92219

i'm even older and would have gone for Ringo Starr...

 

*groans*

 

When was a 9F last utilised on the Mainline? They are powerful locos with what would appear good route availability. Certainly they could take a load where other less powerful locos tend to struggle and need assistance. When did the flangeless drivers become an issue and why?

 

if you look at modern crossing the check rail is raised up above the height of the rial and the 9f middle driver is wider than the rest of the wheels so when it come to one of these crossings it would hit it damaging the crossing and locomotive
thanks
Patrick

 

and it has to be wider because without a Flange it can travel across the rail and drop inside it on tight curves....
Solutions might be to make it narrower and put a flange on it but this would apply severe limitations on what curves could be negotiated without 'spreading' the track, you could then maybe look at allowing more play in the rearmost driving wheel (like on a 47xx) but you would then invite the loco to 'wag'. - or rebuild it as a 2-8-2 ? you could at least get a decent ashpan on it then.... Or just persuade Network rail that these check rails are unsuitable and get them all lowered...

 

I was on a Pathfinder tour "The Yorkshire Venturer" in August 1988, which featured 92220 from York to Scarborough and Scarborough to Hull (and 50037 Swindon to York and Hull back to Swindon). I don't think that 92220 did much more mainline work after this. It spent 1989 and the beginning of 1990 at the WSR, after which it was retired. But was certainly OK in 1988, although from the Preserved 9F's thread posted in June 2009:

 

Just how much wider is the tyre? and which way? Looking at photographs it isn't at all obvious that the 9f actually has a wider centre driver, just that it has no flange. I do recall reading that the austerity 2 - 10 - 0 had a wider centre wheel but not the 9F.

Apart from that, the centre pair will only move significantly over the railhead on sharp curves, whether through points or not.

See this photo of Evening star at Keighley provided by Neildimmer

BR Standard 9F 2-10-0 (Preserved) - Railway-Photography's Photos | SmugMug

And on that sort of curve I would expect the loco to be running very slowly indeed, so what is the real problem? I can't see any loco running rapidly through a curve likely to derail the centre drivers at any significant sort of speed at all.

 

Does any know why a modern crossing has a raised check rail for. Does modern rolling stock need a raised check rail on a crossing?



Thanks

 

It's not wider. On very tight curves - tighter than the design radius - they do drop in the 4 foot. But they rerail again. The WD 2-10-0's don't do that because they are wider. The gauge is the same but they are wide enough on the outside that they don't slip past the gauge corner.

The raised check rail issue is a bit of a red Herring. The problem is no-one in the Pway dept can be bothered to check it out. The whole point of check rails is that they do bear up against the inside of the wheels if the track is losing its integrity, so that the opposite wheel doesn't foul the crossing. Someone has come up with a theory that the flangeless wheel would climb over the check rail. But then so would a flanged wheel. Check rails have a transition to prevent that, which vary according to the radius of the track it is mounted on.

92220 ran on the main line until 1988. The tyres were thin and beyond re-turning and therefore it saw out its time on private railways.

 

According to drawing SL/DE 21233 the tyres on the flangeless driving wheels on 9Fs are 3/16" wider than the flanged tyres. 5-11/16" compared to 5-1/2".
I'd be very surprised if 92220's tyres are down to scrapping size. I'll have to measure them next time I'm at the NRM.

 

3/16" isn't enough to prevent them dropping. That's about the same amount the intermediate tyres are backed off on some engines. To all intents and purposes they are similar width. Have you got a drawing for The WD?

Why surprised? They are not the original wheels. Those were pinched for another engine to keep it in service when 92220 was at Crewe.

 

The back to back dimension is the same. It has to be.

One of the most important dimensions on a rail borne vehicle.

 

Found a General Arrangement drawing for a WD 2-10-0. Tyres on the flangeless drivers are 6-1/2" wide. Tyres on the flanged wheels are 5-1/2" wide.

 

I may be being a bit naive here, but if the width of the tyre on the flangeless driving wheelset is 3/16" wider than the flanged wheelests, that still doesn't make it likely to ride over a raised check rail any more than it would be likely that a flanged wheelset would ride UP it does it? I know the flange is obvously there to guide the wheelset into a tight curve, but with the intermediate wheelsets having more generous sideplay and shallower flanges than the leading and trailing wheelsets, is the argument against the flangeless wheelsets flawed?
How much sideplay does the centre wheelset have?

Of course, I stand to be corrected on the above, it was just a thought I had.

Richard.

 

The raised check rail was a feature of some one-piece cast crossings, where the crossing nose and check rail are formed as a single casting. But I understand that these are no longer being installed by Network Rail ?

 

No, because the extra width is on the outside, not the inside.

As confirmed by another posting, the WD was an inch wider as opposed to 3/16". John Pecks opinion was that they should have made the BR 9F the same. In any case it doesn't affect the performance with raised check rails, just prevents the flangeless drivers dropping off poor track.

 

Many Thanks for that TenWheeler. Interesting area for discussion. I wonder if the ban on 9Fs on the mainline is likely to be re-considered at all?

Richard.

 

It's one of those miscarriages of justice that occur from time to time.

When 92220 was stopped, in fact it was a subject of discussion at York that what has actually happened might turn out to be the case. But the NRM management were quite resolute that they weren't going to overhaul it again because of the cost. The only other working 9F that was around then was 92203, but the owner was not at all interested in operating it on the main line. So, many years passed until 92212 was proposed and everything was fitted on it ready to go before this issue raised it's ugly head again. By a funny coincidence John Peck's number two at the time of the previous battle happened to be working on site when it came up (but not at all involved with 92212). His take on it was that it was only the owner that wanted to go main line with it, and the support group were quietly pleased that it wasn't going to be going anywhere, so they didn't challenge the decision at all. Unfortunately they did us all a great disservice, because a 9F is eminently suitable for main line running on certain routes - not to mention the waste of fitting it with TPWS only to remove it again. To get that overturned now, I think it would take someone with very strong credibility and determination to take up the issue and succeed. I can't think of anyone who has a current connection to a 9F who could do that. If there was a 9F available with a keen owner that might be something worth investigating. There's no obvious sign at the moment of any loco that might happen with. Unless a group got together to do something with 92219. Never say never though. I remember when it was completely out of the question that steam would run over the 3rd rail network ever again. In fact the two issues have a number of similarities.

 

Well it would need someone who owns one that actually wants it running Mainline and is able to spend the extra in making it in all other respects ok to run and then taking up the case with the powers that be... the ideal candidate probably 92212 ? (the one with the 1f tender ?)

 

You appear to be having a go at the owner of 92212 and his team in that statement. This being the owner of a stable of mainline and other locos, with a very able support crew. Are you?