Hunslet Austerity, great locomotives.

Monckton took an 8 coach train at Embsay up the 1 in 100 climb quite easily and that included the short section of 1 in 56 near the top. 68005 often took 6 coach trains at Embsay with no bother and could maintain steam pressure. HE3776 has taken 7 mk 1s at the ELR when they were operating to Ramsbottom, and Antwerp regularly took 5-6 coach trains at the NYMR.

 

A similar problem I think with class 08 shutters, which are never used to pull passenger trains where as 03's are but can pull significantly less. On lines under 4 miles is there a need to go above twenty miles an hour? Regards Tom.

 

as regards the MHR, Erroll Lonsdale indeed did regularly run from Alresford to Ropley in the early days, made a lot of noise about it too. Sadly now in Holland I think.

 

Even I can manage a 3 tripper on a bucket without extra coal, and im shovel happy trainee

 

I remember driving one with about 15 loaded hoppers. We ran out of steam near the top of the gradient and had to stop to get pressure back. I blame the driver, as I was only about 12. But they had a limit that they were supposed to follow but the crew and shunter had pit a couple more on to save a second trip. Haw was less strict back then.

 

Some of the other are not as economical as you Howard!

 

Fascinating stuff. Does anyone get the impression some steam enthusiasts would be disappointed to see an austerity on the front? You can't knock them for sound.

 

I think it depends on the context, but the old problem 'familiarity breeds contempt' has a part to play here, even at a guess amongst enthusiasts with a particularly industrial bent. Austerities are after all, practically ubiquitous as the most numerous loco class in preservation.

 

Hunslet 18" Austerity 'Antwerp' is to be retro fitted as an L D Porta spec machine, incorporating gas producer firebox and front end refinements. The Western Region carried out mainline tests on a Porta modded loco which showed considerable power output increases over the standard design.
It is intended to turn her out in this form as the ultimate NCB workhorse with such sacrilegious features as fibreglass chimney cowl,extra notches in the reversing quadrant,painted on name and bumble bee stripes at both ends! No mech stoker though-that was more to do with single manning more than running efficiency.In any case it was problematic.

 

Sounds good! I always like seeing industrials in their later guises...there is something strangely appealing about the incongruity of things like bumble bee stripes and fibreglass.

 

The fitting of an underfeed stoker had nothing to do with single manning. NCB locos were generally single manned, in any case in that they had a driver but no fireman. A second person was part of the crew but he was officially the shunter. It was not unusual for the shunter to put coal on and operate the injectors but that wasn't officially part of his job.
The underfeed stoker was fundamental to the Hunslet Gas Producer system and the loco would not be a gas producer without it and the Jet system that was part of the overall arrangement. Remove this and all that you are doing is fitting a standard Lempor blastpipe arrangement.

 

Somehow they look more "Industrial" with the stripes, like how one or two mineral wagons at Chasewater are painted blue with "NCB - INTERNAL USE ONLY" on them.

 

I spent quite a lot of time firing '68030' when it was on the Strathspey. It was great until about 20mph and then it seemed to throttle itself and use up a lot of steam. It also ate its brick-arch at an alarming rate but that may have only been that engine and not symptomatic of the class. If you piled the back end high with coal they seemed to go fine but I didn't think they were suitable for long climbs of more than 3-4 miles.

 

Would it be fairly straightforward to modify the valves and make them better suited to running at 20mph over a longer distance?

 

Steve #31

Thankyou for your comments.

All points taken. My prose a little over enthusiastic I guess. With regard to the stoker and single manning I believe that the the Hunslet line was 'available for single manning if required'. At the larger colliery networks I believe that there were 'firemen' although promotion appears to have been comparatively rapid. Each colliery to a degree would seem to have had its own methods of working. Fitter/drivers and shunter/ trackmen often blended somewhat as part of the vital surface operations, depending on local culture and the size of output. Yes, the stoker was a definite part of the GPCS -but probably hampered it if the correct size coal was not available or the engines were not worked hard with skilled crews. They also had a habit of setting fire to the bunker! There is one stoker at least still in existence - maybe we should consult with the fraternity a little more on this point before making a final decision.
Incidentally the front end arrangement on the original Hunslet GPCS rebuilds is known as the Kylpor ejector system. The Lempor was a later development of this and is often portrayed as more efficient. Most of the modern steam development engineers prefer its performance over others.

 

KESR Hunslets 23, 24 and 25 have had no such problems. Only 23 is in ticket at the moment but over the years they have all tackled the 1 in 50 Tenterden bank with 5 on with ease. The legal limit over the rest of the line is easily attained and would have to go somewhat quicker to really start choking themselves-but no point. I would suggest that 68030 has a timing problem or its port faces are spent.

 

I seem to recall somewhere that this has been successfully tried on at least one Austerity.

 

My mistake in describing it as a Lempor. It was indeed a Kylpor.
I did say tha NCB locos were generally single manned. There was always the exception, especially where long runs were required in the North East. Certainly the collieries that I was involved with never had a fireman, even where 3-4 mile journey's were required.
The problems with the stoker were that they jammed up too easily and it was a simple matter to revert to hand firing, which is always what happened. When we did the final trials with 3168 in the 80's, the stoker only ever worked when there was a Hunslet fitter on the loco to sort out the problems. As soon as he was not available, it was back to hand firing.

 

Thanks for the info Steve- your professsional involvement with these locos is acknowledged.

 

I have a very very fond "souvenir" of Bagnall "Vulcan" and "Victor" on the WSR a long time ago: vociferous and fascinating engines albeit a bit erratic on time keeping!!!
regards
Noel