Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by iancawthorne, Nov 6, 2017.
Not saying he's after one now but he was in the past.
So what? The KWVR were happy enough to use it.
No idea and anything is possible, although I fear that the 34073 ship may have sailed as I would suspect what would be for sale would be the frames of 34073 (which I recall may have previously donated some parts to 34067) plus the boiler not wanted following the works to Tangmere and Bodmin?
I'm guessing you were sounded out about 34081?
The point is that it is and expensive engine to both run and maintain, fine if you are not paying the bills but a steaming fee that in all probability requires the owners to subsidise it in some way, but not so good if you are paying the bills in full.
Then, the austerity that uses less coal, and has fewer wheels, axleboxes, tubes etc. may seem a lot more attractive!
I suppose you posting the above makes a change from Paul coming onto a thread and spouting off about big locos on small railways.
It's a while since I went to Bury, but my recollection is that it justifies rather more than that.
Thats a rational and logical assessment which is incontestable in my view. We should not be surprised, however, if heart sometimes rules head because railway preservation is founded in that very mode of thinking. Wells has made friends and the owners are doyens of the preservation era with an estimable legacy so whilst it might not be a perfect fit it seems to be right just now.
If I were still closely involved in ELR loco procurement I would be asking for leeway as to how the funds commited by the Board might be spent or at least reviewing the full range of options such an investment might be used for.
Just out of interest, are there that many preserved lines where anything above a class 4 or 5 is truly needed? Even the GCR as an ex-mainline seems to be able to cope with Ivatt 2s.
I guess my view is that if lines just stuck to locomotives that were practical and economical there would be a lot of homeless big engines.
I was trying to write a post to say basically this. We'd lose a lot of spectacle if only appropriate engines were used.
Oh dear! Let's not go down the 'suitable motive power' route! This has been done to death on other threads!
Apologies. I for one hope ‘Wells does end up on the ELR.
Just because it is an ex mainline doesn't mean it requires large engines, in a lot of ways due to it being engineered with not much in the way of gradients so with 6/7 coaches it's not surprising a Mickey can cope. IIRC when 46443 visited the ELR it was limited to 4 coaches, not much use high season with 7/8 coach trains.
Wasn't 6443 approaching the end of its ticket then though?
46443 was used for many years to haul eight Mark 1 coaches on the SVR with a ruling gradient of 1 in 100. Its maximum loading was reduced to six Mark 1s latterly to avoid excessive wear and tear. 46521 when it was at the SVR was a much stronger engine and could handle nine-coach trains with ease.
Well, yes. 46521 has larger diameter cylinders.
Yes, and an improved draughting arrangement common to the later members of the class. It always seemed more like a class 3 than a class 2 when I used to drive it.
Yes I realise that and at the time of the visit the 6 coach restriction on 46443 at the SVR was in force. My main point though was that the GCR is pretty flat so it's hardly surprising they find plenty of work there.
Yes it was about 12-18 months before it was withdrawn iirc.
Separate names with a comma.