92219

I can remember being told in 1977 that with 21C123 operational on the Bluebell and 34051 in the National Collection, that there was no need for another preserved original Bulleid Pacific in the shape of 34081. Thank goodness our lot and the owners of other Flat Tops failed to heed such "wise" advice.

 

You make a good case. However, we can't afford to become complacent. I know many people have said over the years that the preservation bubble will burst, and have been proved wrong. But just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it will never happen. Once the generation that remembers BR steam become too old to actively volunteer on heritage railway, will there be enough young enthusiasts to fill their shoes? If not, I think we might yet see some contraction of the heritage railway field; that would leave surplus of locos and stock. Similarly, the future of main line steam can never be considered completely secure. If, in the worst case scenario, NR were to (re)impose impose a network-wide steam ban, a lot of big engines will be out of work.

Yes, I think we should be grateful that 92219 was saved. She may yet come in useful - but we have to be pragmatic and accept that the best use for her may be as spare parts rather than as a complete locomotive. That said, unless anyone can cite another 9F with an immediate need for particular parts of her, there's little to be gained from dispersing her components.
Yes, there is value in keeping engines in reserve if there is a realistic prospect that they might be needed in future. However, if you took the "it may come in handy" philosophy to an extreme then nobody would ever throw anything away.
Another point to bear in mind is that railway history didn't end in 1968. We may only have a finite supply of Barry wrecks, but with each decade there will be another batch of "modern traction" types reaching the end of their useful lives. We should aspire to save a representative selection of those, too; and as the generation that remembers BR steam fades, I think we may see diesels taking on a greater proportion of heritage line work.

92219 may be "notable" historically, but mechanically she's no different from any of the other 9Fs (except single-chimney 92134). Silver Link had great historical significance, but how much do we really miss her when we have six other A4s preserved, any of which could be disguised as 2509 if their owners agreed?

 

You make a good point John, I made a similar comment on another thread, involving the future potential worth of the 28xxs. As I said on that thread and as you've pointed out here, people can go on saying that there simply isn't a place for every engine out there, but that's simply not true.

There are dozens of potential preserved lines out there, many that you've already pointed out, that indeed could do with more motive power in the future. The Mid Norfolk Railway immediately springs to mind, their already occasionally having steam locomotives hired in and most likely when ever they do, they most surely in turn recieve an increase in passengers. The fact is while diesels may have good benefits, they can never quite pull in the same attraction as steam power. In terms of bringing the passengers in, steam locomotives trump diesels everytime.

There are many homes for them to go to, it's just the unfortunate case of them having to hold on until these expanding railways want them.

It is a strange thing isn't it? I've seen dozens of comments saying how certain locomotives are not very practical on most railways because of their size, yet it's actually the bigger engines that tend to have the better chance at being picked up. Many forget that while the smaller engines may be better suited to most railways, more economical and practical, the bigger, grander engines will always attract more people, and in turn more money. The bigger steam engines always get more attention, always have, always will. It's a logic that has always been the same, and is unlikely to change.

It does seem a little too easy for many to the jump to the conclusion, that because an engine's big it's automatically impractical and economical to use on most railways. I'd agree with you that it does depend alot more on the skills of the crew, then just the locomotive itself.

Many say that 9Fs are impractical for many railways, but there's plenty of evidence to support the opposite, for example the Bluebell Railway's 9F No.92240 (which was actually the first 9F from barry to steam) was, and these are their words, in spite of its size and power, an economical locomotive to run and was is much better suited to the 25mph speed limit than an express locomotive.

Now considering that the Bluebell Railway isn't the longest or steepest of railways, that's quite a good mark in the 9Fs favor, and since they were one of the first to run a 9F, you can guaranty the Bluebell Railway know what their talking about.

Considering all this then, you could say that actually, the 9Fs are probably naturally the best of the big locos to have.

 

92219 certainly has a better case for being restored than the Finnish 5ft Loco's and the Polish Tanks in that it fits preserved lines and has the attraction of being a British design capable of hauling anything preservation can throw at it.

The problem as ever is money, im sure some of the newer lines short of steam power would kill for a 9F, but are any of them in a position to have enough money to buy and restore such a locomotive ?.

There's no shortage of people willing to take on 92219, just a shortage of those who can afford to.

