Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Nigel Clark, Nov 13, 2009.
Wouldn't an industrial meet the needs of the SCR in terms of length and loadings?
Yes, but comfort also plays a part in this. Ever ridden behind and 0-6-0 Andrew Barclay at 15mph? Seems my comments are being taken out of context massively here. the S&CR feel they'd like to have a loco of a 56xx size to operate.
But perhaps not in terms of appeal to punters?
The 56/66xx class are not far off being as economic to run as the smaller industrials, within 1/4 ton coal per operating day on S&CR. These locos are far hardier than the industrials, reliability being far improved meaning less time out of traffic needing attention from the Steam Loco Department. Admittedly running with 3 or 4 carriages doesn't exactly stretch the capabilities of the loco but that is where we realise the efficiency against flogging an industrial. The hire fees difference between industrial locos and those of mainline pedigree is much less than it used to be, so the advantages of hiring a 'cheap' industrial are much diminished.
S&CR is in the borough of Swindon and having Swindon built/designed locomotives working trains is a must surely?
But a Barclay locomotive is on the more crude end of industrial shunting engines not exactly built for much above 15mph (its the crude ballancing) - you should try driving a 0-4-0 Barclay at much more than 15mph! Other railways do manage to use 0-6-0s industrial's at line speeds perhaps you need to be more selective - besides a 56xx is hardly a loco giving the most comfortable ride and is way overpowered for your railway (although nice to look at).
Come on Azrall, do as you are told by the experts, give it up and go get what they so certainly know is best for you and YOUR railway.........
I'm all for anyone deciding whats best for their railway as we are all in it for the fun of it, however expect a bit of a push back when you say you need a 5F loco "for comfort" when the distances, speeds and gradients only require something a tad smaller.
This ignores the fact that you're still asking an engine to do what it's not designed for. A typical preserved railway will want a locomotive to be able to run at a sustained speed of 25mph for at least 2 miles. The vast majority of industrial locomotives were designed initially to shunt. They had the power to be able to move large loads but didn't necessarily have the boiler capable of producing enough steam over a long enough period of time to be able to work over prolonged distances at speed, or may have had lubrication systems which were more on the primitive side, or other features which would mean they weren't as suited.
The only industrial locomotive design I can think of that was designed for sustained power output was the RSH 'Ugly' 0-6-0STs built to haul 500 ton trains of iron ore over a steeply graded 8 mile route in the Stewarts and Lloyds systems. Even the Austerities were initially designed to be shunting engines. Yes, they now find use on preserved railways, and are capable of something like the SCR's trains, but it doesn't mean they're comfortable with it. We have 68067 at the GCRN, and it can do what we ask of it (4 coaches at 25mph with a max sustained grade of 1in176), but you can tell you're asking it to do something it's not designed for, it struggles to maintain speed if you hit the 1in176 climb at 25mph, unless you absolutely flog it. We've had both of the 2MT tenders from Loughborough in the last couple of years, and though according to BR power classification the Austerities are more powerful, and have a higher tractive effort, the 2MTs were much more comfortable at doing what we asked of them. There are so many factors that affect suitability of locomotives to different tasks, tractive effort isn't the only thing you can consider.
We had 8F 8274 in operation for a number of years until the abuse it suffered in Turkey reared its head and the loco had to be stopped. That suffered far less wear and tear than the Austerities we've had the last couple of years, because with the Austerities our demands (which are by no means extreme for preserved railways) put them on the edge of what they're comfortable with. They can do it, but it affects them far more. If you only get the loco which can manage what you want of it, but little more, you're going to be far more susceptible to unexpected periods out of operation while you fix bits you've worn down, and maintenance and overhauls will probably take more time and money. If, however, you plump for a loco which has power in reserve, you'll be (in theory) less affected by this. And that's before you get into things like considering the extra demand steam heating makes of a loco each winter, and the fact that Santa trains will generally be the heaviest loaded. All of this will affect a little industrial (or a 48xx or Pannier) more than it does something like a 66xx. Plus, sadly, there are plenty of snobs in the enthusiast community and many would look at a railway which only has industrials operating their services and not be interested. Whether it should or shouldn't e the case, a significant enough contingent of the enthusiast community want to see ex BR locos, and so it is therefore worth a railway's while having an ex BR loco on their books if they can, in order to widen their appeal.
