60019 Bittern

Bittern with valences off, with two tenders and the restored Beavertail ... at Margate.

 

At the risk of drifting (again ) from my apprenticeship at Linde, you could dismantle a fork truck up to about 7-9 tonnes with about 3 spanners (12/13mm 15/17mm and a nother)
Obviously depending on the how heavy the counter weight was those nuts and bolts increased in size.

A computer designed and built fork truck in the late 1990’s early 2000’s is rather different to a hand built locomotive from the 1930’s that’s had several modifications over its working life though.

It’s going to be interesting to see how those from the A4 loco society will compare their own machine to 4464/60019. Especially with each having their own idiosyncratic tendencies.
I really don’t want this to sound as disrespectful to those at Ropley who put Bittern back together at its last overhaul btw.

 

I think we need to accept in preservation that ultimately it’s the VAB and the insurer who need to be satisfied, and each individual group will have its own red lines for quality assurance on the locomotive they manage.

Its what appealed to me about joining MNLPS, with a very high standard of operational and engineering work.

 

I don't believe there's any plan to overhaul the second tender. It hasn't really got any use, and it makes operations complicated. It's too risky to try and path a tour on the assumption it'll be 60019 and it can do 150-200 miles between water stops - if it fails then whatever substitutes will only be good for 75 miles between stops.

I'm pretty the sure the tender must be attached a specific way round as well, as there's only a water connection on one end. So if the loco needs turning, so does the second tender. Fine at say Bristol or Carlisle, not so easy at Kingswear or York!

But I think the biggest issue is going to be ETCS. It needs to be fitted a certain distance from the front, so both tenders would need to be fitted and a way of switching between them. Then they've all got to be linked together and fed into the European Vital Computer which controls it all. Not an easy task when it's pretty complicated anyway.

 

There was some very interesting stories going around during that time, mostly concerning the advise that was being given by Roland Kennington as to how to proceed and how our own engineering staff viewed that advise, most of which, was at odds with our own findings and from others including Roger barker, for instance he told us that the tyres needed replacement, they couldn't take another turn, turned out they were OK for two turns, the frames needed a new section welding in, which was deemed ok by the VAB, his answer was whole new frames,

 

Mmm, wasn't RK in charge of Flying Scotsman when the vacuum braking system was disabled whilst installing the air brakes by simply cutting through some rods & brackets?

 

And the air brake pipework that came from B&Q. There's a good reason the first NRM overhaul cost so much!

 

The big problem from past posts was getting the braking of the 2nd tender correct, as the water load decreased it had the opportunity to lock the wheels.
And as others say, how do you turn it in confined spaces, what you need is a big boy turntable!!!

 

I think 46100 could have the same accusation levelled at it, possibly a question to asked to a certain ex head of Special Trains that lives in Whittlsea?

 

Wut?

Whittlesey?

 

I did hear, that there was a small misalignment of the middle cylinder on 60019 dating back to a br repair that is going to need replacement, or possibly holes in the frames plugged and recut, at the time optical alignment tools were available to borrow from the SVR, I don't know the ins and outs, but in the end the offer was not taken up,

 

Adding a rear water connection to the second tender so it could run either way round doesn't sound like too big a modification, or is it more complicated than that?
I'm also told that the container trains (Freightliners) don't have a problem with braking, even when some of the vehicles are loaded and others are not.

 

Isn't the braking effect of the train more important than that of the tender? And if there is a problem with the water carrier, why isn't there one with the ordinary tender? That too decreases in weight as coal and water are used. Can't the water carrier have its brake systems set up similarly?

 

To be fair, braking when running light engine also needs to be considered.

 

Intrested to find out what that water carrier could actually carry (8000 ?) and is it a corridor vehicle ?
The 'normal tender would be maybe 60T fully loaded ? and over half that Empty ... ? ( when is a working tender ever truly empty...) But surely most freight vehicles weigh less than the loads they carry ?

 

VT clearly find it well worthwhile to take their water-carrying GUV on all their longer-distance trips. Why should a second tender (for Bittern or indeed any other loco) be any less useful or any more problematic?

I agree that it could complicate turning, but no worse than VT's GUV. Many railtour destinations don't offer turntables anyway, but if you are using one you can uncouple the extra water carrier and either turn it separately or not bother, according to how the couplings and water connections are arranged.

The ETCS (and other electronic) gubbins can go on the loco itself and/or the first tender. If you need to run tender-first on the main line for more than a short shunt, and you're not allowed to push both tenders, you can uncouple the second one.

Ultimately it's a balance between some possible additional manoeverings at the ends of a journey and needing more water stops. VT's preference is clear.

 

Tyseley's GUV can be used behind a number of locos and is reversible. So if 5043 isn't available, 7029 can substitute. Or 6233, or whatever else they have available. 60019's second tender can't be used by anything else, so you're relying on 60019 being available. And how often are tours guaranteed a certain loco these days?

 

Wasn't a problem with the frames the whole reason that 60019 was not steamed until LSL got their mits on her?

I was thinking about Tyseley's GUV the other day and specifically how it wo0rks when they run the double headed trains, I assume its only available for the train engine in such cases and account is taken of this in the effort applied by each loco.

Also worth bearing in mind that WCR have a similarly converted GUV albeit not sure its ever been used apart from its use with 5043 when WCR were VT's TOC?

 

Clearly the second tender has previously been used by Flying Scotsman, so presumably it could be used by any locomotive with the appropriate water connections on its normal tender.
I've wondered if water pipework could be fitted to the rakes of stock normally used by steam, so that a water carrier (tanker) could be coupled at the rear of the train to avoid offending photographers. A pump would obviously need to be added to move the water forward.

 

Shouldn’t Operational convince override a pretty picture?