92219

So you don't think Jeremy Hosking possesses those qualities?

 

No. I'm just explaining the background of what happened at the time.

92212 was fitted up with TPWS, and then when it came time for a test run, network rail (or whatever it was called at the time) turned around and said it can't run because someone has questioned the flangeless wheelset - as has been discussed for quite a few postings. At the time, the railway it was based on was winding down it's main line involvement. It was reported to me that they didn't argue because going main line with 92212 would have been stretching their resources anyway. As I mentioned, it just so happened that someone was on site who could have helped, but he was told not to bother.

 

Maybe I didn't explain clearly that I was referring to someone who has a background in the subject i.e. Pway and the dynamics of railway vehicles. Mr Hosking (note the correct spelling) is the owner, and relies on others to deal with the technical issues.

Unfortunately, at the time 92212's main line qualification was being negotiated, the people who were acting on the owners behalf were not motivated to follow it through. I'm not having a go, It's simply the fact of what occurred. I've no idea to what extent the owner was informed of the details, and his instructions may well have been to cease any discussion. But certainly expert opinion from someone who had been involved in the same issue before was on hand, but the offer of assistance was rejected.

 

Okay, my auto-corrector mucked up Jeremy's name but I doubt very much he reads this drivel and if he does I apologise profusely. If I need spelling tuition I'd rather take it from someone who can actually punctuate and capitalise correctly thanks.

 

Here we go. Mr Prickly are you?

Lots of people get his name wrong. It wasn't intended as a put down.

As a matter of interest what particular complaint do you have about my punctuation?

 

Re running a 9F on the mainline, i remember the network change for the Tyseley - Leamington resignalling stated that the use of axle counters would mean that the route would not now be open to 9Fs.

 

That's an interesting one. For what reason?

2-10-0 has the same number of axles as a 4-6-2, so I'd be interested to hear what gave rise to that comment.

 

I know i was interested myself. I will see if i still have the network change paper work on my hard drive at work, and will post either way. Off the top of my head i think the axle counter head is mounted so that it counts the flange area of the wheel, so there is probably too high a risk of a miscount

 

I believe axlecounters are actuated by the flange of a wheelset, so the flangeless centre driver wouldn't be picked up by an axlecounter. I don't see how that's a problem though, you'll get the same number going out as coming in! Perhaps there's a fear that the chance of the centre driver could actuate one counter but not the other, somehow or other?

 

They must have a whale of a time with road-railers and other such p/way machinery then! Or are their movements covered by possessions etc?

 

Don't rule out 92214. I'd say that the owners meet your requirements of credibility and determination.

 

I hope you're right.

I hope also that 92219 is not a lost cause. Does anyone know what the asking price is?

 

So an opportunity does arise for the 9Fs. There must be good business for an owner for a powerful loco that can take a reasonable load without assitance in a growing mainline market. These are marvellous machines, relatively young and an asset to tour operators. Are any owners up for it? I hope so.

 

Its interesting - road railers etc will come under the terms of a possession. There is special process for dealing with resetting of the axle counters after a possession and if necessary arranging for a sweep through the section to ensure its clear of obstructions. The rules thankfully are more relaxed then when at commissioning as then it was a long winded process when giving up a possession.

 

Re the network change paperwork - i no longer have the consultation paperwork, and only hold the response from the company i work for. However i believe the miscount theory is the reason why a 9F cannot work over Moor Street - Leamington (exclusive) section. Sorry that i cannot be of more assistance.