9F why does not having a flange on the centre wheels stop it being mainlined

I thought the same but hesitated to mention it.

 

The outer axles were pony trucks, but rather unconventionally laid out. Instead of the usual A frame pivoted at the inboard end, they were pivoted from the outer ends by tie rods angled inwards towards the pony trucks. Had these rods been extended beyond the truck, the point at which they intersected became the pivot point.

 

Putting my Network Rail hat and to be blunt (as Anglia is my patch) - why would we waste any taxpayers money on trying to work out if an obsolete design, for which there are no intended mainline runners, is now viable on our network? In addition - no, it's not feasible or viable to do a survey of that nature. We are accountable for every £ spent of public money and that has no discernible or arguable benefit that I can see.

Easier and cheaper to continue to enforce a ban based on the original principle than find out if the situation has changed enough to allow the (one) class of locomotive that ban enforces to start running again.

 

It's not often I find myself regrettably 'liking' something .... if that makes any sort of sense!

 

Well, there's a reason why there are no intended mainline runners! I do remember one run down Hatton Bank in the 80s with a certain 9F, which was timed at 90mph. What I would like to know is whether there was a justified reason for the ban in the first place. In Russia most currently working steam locomotives (with the exception of P36 and Su) run quite happily with flangeless centre drivers.

 

Oh Yes? I hadn't heard that one before. Sounds a bit like a fishermans tale to me - but there again, did not someone run a GW 4-6-0 light engine at 130 mph?

Peter

 

This is a chicken and egg situation, though. There are no 9F owners looking to take their loco main line because they are not allowed to. When 92214 wa based on the NYMR the owner would have liked it to go main line. I don't know whether the same might apply to the owner of 92134.
Taking the easy and cheap option is usually sign of poor management. They are just two of many things that have to be considered.

And a 4-4-0 at 100 mph, so I've heard.

 

It was no tale. I was on the train. Also it was 120mph with a Saint and Collett on the footplate.

 

Not sure Network Rail would be too keen on New York Central No.999 either. Wot?

 

Even if one 9F wanted to go mainline, I think most people would rightly ask what benefits there are in setting up a project to investigate if one could run on Network Rail's metals. We're accountable to the general public and government and with the greatest will in the world, that is the job we are required to do. Be accountable and make sure funds are spent properly (for which it is a difficult but necessary balancing act).

With respect Steve - as much as I love steam (and this is self-evident from what I do as a volunteer), we have to be pragmatists about what can and can't be done by Network Rail for the heritage industry. Gauging for existing locomotives running, which do not have flangeless drivers? Yes, acceptable as their chances of running are in line with the market and the public's expectations of us to do the right safety cases and make sure the network is fit for purpose. For a 9F, one of which hasn't run for a good forty odd years?

I think we'd be pilloried by the newspapers for wasting taxpayers money on extending the glorified train set, and rightly so. It's not a must have, it would detract from other work and funding that is sorely needed elsewhere.

 

There's much in this that I agree with, but the pure cost/benefit equation outlined does not as I understand it properly address Network Rail's obligations to make the network available to those who'd use it. That's not about pre-emptive gauging analysis (where I agree completely), but how NR then responds to requests for gauging if a real operation is proposed. To that extent "being accountable to the public" is not just about expenditure of government funds, but also compliance with law. That is a balance that IMHO most government bodies tend to put too far towards cost, and too little towards compliance.

 

There was also some discussion on this topic on this thread.
9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail | National Preservation (national-preservation.com)

 

What is the value of the benefit to NR?
What is the value to someone else? Are they willing to pay for it?
What should NR not spend money on to do this? And how would you explain this to those who would benefit from the cancelled thing?

 

We are indeed obligated to make the network available for those who could use it; but (and I think this is something you are missing) only if there are not unreasonable changes to infrastructure are required, if the safety case is viable, and if there are not already some restrictions placed on that rolling stock. We would still be compliant under the Interoperability Regulations to refuse a vehicle entry on the grounds that we are previously aware it will not fit/run over our metals.

Since the item of infrastructure that we are discussing is still extant (largely irrelevant if it is widespread across the whole of the network or not) any such application can still be refused without further investigation.

 

There's also the small point that the check rails must have been raised for good reason. I sincerely doubt that someone thought one morning "hey lets raise the check rails and upset two steam locomotive owners". So if the design change is reversed all the advantages that design change brought with it are lost.

(Very approximately 120mph with a Saint if we are being pedantic).

 

It would be interesting to know what that change does provide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm very much inclined to @Jimc's argument. Perhaps the demise of the very unfitted freights which provided class 9F with much gainful employment goes some way to a definitive reason?

 

It might. But I'm still intrigued as to the benefits of the change in checkrail design, given that 2-10-os were only around Britain for a very short part of railway history.

 

So I have had a quick mosey whilst on my lunch break to see what the actual issues are. Network Rail's internal standards tell me that check rails come in three basic forms, for bullhead, flatbottom and 33C1 type check rails (the latter for use with CEN60E1 rails). The standards for continuously fitted check rails on curves versus those used in isolation (such as on approaches/egress to bridges/tunnels/etc, on turnouts or crossovers or at crossings) shows me there are dimensional differences for all of these check rails.

The historic reasoning for the changes in check rail design over the years from what I am reading has nothing to do with the 9Fs (which are an indirect casualty of the change in dimensions) but everything to do with maximising the use of bogie wagons and bogie stock, and locomotives with bogie arrangements, and eliminating the potential derailment issues of these and any existing remaining short wheelbase 4-wheeled wagons and similar.

Ultimately, rail standards have changed since the 9Fs were introduced and, to be frank, I am not convinced that the 9Fs with their flangeless centre wheels were ever considered when current, let alone since being made obsolete.

I think it is highly likely, given what I am reading here, that there are now more barriers to the operation of a Standard 9F on the mainline than there were before, not less, as the 33C1 type check rails are attached directly to the running rails and are higher than those which went before.

 

Speaking purely as an armchair 'engineer' whose sole experience is the train set in the attic - is it out of the question to fit a 9f with a flanged centre driver or some other modification of the centre driver than would make it compliant with current standards? I'll get my coat........