76079

NYMR crews were involved , I think under West Coast's safety case with Bill Andrew as their Inspector. I suspect that Chris Cubitt was involved in all of them. I was his fireman on the 26/5/03, the day we carried 80116's front numberplate. That day the job entailed Grosmont to Whitby, Whitby to Glaisdale and back twice, then Whitby back to Grosmont. Being a Sunday there was only a very limited local service on the line then. However it did involve permissive platform working as seen here at Whitby, which although allowed, I have not seen it happen very often.


Peter

 

It's a while ago now, but wasn't the other one 34027?

 

I posted some thoughts on the NYMR Unofficial forum, but that seems to be virtually moribund now, so thought I would try here.

Firstly, if, as is rumoured, 76079's firebox requires major replacement work, why not grasp the nettle and design and build a brand new steel firebox boiler, purposely designed for oil firing? It seems likely that the NYMR will need more oil fired locos in the future and this could be another step to providing a third one. Secondly, aiui, the Class 3 standard 2-60s shared more nor less the same chassis as the class 4s, the difference was mostly in the slightly smaller boiler; I know there were some subtle difference in the chassis - e.g. the motion brackets, I think, Would it have made much difference in practice though? I wonder if a class 3 reconstruction would attract more enthusiast support than the class 4; the Class 3s were a staple of the W&P line in BR days, the class 4s were not, and creating something previously unrepresented usually creates more interest and support than "just another overhaul". There's also the potential bonus that a lot of tooling for the class 3 boiler potentially now exists at the SVR. What do others think?

Even if the loco's haulage capacity falls by, say, a coach in normal usage it would probably make little or no difference to its value and the NYMR will need an oil fired engine for more lightly loaded trains, but if it is really thought to be a problem, how about rebuilding it as a class 3 2-6-2T another type that was a stalwart of the line in BR days? Not having a tender to pull around should restore all that would be needed of its haulage capacity.

 

There are a few major differences in the chassis design of the 3s and 4s. The diameters of the driving axles on the 3s are 1/2" smaller than those on the 4s. This meant that the axle boxes are smaller in width. Consequentially, the gaps in the frames for the horn guides is smaller than on the 4s. The driving wheels on both classes are 5'-3" diameter, but the wheel centres were different designs to accommodate the different axle diameters and the number of spokes is different. There are probably other differences, as well.

 

To the pedant those are major differences, but are they significant in reality? Someone might notice the difference in the number of wheel spokes but are they really likely to spot the difference in axle diameters or axlebox dimensions (although most of us can see in their minds eye someone standing beside the loco and proclaiming the info in a loud and piercing voice to anyone prepared to listen!) My memory might be faulty, but I have a memory that 82045 uses a wheelset from a 76xxx or was that a compromise they decided not to accept??

 

82045 has all new wheelsets.

 

OK, I accept that, but the question remains - does it really matter?

 

It may not matter to many ordinary members of the public, but equally they probably wouldn’t care that a class 3 was associated with the line and a class 4 wasn’t. In other words, if you are going to base the rationale for a rebuild on historical appropriateness to the line, then you can’t just casually claim that issues like wheel pattern nonetheless don’t matter.

At which point, you are asking to convert a loco to one with less boiler capacity, and on a hilly line, I doubt you’d find too many operational people keen on the idea. It’s always preferable to have a bit too much power rather than a bit too little.

Tom

 

You obviously would like to do a Didcot style pick'n mix.

 

I presume, by the same token, you’d be content with Mk1 fittings in a Gresley carriage? Authenticity is authenticity, and the argument for deviating needs to be made carefully or it becomes no better than an argument about taste.

 

Id like to see the NYMR end up with a loco they could make good use of, rather than one they don't seem to want. If that means using it to recreate another type more appropriate to the NYMR's history, and just as much use in the present day, but incorporating detail modifications that most people wouldn't be aware of or notice that's fine by me, especially if it was something donors are perhaps more likely to support

 

I knew I had forgotten something. Massive alterations are required on the smokebox saddle. Probably easier to fabricate a new one.

 

Actually, they already do, and I have been out to help collect the bits. All the restored Gresleys essentially have BR Mk 1 lighting systems, for exanple. That was a pragmatic choice because it would have been a struggle, if not impossible, to collect enough Stones parts. Indeed, we went as far as seriously considering fitting alternator sets from Mk2s for better low speed charging. Has anyone noticed the Mk 1 fittings? Would the have noticed the alternators had we gone ahead with them? Probably not, because they're not really visible most of the time, so what's the difference from 1/2" larger axles etc. on the loco?

 

Oh horror!

 

Fair enough - and your reply on Mk1 parts is also noted; though if we were talking about Mk1 seats...?

I think the point about donors matters though. It's over a decade since the wheels and rails appeal, and 80135 still hasn't run. I'm not sure what the target audience is for rebuilding a 4MT into a "nearly 3MT" - and I suspect it's rather smaller and less generous than those who'd just give to pay for the (cheaper & simpler) restoration as is.

 

The railway are seemingly not to keen on the loco anyway and see it as underpowered - converting it from a class 4 to a class 3 and expect them to use it seems illogical.

 

I suspect though the reason the NYMR seem a bit indifferent to the loco has everything to do with "it's going to cost a shed load of money to get it operational" and rather little to do with "it's of a type not associated with the line". If you were to walk into the office waving an open chequebook, no doubt the NYMR's interest in the loco would climb in direct proportion to how many zeros you wrote on your cheque ...

Tom

 

Has wood pellets like used in supercritical stean data
powerstations been proposed for preserved steam and why not?
It smells nice and leaves pratically no ash?

 

Given the volumes of wood pellets required to power Drax power station, and the questionable (other terms are available) environment credentials, I'm not sure whether they'd be viable. And that's before considering the practical engineering constraints - or what you do with wet pellets in a tender.

 

I started this thread really as a discussion point, and it rapidly degenerated into "anally retentive rivet counting" and "non sequitur's", but I guess that's about par for the course, and I really don't want to get bogged down with answering them again point by point To get back to the original point though, it has to be asked why the NYMR no longer seems to want a loco that seems to have a fair bit in common, from a sustainability (to use a current popular buzzword with the NYMR SMT) point of view. The spurious reasons given that is underpowered are manifestly nonsense, but with changing trends seem to be more so - there is no much opportunity within the NYMR's existing home based to expand increase its provision for Whitby services, for example with both standard 2-6-4ts probably on their limits in terms of water capacity. But another smaller loco would be very useful for lighter trains (as have become the norm of late) especially if oil fired. If it was to be used for Whitby, clearly it would be better as a tender engine than a 2-6-2t. I suspect that it is the cost of overhaul that has placed it in a state of disfavour. I don't think the Trust Board or SMT care a fig about whether it's suitable for the NYMR; the S15 and Schools, S160, West Country and WD 2-10-0 aren't either and no-one seems bothered. Seeing it re-emerge as something very close to what did run there in BR days probably only matters to those of us who would like the NYMR harder to be more of a heritage railway, and I'm unrepentant that I'm one of them.