Swanage Railway General Discussion

It could be worse. It could be no locos!

 

There is also 563 in the equation, but not likely to be in service for at least 2 or 3 years now.

31806 had a bottom end overhaul not long ago. I think there was at one point a plan to give it a fast turnaround, by fitting the pre overhauled boiler from 31625. As the boiler remains on 31625 currently though this plan seems to have stalled.

The bottom end overhaul of 31874 was completed some time ago. It’s awaiting return of its boiler which there have been several delays with. However if the boiler returns soon I believe 31874 could be finished off quite quickly.

 

As Ian Riley once wisely observed, having a spare boiler to work on is of little use if there is not a spare boilersmith to go with it.

Peter

 

I'd forgotten about 563 - looks like the entire firebox needs replacing though - maybe 4-5 years for that one.

So do the N Class and the U-class have the same boiler?

 

I believe construction of 563s firebox has already started?

 

June 2020 was the last update by the Chairman pf the project http://563locomotivegroup.co.uk/appeal/letter-from-the-chairman/

 

Yes. The same type of boiler was used on all four Maunsell 2-6-0 classes (N, N1, U, U1) plus 2-6-4T Class W.

 

One boiler was designed for the 2-6-0s and the 2-6-4 tank engines versions which was a bit unfortunate as the tender engines could have cheerfully taken
a bigger boiler but it was made small enough to get the tanks alongside. The provision for the tank engines was a misfortune three times over: apart from
determining that the tender engines could not have a larger boiler, the tank engine version was not a success in itself for the traffic it was meant to work not
only was it dangerously sensitive to a less than perfect formation when on fast passenger trains but because of water stops due to the limited water capacity
they could not time the intended diagrams. Rebuilding them as tender engines solved helped the stability and gave them more range.

 

The U class moguls also probably suffered from frames that were marginally too thin, another legacy of the origin as tank engines built down to a weight. Many of the class needed complete or 3/4 frame replacements in the 1950s; another 1/8” would probably have helped had they not started out as tank engines.

Tom

 

All 3 of the Swanage based Moguls have BR cylinders.

 

I seem to recall that Holcroft also expressed the view that the Maunsell 2-6-0s would have benefited from a larger boiler.

But a larger boiler would have increased weight and might have impacted on route availability. When the N-class was first introduced in 1917, its maximum axle loading of 17½ tons matched that of the E-class 4-4-0, the largest engine that could generally work over both SER and LCDR section main lines. But the N-class overall weight was several tons more than the E-class, so more likely to be barred from some bridges. According to Mr Bradley's book, the N-class was initially allowed over most SER main routes other than Tonbridge-Hastings (too wide) but very limited on LCDR routes, with Sole Street to Faversham barred. I suspect that the major problem there was the Medway crossing at Rochester prior to the realignment and bridge strengthening work of 1927.

Many of the later Woolwich-built N-class were drafted to the LSWR lines west of Exeter, which also had weight limit issues (18 ton axle loading?).

 

An old boy who I know off from Swanage, came in to my PO last week said that their planning to put the overhauled boiler of the N class on to U class number 31806. This can't be true can it? They wouldn't put the N class under the bus like that, considering the overhaul is now five years over due.

 

I doubt it’s true. The bottom end overhaul of 31874 was completed some time ago. It’s just awaiting the (long overdue) return of it’s boiler from contractors before it can be finished off.

Once the boiler is finally returned, it would make little sense to use it on 31806 rather than just finishing off 31874.

I suppose the only advantage to using it on 31806 instead is that 31806 already has mainline equipment fitted.

There had been talk of possibly overhauling the boiler from 31625 to use on 31806. Maybe that’s what the old boy was thinking of.

 

I dont think a final decision has been made but I think the "Old Boy" is essentially right about the current thinking or at least he's repeating a very well established rumor.

The current circumstances drive tough decisions.

When 806 boiler expires early next year we will have one useable boiler and two useable chassis. The quickest and cheapest way of producing a working loco is thought to be to reallocate the available boiler to 806. This will need less new pipework, boiler cladding work, snagging, running in, etc. etc. 806 and 625 boiler would then be assessed and the best overhauled for use on the N as funds allow.

I agree this looks like an uncomfortable decision but we have to be pragmatic in the current circumstances. 806 has received a lot of bottom end work over the last few years and is in very good condition.

This would complete the in preservation boiler merry-go-round the N having received the boiler from 625 whilst at Mid Hants in the 90s. These boiler swaps were the norm back in the day when a loco would routinely leave the works with a different boiler than the one it arrived with.

I think that this is even being considered is a measure of how hard the railway has been hit by Covid. Despite the appearance of returning to normality with a daily 2 train service the effects of limited capacity and shortened season have cut deeply and will have a long lasting impact. It seems the carriage shed is not the only casualty and the N class may also have to wait its day.

SOS appeal still very much required. Link Below. You know what to do!

 

And at one time it was anticipated that all 3 moguls would now be in service together.

But yes tough times and tough decisions. Whatever course of action to get a loco back in action as quickly, easily and cheaply as possible needs to be taken.

 

I could not agree more with these sentiments, the railway is still in a serious financial situation. If they need to swap boilers to ensure that a locomotive stays in revenue earning service then so be it. I know many people want to see the N in service (myself included) but if this helps to save cost and help earn more revenue during a time period that is going to be extremely tough for the SR, then in my opinion it is a worthwhile cause.

Meanwhile, the SOS appeal as of 13th August stands at £262,634.82, now under £100k short of our £360k target, please consider donating and or travelling on the railway where possible to help ensure its future. A new SOS Appeal video is in the planning stages for the autumn/winter to look at the current situation, the next challenges and potential opportunities ahead of us as long as we get through the difficult times ahead.

Many thanks.

 

Well great I had a really bad at work and then I find out the fake news wasn't fake...

 

Just a brief note to show appreciation to all the staff and volunteers, a lot of them whose work goes on quietly and unnoticed by many. Its not only the loco crews who are up early getting things ready for everyone to enjoy, for instance, a quick look at the Corfe Castle webcam at 06.35 this morning i saw a lady watering the plants and doing some dead heading. True dedication to the cause, in the spirit that those of us from the early days remember so well. Best wishes to all, cheers Bish.

 

I bet the Adams is still being worked on...

So when is the N due to be ready now?

 

I have been waiting a wet day (so I feel safer out and about for something I do not need to do) to get the U at the site of the new shed. But of course the day it rains was the day of the loco change. So three images of the 15:10 which looked very well patronised as I can be seen in the third train image.
As we have proved before I know nothing about plants, perhaps jamessquared can enlighten me on what the pink wild flowers are?
I also liked the station closed notice, which may be slightly out of date now.