Anybody looking for a GWR project ?

Don't suppose you've got a NSWGR N67 class, have you?

http://investigator.records.nsw.gov...ubject=locomotives (NSW, class N67)&B1=Search
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/3307690622/

Tom

 

That's putting me on the spot! The short answer is 'No'. The longer answer is plenty of tractive effort but lacking grate area to produce the necessary steam to drag 230-240 tons up 1 in 49 at 17 mph. That requires a tad over 600 DBHP which it aint going to do. Definitely not enough water to give any margin of safety; I'd want a minimum of 1600 gallons.

But it would be nice to have.

 

I think coal would be the other condemning factor. Be nice to have as a banker or shuttle runner at a gala though

 

A Terrier crane tank. Well I never.

 

Coal capacity (slightly over two tons) would be Ok for one return trip.

 

Refit the condensing gear? [grin]

 

Ok, I wasn't aware of most of that but it's very good to hear

 

I did briefly wonder about this but I've no idea what effect it would have on water consumption on a journey. If it did save on water usage in the simplistic form applied to UK locos, I'm sure that it would have been more widely adopted in regular service, as opposed to tunnel work. I'm sure that the heating effect could have been overcome.

 

Operations on the original Mersey railway were only over a short(ish) distance. Gradients were quoted as 1 in 30 on the Birkenhead side, and 1 in 27 from the Liverpool side with train loads of 150 tons nett. Although condensing gear was fitted, after each trip, the tanks were emptied of warm water and refilled with fresh, at both Birkenhead Central and at Liverpool Central, hence the small amounts carried. Coal figures prior to electrification mention 64lbs per train mile, with mileage figures of 17,274 miles pe annum for the locos, and 22,672 miles per annum for the coaches.

 

The condensing gear was just to keep humidity in the tunnels down, rather than to save water, I think.

 

Not too dissimilar to a Lambton tank?

 

Shame the Westinghouse wooden bodied MR car that was saved for preservation was lost in the Derby Works paint shop fire. My father had fond memories of them in his youth. One oddity was they had a hand brake wheel in the passenger compartment, completely unguarded, but there were no problems with kids playing with them.

 

A large part of the essence of the heritage railway movement is being able to run the locos and trains, though. We, both enthusiasts and Joe Public, generally want to see working locomotives and not cold clean well polished museum exhibits. We've quite a bit of 2 foot gauge (-ish) so running such repatriations isn't really a problem. It' s the Cape gauge locos that create the problems. To successfully overcome that problem would require the reinstatement of a suitable length of dead railway laid to the Cape gauge (and sans bridges and tunnels) and the naysayers would immediately condemn it as yet another pie-in-the-sky scheme. Then the next big problem is the size of most of the locos. They aren't exactly small and are akin to having a 9F trundling around with a couple of coaches. I'd love to see the GMAM or the 25NC in working order and operating in the UK but it isn't going to happen. Stuffed and mounted doesn't really excite me, at least not in terms of locos.

 

It was.

 

Don't forget 8 inch's had to be left at the top of the tanks for condensing. They are big tanks so the non condensing capacity could be bigger than 1250 gal?

 

Fully agree, we have enough trouble finding space for static exhibits that will never work again as it is without adding more to it.

Just have to accept that we can't save everything I'm afraid, those to a non UK gauge or well foul of the UK loading gauge are particularly vunerable.

 

If we're still on about Frankenstein conversions, I've a brilliant idea for Stepney's next rebuild

 

For sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't have that effect. If the water consumption wasn't reduced then the humidity wouldn't be kept down. An interesting link was posted here some months back to an article on operating African steam locos where condensing was used to increase range ( in this thread in fact https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/condensing-apparatus-on-steam-locomotives.39102/ ). AIUI the trouble is that a whole heap of disadvantages come alongside the advantage of reduced water consumption, and I'm quite sure those would make the idea impractical, which is why it wasn't a serious suggestion.

 

I always thought that Peebles to Talla Dam would make a nice a 3' 6" line.

 

Unfortunately not. However, if you're itching to do it, or, keeping within the spirit of this thread's heading, it might pay to go shopping with the current Terrier owners/operators when they buy heavy parts. Boilers have been built for them. Cylinder blocks have been cast for them. Wheels have been cast for them. Tyre have been rolled for them. All the hard stuff, except for crankaxles has been done in the last 15 years. Anyone for GWR No 5 (there's that number again!) Portishead?

I think that's how we in Oz would have to go about it if we really wanted an N67 to fill a gap in suburban motive power development. At least that way there'd be no controversy over exporting objects with real heritage value or British provenance.