66xx no.6695

That may be true, but none of those are available. As you say, 31 is in bits, so it's not exactly going to be a solution to an immediate motive power shortage. I don't think 29 (or other NYMR locos for that matter) are generally available for long term hire either.

Perhaps I should have provided more details. The route consists of starting on a very slight downgrade (almost an insignificant gradient), then after about 1.75 miles it starts climbing at 1 in 176 for another 1.5 miles. 68067 can accelerate quickly up to line speed and hold it on the downhill, but usually loses about 5mph in speed at by the time the regulator is shut off close to the end of the climb for the first station. After the first station the line continues to climb at 1 in 176 for another 1.5 miles, and she is able to take the train back up to about 20mph. Doing this, she is able to keep to the timetable. She is operated in full first valve with cut off pulled as far back as it will go (on an Austerity there are 3 notches in the reversing lever, as I understand it the cutoffs you can run at are 75%, 50% or 25%, so we probably run her at 25%). Drivers don't go into 2nd valve, nor do they drop the cutoff down to 50%, which is in part because as of yet we do not have a proper water tower available and have to fill the loco up from a hydrant. This takes much longer and, especially in the winter when there is steam heating to increase water consumption, the crew's preference is to do what they can to reduce water consumption to reduce how long it takes to fill up at the end of each trip, even if that means not staying at line speed by working the loco much harder. Not everybody would describe opening to 2nd valve or dropping down to 50% cut off as flogging, but because it is harder than we would tend to work her, that is the word I have come to associate with that kind of operation.
To my knowledge although the IoWSR has steeper gradients, they aren't for as prolonged periods. And perhaps the locos are pushed into 2nd valve. Or perhaps 68067 or our stock is just not as free running as those on the Island.
Comparing her to your 1P tank engine (I guess the H), my guess would be you have a more variable cutoff option, so you can choose a cut off in between those available to us and therefore get a better compromise between power and fuel efficiency. And you have a proper water tower to top her up with so as long as you don't run her dry, it's not as much of a concern in terms of turnaround time. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

Some news of worth coming out of the S&CR.

6695 has been reunited with it's boiler.









Credit to the steam loco dept at the Swindon and Cricklade Railway for their continued hard work on the loco.

 

Good to see it on the way back. Was it ever released what damage the infamous lorry movement caused?

 

Looking great! Is this the first ex BR loco to have been overhauled by the team at SCR or have they done locos like this previously?

 

5637 and 7903 Foremarke Hall were restored on the line and ran briefly there (5637 has returned there now IIRC).

 

Prior to that a lot of work was undertaken at Blunsdon on the restoration of 35027. The S&C has a pretty good pedigree when it comes to restoring ex-BR locos, it's just not been so fortunate when it comes to keeping hold of them once they've been completed... perhaps that will change with 6695 now that the railway has a running line of a couple of miles.

 

Out of interest (not being as well-up

Out of interest (not being as well-up on GWR tackle), what was the reason for the smokebox being extended as far as it was? The chimney (and presumably the blastpipe) are set well back, and I wouldn't have thought there'd be much gubbins in front of the blastpipe to warrant such a large smokebox...

Richard.

 

GWR ergonomics department at work again - with Churchward having set the basic template (which could be followed by later CMEs) of cramped cab with inaccessible control layout, Collett started concentrating on detail design changes to enhance the experience: a smokebox that couldn’t actually be emptied without erecting precarious scaffolding across the buffers was, in the straitened times of the 1930s, an easy enhancement to make the loco even less useable while incurring minimal design cost.

Tom

 

I was thinking along very similar lines Tom!

Richard.

 

I thought it was to distract the crews. Too busy wondering why the front end was designed like that, they failed to notice the valve gear was almost inaccessible to people of normal proportions.

 

In my younger and thinner days, I used to be able to oil everything rear of the motion bracket on '95 from one position. Somehow, after 5 years of a job significantly less active than previous, I doubt I'd even be able to try it, let alone do it!

 

You could, but it was pretty painful to do so.

 

Presumably the simple answer (with acknowledgment of the humorous ones) is that it's a standard number such-and-such boiler which could just be squeezed onto a chassis based on an existing design. But that doesn't explain why Swindon couldn't have shortened the smokebox by a few inches and/or extended the frames at the front by a few inches.

 

How dare you question their wisdom.

 

I think the even simpler answer is that its very much how the original design was, and as they were heaviest at the front anyway lengthening didn't seem like a good idea.

 

Could they have been designed as a 2-6-2T? Or would some other consideration have come into play? (Braking / adhesion? Length in constricted colliery sidings?)

Tom

 

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_062.htm

 

Thanks for the kind words! 7903 and 5637 were some of the first big projects completed, alongside smaller industrials such as AB's 2354, 2138 & 2139.

The issue the S&CR has always had is the length of its line. I have to be careful with what I say here, but over the years the local council has been less than helpful when it comes to the line and its extention plans. Once upon a time we were destined for Swindon's Old Town Station.... I'll leave it at that.

We're making a lot of headway towards Cricklade now, the Town council there are being fantastic. The Swindon end of the extension has hit road block as we're no longer allowed to go into a country park, unless someone with very deep pockets wants to help due to logistics involved to make it happen.

That being said - 6695 will remain at the S&CR for a couple of years once she's returned to traffic, it's then up to the owning group what they wish to do once that time us up. 5637 however is likely to remain a permanent resident.

 

What wisdom?