The 9F as a heritage railway locomotive

Opening up a can of worms, perhaps, but how suitable is the 9F as a locomotive for use on heritage lines?

Like the WD 2-10-0, it’s a large, powerful locomotive, but it is unsuitable for mainline operations due to the flangeless centre driving wheels.

 

Certainly they seem to be popular with customers, having 92214 on the GCR certainly "recreates the experience". I know some enthusiasts are irked by the green paint and "Leicester City" nameplates, but it certainly attracts admiring glances from many many people. Of course, it also looks the part when hauling the rake of "Windcutter" wagons!

 

The way I see it, it's preservation or stuffed and mounted given they will never be seen on the mainline. So I'm more than happy to see them on the GCR, where they don't look out of place, or the NYM where their use could be justified by their gradients, or even elsewhere, where their use could be accused of big chufferitis.

Even were they permitted to roam out in the real world, I think their five foot drivers would severely limit their speed*, and hence their usefullness, as pathing would be problematic.

*I'm assuming past exploits would not be taken into account when setting a mainline maximum

 

All academic of course, think you could safely argue for a derogation up to 60mph, at which point its doing everything a black 5 will do and more, but perhaps not as gauge friendly.... on a heritage line its a sledgehammer for a Walnut and you could probably drop the pressure to 200psi and it will still do all you need... what you save in wear and tear in some areas ( its never worked hard) you lose in others ( tyre wear, coal burnt whilst standing)... definitely a marquee loco. even without green paint and nameplates...

 

Given that no preserved engine is doing the job it was designed for (transport in an age of limited competition, cheap coal and labour), then the purpose of a preserved engine is entertainment.

It will pull in the punters, and then pull them, so why not?

 

That, IMHO, is definitely the right answer!

 

Exactly. Heritage rail is (for the non-enthusiast) selling a fantasy of bygone days, so if something huge and impressive like a 9F creates a bit of a wow factor, they're earning their keep.

 

Light axle loading, lots of grunt, happy at low speeds, will pull pretty much anything (6 well laden coaches up a 1/60 on a wet/frosty Autumn night with leaves on the line) .... it'll do me!

Fiery 9F by Stephen Morley, on Flickr

 

True, but (from a purely commercial point of view) are they doing so as well as something smaller?

 

They are if they pull in more punters.

I think the important thing is that for most punters historical accuracy isn't important, it's perceived historical ambience. Famous engines pull punters in. 9Fs aren't Flying Scotsman, but they still have the big engine aura.

 

I agree that by and large passengers prefer a big engine, but given that ordinary punters don't tend to check things like loco rosters anyway, I'm not convinced that it actually makes all that much difference in terms of passenger numbers.
That said, I do think the negative case against big locos is often overstated, and overlooks the fact that a big loco that is steamable is infinitely better than a small loco that isn't, and often that isn't within a host railway's control. From my reading here, the extra coal required really is negligible, the fireman on the day probably has just as much to do with the coal bill as the size of engine. Weve also seen figures here previously suggesting coal use isn't always correlated to engine size anyway, condition of loco, how hard it's working etc.

 

The North Norfolk Railway have had use of 92203 and a WD 2-10-0 both of which have seen regular use when available. The NNR is ~5 miles long so I doubt they would see regular use if it wasn't useful / profitable.

 

As an enthusiast I do quite like a 9F, something that’s big, makes a lot of noise and something Joe Public seems to like as well, in the last 10 years I’ve been lucky enough to enjoy 92203, 92212 and 92214 at various railways and as I say they make a lot of noise but seem to be working within themselves.
They seem to be rather popular with the guys who have to work on them which can’t be a bad thing. Personally I’m looking forward to the the day my Euro million’s comes up and I can buy one, put an air pump on it and make it fit the headshunt at Smallbrook junction! (Haven’t decided yet to build a Garett to go with it) (sorry Paul but wouldn’t it be nice?!)

 

Big chufferitis is akin to alcoholism.

 

Other than the NYMR is there any heritage line that could offer any sort of challenge to a 9F?

 

Even the NYMR can't realistically do that; any train which made a 9F struggle is unlikely to fit in the platforms. A similar comment. would apply to other goods engines: 8F, 28XX, etc. Most preserved lines could get by with nothing bigger than a Class 4; the load limit for one of these on the SVR is ten bogies.

As others have said, you have to differentiate between what size of engine is needed to pull the trains and what pulls in the passengers.

 

Provided you've got a decent length of track for it to stretch its legs, I'd say that a 9F is pretty much the ultimate loco for a heritage line.
Easy to drive and fire, straightforward to maintain and quick to prep and dispose, they're also surprisingly economical for a big loco. With its shallow grate, a 9F is no coal guzzler and it will happily pull anything you put behind it without ever needing to use second valve. Other than a poorly designed baffle plate with a tendency to sag, they're just about perfect.

 

So 9Fs can’t be used on the main line.

Only one (to my admittedly limited knowledge) heritage railway offers a 9F any sort of challenge.

We have 9 survivors, though 3 have yet to steam in preservation (with varying chances of ever doing so) and Evening Star on permanent display.

Most enthusiasts want to see the 9Fs that are operable in steam. So it’s inevitable that they will be in operation on lines that some may see them as being too big for.

So I guess the only way to see 9Fs in steam is to succumb to Big Chufferitis

 

In which case, moderate amounts are enjoyable and arguably beneficial. It is only in excess that it becomes a problem.

 

Having worked on a 9F I can’t say I liked it: primarily I think because the cab is cramped, a consequence of the high floor. You also use a lot of energy getting on and off, which on a hot day is a consideration for a fireman where you have to couple and uncouple at each end.

That said, on coal consumption, I can’t recall it being very heavy. Which stands to reason: if you ask two engines to do the same work, they’ll need similar amounts of energy to do so. So take the same train up the same hill and there is no reason why the one with a large grate will use more coal; it will do the same work, so just have a lower combustion rate per square foot (and probably less spark throwing!) Obviously with the same load, a heavier engine will need more energy to move its own mass, but that is not a straight proportion, firstly because the loco mass is only a small proportion (perhaps 1/3) of the total train weight; and secondly because the ancillaries (vac brake, steam heat) are the same regardless of loco, and quite significant. So the difference in energy consumption of a 150ton 9F on a 250 ton train heating and braking seven carriages; and 120 ton 4-6-0 hauling, heating and braking the same train is not especially marked.

There is also the point about lighting up - from cold, a 9F will undoubtedly use a lot of coal. On the other hand, if you use it daily and have 100psi on the clock first thing in the morning, you are already half way there, and big engines keep their heat better overnight. So the key to efficiency is long periods of use, but that will also be good for the boiler.

So on coal, I don’t think they are the coal guzzlers some like to make out. My big concern would be overhaul costs: you simply have a lot of loco to overhaul. (I can imagine a set of new tyres might be a bit eye-watering). But that comes down to who is paying for the overhaul, and how that gets reflected in hire fees if the railway doesn’t own the loco. If I owned one, I think I might seriously consider reducing boiler pressure to 225 or even 210psi to see if that improved firebox life.

I don’t think I’d choose to go on a 9F over a small loco for enjoyment; and for an easy day as a fireman, nothing beats an 80000 tank (and comfortable too). But on costs for heritage lines, I’d be focusing on overhaul costs, not coal.

Tom