SVR Loco Newsy News / discussions

I wasn’t complaining, I’m just pleased to see it back. What you say makes sense.

 

We thought about this and giving it the full hit in the paint shop would add between four and six weeks to the launch date. It made sense to give it a quick and simple job for while the running in period lasted, and the added bonus was that if a major snag was found which involved some dismantling, say removing the boiler cladding, then the intricate paint job wouldn't be damaged.

The plan - and it's a plan, not a promise - is to complete the running in by the end of the year and do the painting in early 2024. And it has always been SMF policy to take the engine to other lines. Variety is the spice of life!

 

An update from the SMF:
https://staniermogulfund.org.uk/ove...CBlwpIMearuzSsssoEO8bZ1hZXLmfkUwKmWXuXI3jKeN0

 

Looks fantastic, another firm favourite of mine on the way back to completion!

 

"At the top of the smokebox the slot cut out to allow the superheater header to be dropped in has been plated and fasteners are were [sic] being made to look as incongruous as possible."

I hope and suspect that's the opposite of what's meant

 

I'm sure the word least was in there when I typed it!

Well, you know what it meant!

 

So based on 7 in traffic, a loco coming in/out of ticket every 16 months and 3 years per overhaul, what is the minimum number of locos the SVR needs to maintain a steady stream (obviously not accounting for unexpected major failures)?

Great plan! And please… don’t put it back into BR colours any time soon. There aren’t enough locos in LMS colours in preservation.

 

Most unlikely. Its 100th birthday will be on 24 January 2034. A possible ticket extension and possible mid-ticket retube could see it celebrate its birthday in steam and as built - as 13268. The timelines are a bit tight but who knows?

 

It never works like that & trying to generalise with figures like that is pointless. No two overhauls are the same in content, cost or duration. The number of locos required in service in any particular year will depend upon the needs of the working timetable, special events and footplate experience days. As this is not yet known for 2024 in detail guessing beyond that is close to pointless. The following should be serviceable at some point in 2024 - 4930, 7714, 7802,7812,42968, 75069. With 4150 & 82045 following not long afterwards no further overhauls are actually needed for quite some while.

 

Deleted

EDIT - just seen @1472 ’s reply which is right on the money

 

813 is due back into traffic towards the end of the year after the dragbox replacement. 1450 is rumoured to be only a few months away at the Flour Mill and due to make a return to the valley.

 

Any word on Welsh Guardsman?

 

Stabled today in the shed headshunt at Bridgnorth with the shed crane on top.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

Taken today.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

Update from the SMF
https://staniermogulfund.org.uk/overhaul-update-181/

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

A new OO scale model of the WR 15xx has just hit the shops made by Rapido. There has been some negative comment on its running qualities (though my example runs perfectly well) at speed. As a short wheelbase shunter I am wondering what sort of top speed this loco would achieve in service? Does/did 1501 get up to 25mph one the SVR?

 

Given that they were based on the USA tanks, 25mph is probably plenty. On ECS workings, running faster might be practical but at least it won't send the Au Jus and tea all over some laps.

 

Very easily & comfortably ...

I remember there were a lot of negative comments about 1501 when it was first restored - it would bash up the track, it would spill all the soup, drivers would need new sets of dentures!
The reality was it was an extremely powerful and useful locomotive that could produce quite the turn of speed if required.
It was also very well balanced with little fore & aft movement. On slightly rough track the ride would look a bit lively, but overall the SVRs permanent way is pretty good, so I don't think there were many issues. I know water capacity was an issue in winter when steam heating was in use and it had a load restriction for a while, it certainly wasn't due to haulage capability, could easily take 8 or 9 (probably more). This is one loco that I hope is considered for a quick return, it is tantalising stored just outside the workshops at the moment!

I'm sure some of the SVR staff on here might correct me who have experience of working the loco.

 

Were they?

I mean - they are both outside cylinder 0-6-0T with Walschaerts valve gear. But beyond that, how similar were they? There's an immediate fundamental difference in that a USA tank drives on the trailing axle, and a 1501 on the middle axle.

If you give two designers a blank sheet of paper and say "design me a six coupled shunting engine with an emphasis on rapid servicing on shed" then you'll likely end up with designs that have superficial similarities: there are only so many ways you can build a six-coupled engine. But to say that they were "based on" the USA tanks is I suspect not supported by any evidence beyond the fact that any competent drawing office designing a loco in 1947-8 would have been aware of the salient features of contemporary locos elsewhere in the country, including the USA tanks.

Tom

 

I am, to say the least, not at all sure they were. Yes, both are 0-6-0s with outside cylinders/gear and no footplates, but in detail they are very different. The wheelbase of the 15 is nearly 30% greater than the USA for example, and over 15% longer than a J94/Austerity.

I did write a blog post on the RMweb forum on the subject if anyone is interested. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/25226-gwrwr-15xx-class-1948/ My basic premise is that given the outside cylinders and the boiler size the wheelbase is as long as could be managed.

Incidentally Tom, the early drawings of what became the 15xx at the NRM are dated Feb 1944.