9F why does not having a flange on the centre wheels stop it being mainlined

Thanks for the clarification - I'd assumed that the 9Fs were caught up in the change rather than the reason for it, but was puzzled by why it had happened in the first place.

 

I would be interested to see how that line of argument would stand up to scrutiny if an owner went legal. The combination of administrative law over the public sector and Network Rail's monopoly position would seem to be fertile ground for dispute.

 

Sorry, cant resist
put an intermediate pattern tyre on the centre wheel, put an external pattern tyre on the rear intermediate wheel. Replace the rear wheel with an uncoupled wheel on a cartazzi or better still trailing truck arrangement. There its now a 2-8-2 - that would work.

 

Probably impractical. At an uneducated guess the minimum curve radius the locomotive could traverse would increase considerably, which could bring its own route availability problems, and I presume all 'grandfather' rights to run on the system would be lost, so there would need to be a complete re-evaluation of the chassis.

Very well I imagine. The locomotive is now out of gauge and I imagine that's the beginning and end of it. You might as well argue that NR should be required to accommodate GWR outside cylinders. (Which would be nice but isn't going to happen for very good safety reasons).

 

On the contrary. I think you are assuming that the owner of a 9F would be in a strong position to dispute Network Rail's interpretation of the law. I don't believe that they would be. The interoperability regulations don't cover grandfather's rights of older vehicles in the way some people believe. There is no automatic right to access to the network at any cost, nor is Network Rail obliged to alter the network for any vehicle to gain access.

The onus has always been on the vehicle owner to prove compatibility with the network, not the other way around.

The basic fact of the matter is that we've identified that the design of the 9F precludes its use on - if I may be frank - great swathes of the overall network. If a safety case for running it on specific sections of the mainline are suggested, for example that to Whitby on the NYMR, I would humbly suggest that is a better starting point for putting a 9F onto the mainline than any kind of larger undertaking for the whole of the national network.

In any event - we have precedents in the form of the height and width of existing locomotives such as the A1 Pacifics, GWR Kings, and other locomotives that have had to be slimmed down to fit the national network. The Standard 9F is no different, frankly, and is not a special case.

Which again leads me back to the original question of whether Network Rail should be obliged to undertake a study to see if a 9F can go mainline. A basic search done by an asset engineer on his lunch break has thrown up some fairly substantial reasons as to why the Standard 9F can't go mainline. Even that minimal research probably puts any argument for undertaking any feasibility study in the bin. It's not worth the time, effort or money when we now know it's not as simple as originally described.

It would be easier to try to gain certification for a change in the design of the locomotive (a flanged middle driving wheel and further play in the outside end drivers) to take it mainline, if I may be so bold.

 

The below is all a bit tongue in cheek, but bear with me.

Just to pick up on this, the long and short is that King's (and Halls etc for instance) used to fit on a heck of a lot more of the network than they do now, for that matter I must be one of a few who has travelled behind a 9F on the mainline in preservation times so obviously the check rail issue was not a problem in the 80's as I don't remember 92220 depositing herself all over the S&C, so when did the network change to preclude them fitting and its less of a matter of grandfathers rights and more of a matter, for whatever reason, of NR making the railway envelope smaller (in the case of GWR stuff) or incompatible (in the case of the (9F's) in the last 40 odd years?

It was my understanding (based from what certain posters have said on here previously) that if NR wishes to undertake works which change the network they have to go through a consultation process with any operators affected, now said previous poster (I am sure some will remember who I mean), who I recall was also an ex BR employee used to get extremely perplexed (being polite) that NR were systematically making the loading gauge smaller without actually speaking to anyone about it, specifically those involved, so for instance in the case of 9F's, 92220 had run on the mainline and I assume on that basis has a TOPS number so on I would assume that NR spoke to the NRM at the point they carried out works that made the NRM's locomotive incompatible with the network?

P.S To wander off on a tangent, I hope you will allow me a wry smile at the suggestion you made earlier about government bodies being careful with public money, in my several years working for a Government Corporation I worked on literally 100's of projects with the in house asset engineers, it was an eye opener to realise that many projects were based on (with the best professional expertise and best intentions) a simple 'we hope it will work', the most eye catching was me negotiating a pretty modern intervention to a grade I listed structure to correct a long standing defect (from day 1), after probably 6 months of negotiation HE & the LPA agreed and the (multi Million £'s) works completed, long and short I left 12 years ago and its been opened up and extensively re-worked upon at least twice since then!

 

Again, I largely agree (but note @GWR4707 on the way that the network has been changed in recent decades in a way that deprives certain trains of access). My point of difference is the rejection at the outset, whereby NR as the asset owner would be able to deny access outright on the basis that constraints exist. It is at that point that I suspect the decision would be at risk of being considered irrational, and raising questions about the quality of NR's asset records (and licence adherence) if NR would or could not provide the owner with information allowing identification of the constraints at a reasonable cost.