 

I wasn't there, so I can only begin to imagine. Personally, I think that I have a fair concept. It must have been an exceedingly difficult time for someone wishing to save a loco. I am not criticising their drive, verve and tenacity to save a loco - it is to be applauded. I did say in my original post that 'I'm sure their intentions are good'. What I'm saying is that, once it becomes evident that to restore the loco is beyond an owner's capabilities, or at least beyond their capabilities without major outside assistance financial or otherwise, the owner should be big enough to ask for that help, and not to doggedly hold onto a loco that is deteriorating waiting for something to come along. I think that my comment, really, only applies to a very small number of people/groups. I should also emphasise that this is not aimed at anyone in particular.

I agree that such a view is misguided, although if there was an honest belief that only one such loco would be economically viable it becomes more understandable if looked through eyes of the time rather than with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think anyone expected the heritage railway movement to grow to the size it is today.

That's a very strong argument. But I think that it is a bit too idealised - not all owners are in a position to hold onto a loco forever just for a rainy day, just in case someone comes along wanting to restore it, just in case the demand for that type/size of loco increases as a heritage railway finds itself in need of such a loco.

I know that the heritage railway movement is basically a case of heart triumphing over brain. If brutal pragmatism had won out, there'd be the NRM, the Science museum, the MoSI, and that would be about it. And thank heavens that isn't the case, and that people then and now are able and prepared to give time and money for no real remuneration beyond the joy of seeing a representation of railways as they were.

However, at the same time, pragmatism has always featured in the operation of heritage railways. 3612, 1502, 1509, Moel Tryfan - all broken up whilst technically in preservation. One may argue that the loss of these locomotives has in the main benefitted their railways, benefitted the movement, for look where the SVR and Festiniog are now. More recently, there are the locos that have gone into the GWS and 6880 recreations. The loss of carriages, some of priceless historical value, is much higher, many simply destroyed not broken up for spares. The way I see it, to maintain what we have, we mustn't spread the time and effort we have too thinly, otherwise we will lose more. The goodwill of the enthusiast public is also important - they'll put their hand in their pocket for a Patriot, or A1, or 3MT, but another 2-6-2T? They saw one of them at the WSR last week, the SDR the week before, the PDSR a month ago and two at the SVR last year. It isn't necessarily right, but that is the way it is. People would rather fund the recreation of 4709 than the restoration of 4115.

So I can appreciate the difficulty of dealing with a loco like 92219. No-one is coming forward with the funds to restore it to working order. The owners want to sell her for their financial safety, perhaps, and I believe that they are involved with another smaller loco, the restoration of which would benefit from 92219's sale. The owners have said that they really don't think they can face tackling 92219 themselves.

Well, one may argue that 92212, 92203 and the others restored to working order are more notable than 92219 because of their current fully restored conditions. With 92220 saved, is 92219 really that notable as 'the penultimate'? Yes it is a historical quirk, historically interesting, but to the vast majority of visitors it's another steam loco, or at best another 9F. You would do well to instil the value that you place in it as the penultimate BR steam loco in even a fraction of the people it could haul.

I'm with you on that. I'm not a fireman or loco inspector, but the argument that big loco = big coal consumption doesn't I think take into account the amount of work being asked of different engines. I can see the logic of a 9F ticking over possibly having comparable fuel consumption to a pannier in second valve. Putting the 9F onto the heavier trains also makes sense, although to get the work out of it between overhauls that can't always be the case - and if you can only afford the one loco to overhaul you'll probably plump for the one that works a bit harder pulling 8 and is happy with 6 than the one that can walk away with 8 but uses just as much coal pulling 6, so suddenly that can put the 9F in a tricky position.

I wouldn't like to comment on crew technique - it would be the comments of an armchair enthusiast who's active volunteering knowledge lies in signalling.

 

In my opinion, 92219 belongs next to 92220 in the nrm.. In unrestored condition. The two side by side tell extremely different stories of two identical engines built side by side and perfectly highlights the difference between preservation and restoration challenges of the hobby.
The untrained public will easier understand the story, by seeing the consecutive engine numbers against contrasting condition yet similar construction and operational life... But very different after BR history. That is almost unique to these two engines in preservation in their current contrasting conditions and line numbers.

I think the only other way to tell this story would be to restore only 1 side of an engine and leave the other in wreck condition...but that's not the same as two..

If anything.. It could give up its front wheels to 92207 before going on display.

 

I'd support that. Although 92245, being in worse Barry condition may tell the tale better?

 

Wasn't a similar idea suggested for the 92245 which was to have it displayed in its Barry condition at the NRM but as Anthony has stated a few times there may not be suffiecent space for a Barry condition 9F to be displayed at York or possibly Shildon.

I hope 92219 does find somewhere and someone with the money to sort her out.

 

Why does it need to give up its wheels to 92207? A new wheelset for 92207's pony truck was made a long time ago. In fact, the overhaul of the pony truck is more or less complete.

