4079 Pendennis Castle

I wonder what percentage of the mileage of non-Jacobite locos is used up in non-revenue earning light engine moves?

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

I'm afraid they do, on a single chimney engine, both the chimney and cab are too tall. The former can be brought into gauge by cutting the capuchon off, but the cab roof needs lowering by a good three or four inches. Double chimneys are fortunately just within the loading gauge. Also, I don't know if this varies between VABs, but based on experience with 6023, Pendennis would need both the ATC shoe and waterscoop gear removing.

 

Intrigued to know why the cab roof is different from a single to a double chimney?

 

That’s not quite how I read the comment - rather, that on a single chimney loco you’d have to modify both the chimney and the cab; on a double chimney loco the chimney is in gauge but you still have to lower the cab roof.

Tom

 

Agreed after rereading a number of times

 

Yes after I posted it I did wonder if I ought to clarify, nevermind!

PS Looks to be just under three inches for the cab roof. You can also gain a bit in hand by shaving off the rain strip.

 

In the late 60's "Steam Centres" - Carnforth, Dinting, Tyseley, Didcot were perceived as the future for preserved steam. However, as standard gauge heritage railways got going the volunteers headed towards them and the "Steam Centres" got left behind. Didcot typifies this.

 

It still has its scoop fitted?

 

I think the Echo suggested that in the case of 4079 they can adapt the cab from Maindy Hall to ML dimensions for fitting to 4079 and retain that presently on Pendennis unaltered (or something like that).

Likewise, and its way outside my comfort zone, I assume 5051 has a ML compliant chimney so could they just swap out 4079/5051 for now?

 

Yes, the latest Echo did say the original cab had been put aside and the one fitted was modified from Maindy Hall(?)

 

Is the reduction in cab height a relatively recent requirement? I'm sure 7029's cab looks different now to its last mainline stint.

 

Back in 1987 I travelled behind 7029 on a return trip from Tyseley to Marylebone.
The tour literature stated that 7029 was only able to do this route because the driving wheel tyres were almost down to the scrapping limit.

 

Others may know the full works, but I seem to recall that it was around late 2000 or early 2001 that the regulations changed. I believe that prior to this point 'grandfather rights' applied to a certain degree, however afterwards you had to apply for derogation, and a height over 13' 1" was no longer accepted. I think I'm right in saying that 5051 was the first engine to go through the derogation process.

Going back to 4079, yes you could use the chimney from 5051, as it's already been trimmed down. There was actually a new 13' 1" spectacle plate made for 5051 but which was never used, which lay out the back of the works for many years, so you could incorporate that as well.

I think the question of whether something has been 'butchered' or not depends on your viewpoint. In any case 'butchered' is a bit of a strong word. If it's purely a question of aesthetics, then obviously a Castle is not as seriously affected as a King. If it's about altering original material, then depending on how much you're willing to spend you can 'simply' make new bits. But at the risk of sounding like a snowflake, I think there's also an ethical question about modifying a 'heritage' item for a 21st century role, be it through changing its appearance, however little, or through introducing modern hardware which is clearly out of place. Personally I'm glad that there are groups willing to do this, so that people like myself can experience these things closer to their intended role. But the question remains over how many engines of the same type you can do this to before it just becomes an exercise in ticking off nameplates. Didcot is after all, first and foremost, an accredited museum, and not a mainline operator.

 

Well this is the question - at what point do you say the modifications needed to be made to enable a steam locomotive designed for hauling express passenger trains on the mainline to continue doing so are changing the locomotive too much? I know some people who say merely fitting Air Brakes to steam locos that didn't have them prior to withdrawal is too much. Others (such as myself) are perfectly happy to have a loco fitted with Air Brakes, TPWS, shortened chimneys, lowered cabs and anything else as long as it looks pretty much the same as it did 60 years ago and pelts along at 75mph sounding great. One could also debate what the point of heritage is, to present something that looks as close as possible with as much original material as possible to a pre-defined point in the past, or have something which is able to do something as close to the job it was built to do?

 

I think this is why in an ideal world, it's best to have more than one example, so that you can cover all the bases and have an 'original' version, a 'mainline' version... etc.

 

What about those types where we only have one? Locos like the Duke, Flying Scotsman. Were they not already kitted out with air brakes, TPWS etc and a restoration were being started now, would we encourage extra kit being fitted to confirm to mainline regulations to allow them to run on the Mainline, or would we want them kept as original as possible and restricted to nothing faster than a TPO on the GCR at 35mph?

 

'In an ideal world.'

 

But seriously, there obviously isn't a right or wrong answer. I think each organisation has to evaluate the issues for themselves.

Although as a finger in the sky comparison, the BBMF's Lancaster was designed to be loaded up with 14,000lbs of 'stuff' and flown on a 1500-2000 mile round trip, but I don't think anyone would expect it to be subjected to that today, instead they're quite happy to see it just 'trundle' around the sky. (Can aircraft trundle..?)

 

The Lancaster was also expected to have a life expectancy of around 3 weeks in WWII operational service before requiring major battle damage repair or Cat 5 damage (written off/lost in action).