I don't understand the apparent ill will being directed at the SCR for managing to secure the use of a competent, interesting, and region appropriate loco. The steam locomotive hire market in Britain in 2019 is pretty competitive, and for them to have bagged a loco like this is a real plus for them. Good on them. And I wish them all the best for making use of it and growing their locomotive fleet.
So, what you are saying is a 4f then.........
A few industrialo locos were built with longer runs in mind - the Lambton collieries 0-6-2Ts, for example and RSH 0-6-0T No. 31 was built to haul miners work trains. If you have close ties with the ESR, you should ask about No. 31 as it is in bits and seemingly unwanted there.
While I tend to agree about the benefits in maintenance terms of having a loco that is slightly too big, rather than slightly too small, for the duties being asked of it, I'm curious about the need to "absolutely flog" an austerity on a 1 in 176 gradient with 4 coaches - that based on the relative alacrity that, say, the IoW austerities take a similar weight up the 1 in 68 to Wooton without seemingly much drama. Similarly, we put equivalent weight (up to 140 tons tare) behind a class 1P tank engine on much more sustained gradients (up to 1 in 55, and 7 miles of mostly 1 in 75) without much bother, though you are working hard. On the return journey, where there is about 1.5 miles of 1 in 122, you don't need to get out out first valve with a class 1 loco on that gradient, and the loco is working very easily.
How can you be more selective about what you hire when you have a choice of one maybe two locos to hire????
Its not like Thomas the tank engine where you pop to the works and select a new engine. (I would never of chosen percy)
I entirely understand that, however one has to deal in what is available and what can be afforded, the longer LHR for instance manages just fine with industrials of various flavours never noticed anything uncomfortable on that?
Essentially look more towards the Austerity end of the market but keep away from the std. shunter offering from Barclay (yes I know they did build Austerities).
As I mentioned earlier the balancing on a std industrial is not designed for the speeds higher than shunting as it was not designed that way (it did not need to be) essentially there are two elements to consider when balancing the weight of the rods themselves and the forward and backwards movement of them. For low speeds that forward and backward motion is hardly considered hence when you try and push the envelope by going faster that well known forwards and backwards oscillation comes into play. Look at the balance weights on the wheels on a Austerity and then go and compare that with your Barclay you'll notice something quite different.
Of course the slightly shorter wheelbase of the Austerity makes it less than ideal but the idea that such a loco is unsuitable for many of the railways in the UK is laughable having worked on one up steeper gradients than either the GCR or the S&C with up to 7 mk1's hung on the back. Its also true I wouldn't want to go to and from Pickering on one very often but I had had a ride out on Antwerp many moons ago & the loco would do it, but it was far from ideal and did not indeed last long on such a long and severe route.
You may say that I couldn't possibly comment but the Bagnall Princess didn't gain a nickname from some of 'the steam hammer' for nothing. (It didn't arf cough with 6 mk1's hung on the back yet it would do the service all day long)
I can only comment as passenger and I have had a number of runs with Princess (both at the LHR and I think (I may be mistaken) the RSR as well) and never noticed in comfort terms her getting close to a GWR 2-8-0 for rattling the passengers about.
Would it be possible theoretically to stick a Barclay on a balancing machine and sort its running characteristics out? Or is it just too compromised as a design?
Everything is possible with the cash as you may not be able to modify the wheels without getting new ones. It's probably worth saying some 56xx were re-balanced to minimise their rough riding !
A year or so ago, the choice for S&CR was to go with a Bagnall Austerity. For reasons beyond S&CR control this never came about and the Bagnall has been employed on its home line. The S&CR were without a 2nd operational loco and needed whatever was available at the time. For the same price as the austerity, per steaming, the S&CR bagged 5619 - it was available, the austerity wasn't. The railway isn't any worse off by operating 5619.
Since arriving at S&CR it has proved to be more economic than expected, popular with crews, in demand for DX courses and has led to the arrival of 6695. If anything, the decision to hire 5619 has shown that these locos aren't too big and too costly to run.
S&CR isn't against running industrials, they will do the job adequately, but they have to be available at the time.
Well done to who found 5619 and 6695 for you.
Separate names with a comma.