 

Oh, I stand corrected... Didn't know things with 92207 were progressing that far.
unfortunately that also means if 92219 were to go to spares.. The time money and effort on the new wheel 92207 would be to waste!

 

I don't understand your thinking. Owners like to progress their locos, not wait around in the hope that a wheelset might become available.
Should the owners of 92219 decide to split it up for spares in the near future, then a good home is waiting for the pony truck wheelset anyway.

 

Having a big admiration for 9f's makes it hard for me to see any engines broken for spares, but the head says that in the future this will be the only way to keep some engines going. Many groups are looking at buying engines to get a spare boiler (there are a couple of GW No.1's about to fit halls/28/38's). Going back to 9f's I had the pleasure (and it always was) of firing/driving 92203 whilst at the GWSR. Apart from the initial steam raising, the loco was very economical, water consumption was actually less than some tank engines. A 9f is one of those rare beasts where you could find a sweet spot doing any kind of work. Pulling 240 tons at Toddington to pulling the 1800 ton stone trains at Merehead a few years ago - all with no fuss (made a bit of a noise though!). That aside, if you need new tyres, there are a few of them!

 

Why?

If the boiler is beyond repair, then make a new one. They'll all need replacing eventually anyway.

There was a move afoot in Brussels not that long ago to condemn any boiler Europewide over a certain age. That seems to have been put to one side for the time being, but when I tell you some bureaucrat mentioned a limit of as little as forty years, alarm bells should be ringing. Obviously these people lack any practical knowledge, or concept. But they wield a lot of power.

Same as on a pacific. Funny thing about 9F's is that so many people have a mental block about them. Too many wheels, too small, can't run on the main line because of the flangeless driver. It's all a load of rubbish.

Well, it is true the flangeless driver can cause problems on very tight curves, because the tyre is the same width as the rest. On the WD 2-10-0's the flangeless tyres don't give any trouble because they are slightly wider, and so the outside wheel doesn't drop into the 4 foot. This is something that only happened quite rarely in poorly maintained sidings, not on the main line or reasonably aligned crossings, and anyway the wheels rerail themselves where the track straightens out (albeit with maybe a few broken chairs). I'm not sure if that was an error that crept in when the nines were designed, but the remedy would be to avoid dodgy track, or better, fit one with WD pattern tyres. BR tried to stop Evening Star from running in the early eighties, but John Peck, who was retired but based at the NRM, was wise to them and pointed out that the departmental equipment that has flangeless wheels couldn't be used either, and he got his way.

 

Was a bit surprised by this thread as after the sale of 92214 last year i was expecting that the money the owning group had rec'd would have been spent restoring 92219.

 

You say "make a new boiler" as though that's as easy as making a cup of tea. Look at how much the new boilers for 60163 and 3801 cost...and look at the problems that both have suffered since delivery.
Suppose you have an ex-Barry 9F with a boiler in fair condition, and a restored 9F just come out of ticket with a boiler beyond economic repair. If the ex-Barry engine has no realistic prospect of restoration, I'd argue it's far better to take her boiler than to build a new one. After all, this doesn't prejudice the ex-Barry chassis being retained. If there's then a dramatic change of fortunes and somebody wants another 9F, then one might consider going to the expense of a brand-new boiler for it.
Even if, once it had donated its boiler, the owners of the ex-Barry chassis decide they don't have space for it and cut it up, only for somebody later to say they want another 9F, you could still build a new one from scratch - and remember that you would have had to build a new boiler to keep both engines running anyway.
You're essentially arguing that groups with an immediate need for a new boiler should spend scarce resources building a new one, so that a perfectly good existing boiler can be retained just on the off-chance that it might one day be needed. This isn't a very logical argument.

As for main line 9Fs, I'm glad John Peck got his way in the 1980s, but it's now 2012 and regulations are far tighter.

 

Sale was probably more to recover the last of the restoration costs possible, and get her to someone else to do it the 2nd time round. The original pioneers probably don't have enough years or money to do it all again

 

More like there are too many people who think they know how to run a railway and haven't a clue

 

The reason why 9Fs cannot run on the big railway now is quite simple. There is a lot of pointwork about where the check rails are higher than the running rail. Rubbish does not come into it.

 

That's exactly the same excuse that was used before.

 

Well I do know how much the one for 60163 cost, and it makes the prices some people charge for repairs look ridiculous. Albeit there were a few mistakes made with the design.

I was with John Peck at the time that was going on and his comments went along the lines of the poster that mentioned there's no-one who knows the subject any more - or words to that effect.