9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

Interesting:
Taking the Position of the forward driving wheel becoming the rearward bogie as a datum and leaving the boiler untouched ...Then a new front frame section including the internal stretchers would have to be designed to merge the Bogie carrying components. At first glance the Smokebox would have to be shortened or it would project rather more than other standards. In terms of design work I feel that this is a more complex task than a 2-8-2 conversion ., but in terms of execution its all mechanical. The downside of the 2-8 -2 is that the. Firebox end of the boiler would need to be rebuilt; The equivalent part of the clan boiler would be a good fit; but has 10% less Grate area and is designed at 225PSI, so some highly specialised work would be required there to upgrade that design . You could probably leave the cylinders alone on a 480, it would be prudent to line up the cylinders to 19.5 on the 282

 

It's about 7-9 minutes running time between stations and certainly if you're stopping at all of them, I agree the saving wouldn't be much. At present the round trip takes about an hour and a quarter including running round at the far end, which is probably about right for most visitors. However the question is whether people would accept a more-than-doubling of the journey time to do the full round trip between Leicester and Ruddington, or whether they might only opt to go half way, and whether reducing journey times might influence that. However there are other things (like pricing the all-day rovers competitively) which could equally encourage people to spend longer with us, so it's not as if a speed increase is the only solution - in fact at present I'd say it was pretty unlikely.

 

Don't forget weight... There would be rather a lot of weight on the new front bogie as it would have to share the weight from the driving wheel and pony truck. I suspect you'd have to build new frames and rods and move the remaining driving wheels. I haven't spotted a weight diagram for the 9F, but it seems possible at least the first two wheel sets would need to move forward.

Why would you need a firebox rebuild for the 2-8-2, I'm not quite clear about that. Would you not be able to get away with ashpan changes? Again though wouldn't weight distribution be an issue?

 

Taking the Brit as an example the Bogie carries 17 T 2 C,
On the 480 with the appropriate considerations the weight on the bogie, not including the additional weight of the bogie itself would be about 16 T with about 17.5 - 18 T per driving axle

Sorry I'm assuming you'd follow the Style of other BR Standards, and the dimensions of the rear extension frames and truck just wouldn't work
, could use an LNER type cartazzi ?

 

Ah, found a weight diagram for the 9F.
9-4 on the leading wheels, 15-10 on all the driving wheels.
Taking as a first approx that weight of bogie, supporting gear and bogie wheel set approximates to weight of pony truck, leading drivers and rods then the leading bogie would have to support around 24-14, so a good deal more than the Brittania.
Another issue is that if you reduce the 9f to 8 coupled the factor of adhesion goes from a very healthy 4.38 to a decidely skittish 3.5. So you have to rebalance the whole Loco to get more weight on the driving wheels.
Mind you if you removed the centre driving wheels and replaced them with a jackshaft [grin]. I make that 19-8 on the driving wheels, which shouldn't be impossible RA.



Doesn't look too bad from a distance does it??

 

As long as the power is there, never.

 

deleted

 

Not so. There are many locos of similar power outputs but which look very different, and indeed are of different classes. The LNER in particular was fond of modifying existing locos for different purposes. They took the trouble to reclass them, though.

 

For what it's worth, a 9F stops being a 9F when you put a Crosti boiler on it...

 

Please don't suggest a new build...

 

Well, -- a new build ? The 9F 2-10-0s have (very) limited route availability. What about a 2-8-2? Ah - that is already being done at Darlington and Doncaster

 

A youtube post of a 9F on the mainline in 1988 shows what we are missing.

 

I think all of us old enough to remember them either flogging a heavy freight uphill or seeing them on passenger workings knows that. However time to move on like the infrastructure designs they can't run on. The cash either needs to go into something awesomely practical for the modern railway as a new design/build (not a replica) or into restoring something old. Bulleid was right in concept with Leader (if flawed in design), perhaps a garrett, a mallet type or the 5AT. A 9F bodged and adapted for the mainline a non-starter for me.

My main memories of 9Fs the Fawley oil trains of 50+ restarting up the SW main line out of Allbrooke loop and Evening Star on the Scarborough Spas, can't happen again, time to move on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

These threads about 9Fs on network rail are both fascinating, and infuriating in equal measure.
Unless you are in ownership or linked to the ownership of a 9F and have or able to obtain plenty of cash to carry out these modifications then suggesting to do so is pointless, but conversely the arguments set out to modify 9Fs and how they may be modified to suit presumed conditions, and in turn learning more about the 9F is really very interesting.

 

deleted

 

Which railway can run at 50 mph?

 

GCR can run steam at 60 for testing purposes when the line is otherwise closed, but as to the answer to your question, I don't know precisely what the restrictions are. But I suspect a photo charter would not count as "testing".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Are you sure that they can? As distinct from have.

 

Well I'm not aware of anybody imposing restrictions so unless you know something I don't...
That said the 10mph TSR on Swithland viaduct would probably scupper things for the moment. But it's being fixed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't 'know' anything, only what I'm told but I'd be interested to see a bit of paper that says they can, as distinct from a bit of paper that says they could. There's a subtle difference. That's not to say that they can't take the necessary steps to allow running at speeds in excess of 25 mph. Have a look at ROGS and the Railway Safety Regulations 1999. Thee regs do not exclude testing and the GCR doesn't have any exemptions, according to the ORR website.