So, for example, if I owned a 9F and wanted to run it from York to Scarborough, my concern would be the refusal implied in your post to do a desk survey to identify the likelihood of the offending check rails existing on that stretch of line.

Under no circumstances am I suggesting that NR could or should be obliged to change the network to enable this out of gauge locomotive to operate.

 

But a basic check confirms that the 9F can't run York to Scarborough already, and that is the crux of the argument. We don't need to do a full survey to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

There are check rails to current Network Rail standards between York and Scarborough based on the type of rails we use on the national network. All of the check rails associated with those rail types preclude the use of a 9F.

Understood

 

So, taking my example, that very quick basic desk study allows a quick verification check and qualification of the choices.

 

Would magnadhesion help maintain a good rail-wheel interface over uneven check rails?

Tom

 

Its a lot more complicated than that... NR have not to my knowledge made the gauge smaller. Arguably its the opposite, they are doing their best to enlarge gauges (for there are many) where ever they can. The current gauges, for example, by and large are wider at carriage window height (9'3") then most pre group gauges which were mostly 9'0". However what they are having to do is bring structures, notably platform edges, closer to the limit of the loading gauge, because of not infrequent problems with passengers falling between platform and stock, plus of course height restrictions for which overhead electrification is the main culprit. Shame on all those long dead engineers who failed to allow for wires under their bridges! The other issue is that the structures, built to very many different loading and structure gauges, are so variable. I read an RSSB study, T866, on platform edges on the National network. The study used data from the National gauging database, and identified that out of 5,671 platforms included in the study only 384 complied in every respect with the current standards! So its not a question of reducingthe actual gauge, merely enforcing it for good safety reasons.

There's more about this in the loading gauge study linked in my sig, including links to current documentation. To take an example, the NR W6A gauge, the smallest of the standard freight gauges (passenger gauges are complicated and hard to compare with historical ones) is larger all round than the Southern Railway composite gauge, and at most 1/2in smaller than the GWR 1933 gauge below platform height, and in many places slightly larger.

 

Perhaps much of what puzzles some of us is apparent inconsistency. Efforts are made to make loading gauges more consistent, and in some respects to widen them, yet locomotives that used to fit cease to do so or even, arguably worse, cannot be confirmed to fit until re-assessed. Retention toilets and central door locking are being introduced on vintage stock, and new signalling equipment on (at least a few) steam locos, all for good reasons; but NR is paying for some of that work and requiring owners to pay for other parts.

 

I think the glib answer is that actually they didn't fit the official loading gauge, they just didn't hit anything - or at least not very often! As part of my loading gauge study I found a file at Kew which was papers relating to LNER work to establish a standard loading gauge/gauges with a sound engineering basis. One district objected to the study on the grounds that certain stock would not be permitted on routes that it had been running on for many years with nothing worse than the odd removed door handle. Another loading gauge tale I heard is that the GWR 15xx pannier tanks, with their big cylinders forward of the leading drivers and a slight tendency to waddle, would regularly clobber ground signals in the Paddington area that were quite safe from Halls and 47s. It kept happening, apparently, because space was so tight there was nowhere else to put the signals! And before Churchward introduced his standard classes he had wooden outside cylinders made for a Dean single and sent it all round the system. These are not new problems.

Loading gauge work is getting more sophisticated all the time. Whereas once there were blanket restrictions on given routes, my understanding is that now individual structures are gauged, so a container on a flat, for instance, might be allowed as far as a given overbridge but no further. Also modern gauging aims to model the dynamic gauge of how the vehicle moves on the track, not just the static cross section.

 

Besides the Check rail being a problem.
Is there also a problem with the rails in the crossing noses which are raised as well.

 

92220 last ran on the mainline in 1988, and at that time there was no general obligation on BR to allow other operators on their network. That arrived as part of privatisation.

Not long after 1988 I’m sure I recall one of the magazines reporting the NRM saying Evening Star was unlikely to go mainline again due to the check rail issue - so I expect BR did inform them.

 

The 15XX issue is amusingly reminiscent of the problem that afflicted the GER B74 (LNER Y4). With significant punch for their size and short wheelbase, they were prone to a significant pitching motion if driven too fast, which tended to result in them removing their own drain cocks.

 

Didn't the much earlier LMS Fowler 2F 'dock tanks' have a similar reputation?

 

I suspect that the bottom line, even if it isnt quite the case with the 9F's is that in the past there was a little more tolerance of 'mishaps' such as with the 15XX which quite rightly is no longer tolerated AND with modern tools we are better at identifying these issues before they - potentially occur.

Dont forget the incident when a King's safety valves were knocked off, something that might have had serious consequences.

 

Didn’t something happen similar to that with 6233 about 10 years ago.

 

I suspect you're thinking of 6201 at Salford Crescent when the chimney fouled a bridge and was knocked out of line with the blastpipe.