard rail on the curves on the approach and 9Fs are banned over these, hence banned now from the network.

I'm sure that the 9F will be a capable machine on the Moors, but like the Q6 it is perfect for lifting heavy seasonal workings up the bank and that's what the line might need, to save other engines being pushed to their maximum.

However, if you wanted to get creative maybe that Raven machine might be an alternative choice than the S15, but I think the wheel arrangement helps the latter. Still, a guy can dream - a Q6 in Whitby sounds a whole lot more appealing - but then I would say that...

 

What is your objection to the Moors' Southern locos? They could be worse, they could be Great Western...!

 

The problem with the LNER pacifics going to Whitby is not with the tender but with the Cartazzi.

 

Half right, 75029s BR2A type tender is no good and would look a bit silly anyway. The last batch 75065-79 destined for the Southern had BR1B tenders a type fitted to a batch of 9Fs so the tender from 75069 would be OK

 

I think 75069 might have something to say about that!

 

75029 is fitted with a BR2 tender, which has no fall plate. 76079 has a BR2A tender. This is fitted with a fall plate. This could be used with a 9F, but, as you say, would look silly.

 

How might loan of tender from 73096 work out?

 

Dont be ridiculous !
Couldn't possibly work.

ITS THE WRONG COLOUR

 

92203 ran with the Caprotti 5's tender for a bit when it first came to live on the NNR. I believe this is the tender going on loan to 92134

 

If that's the case, could it be paired with 73050's tender whilst the loco is being rebuilt at the NVR?

 

It probably could, but see the previous post (#54)!

 

Some news from November 2018 (by the way, is this the BR standard class 9 with single chimney?

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/11/steam-locomotive-92134-has-boiler-removed.html

Knut

 

Yes it is.

Keith

 

Thanks Keith!

 

92134 was lit up in complete loco form for the first time in around 53 years yesterday. It will be coupled to its temporary tender (from 73050) and undergo insurance testing over the next week or so and then run in, so will hopefully make its debut at the ASG at the end of the month. The end of a very long road is in sight - congrats to the team at Grosmont for getting it to the finishing line!