Heritage Line Loco Power Requirements

How much of 3612 is left? I believe the boiler is in a 'pool' for the other panniers, did they keep anything else like wheels & cylinders? (Engines have been "restored" from less...)

 

Cylinders, I believe, were sold to Llangollen for their pannier, wheels are currently under 5764 (5764's own set still exist and are in the pool of spares too) frames were cut and I think the tanks and bunker are long gone too.

 

Perhaps so, but there surely must come a point where a new build becomes a more sensible option when looked at from every angle.

 

Yes I have heard it said that superheat is little use on short runs. I suspect this depends on how effective individual designs of superheater are. What I am told with 41298 is that she takes a few trips up and down to raise steam temperature but later on in the day she runs the service almost for nothing in terms of fuel consumption. Tares are 100 to 120 tons and maximum gradients of the order of 1 in 68/70.

There is a fascinating Y0utube sequence of 41298 shot from a drone. There is no smoke and the steam can be seen condensing some distance aft of the chimney giving a view almost right down into the smokebox! Evidently the superheater. aided by really hot coal, is working very well indeed.

PH

 

That may well be a function of heating the brick arch as the super heater: it's quite a noticeable effect on our locos as well, both superheated and not, that the first run of the day requires a bit more shovelling than the others. Which comes back to the point that diagramming is an important factor in operating costs.

Tom

 

It has often been said about out locos that "It takes until Arley to get em warm" That's almost certainly got as much to do with the brick arch as anything else.

 

Well there is something contributing to greater efficiency be it superheater, long travel valves or both. She burns about the same as an A1x (allowed up to 90 tons tare max.)

PH

 

On a TV programme (can't recall which), someone at the Bluebell claimed the 9F didn't use much more coal than Stepney ....which sounds like stretching a bit to my mind, although, looking at the position of the firebox door on a Terrier, the 9F must be easier to fire!

 

A
An acute sufferer from "big chufferitis" it would seem. There are rather too many of them! Someone I met recently from a certain line was complaining bitterly about the unsuitability of 9Fs for tourist railway work, especially their coal consumption. I hasten to say that in no way was he prompted,

Paul H

 

The couple of goes I've had on a 9F I've actually found them very efficient engines, especially when you consider the size. Way to big for anything we are doing but actually very efficient.

 

'Bout right speedwise tho'..... them 9Fs

 

Good plodders certainly, barely seemed to need the fire lit!

 

What, 90 mph?!

 

Efficient? - firstly you have to get sufficient fire in to cover the grate. That is a significant amount and all wide box locos will suffer from the need for considerable fuel being needed to do this. Once that has been achieved then maybe things become efficient.

As a crude measure I tried comparing the WR shovelfuls required to get several locos from overnight warm (say 40 psi still on the clock but no fire) to full steam & ready to go. On two 34xxx's the number of shovelfuls was 50 & 55. On a 78xx the number was 22.

So before we have turned a wheel the bigger locos with wide fireboxes have a handicap in the fuel comparison stakes and once rolling they certainly do not appear to burn less coal than the alternatives.

 

Does some of that get balanced out at the end of the day though? Can you stop firing some number of shovelfuls sooner because there is so much more coal on the grate?

 

Not really as whatever size it is the grate needs to remain covered until the loco is stabled back on shed.

 

Agreed however the two I fired, I found this was more than offset by how little I was having to fire on the road.

 

That said, our late chief inspector was an ex-Saltley seagull and he found them terrible when he had them on the Carlisles so maybe it is because the nature of our work barely requires them to be lit.

 

Do you mean 9Fs? I dont think that Saltley had any light pacifics, and wouldnt have put them on the carlisle goods even if they had.

Might it depend which of the class of 9F he was thinking about? The auto-stoker fitted ones were allocated to Saltley for the Carlisle workings, and were hated, chiefly I think because the coal wasnt screened which meant the stoker tended to block up easily, and in consequence the loco had to be hand fired through a firehole door set higher in the back head. So what was supposed to save labour ended up costing it. Typical of BR of the day to spoil a good idea for want of proper implentation. I think they also tried the Crosti versions, and had trouble with those too, but the people I have spoken to had less issue with the standard 9s which I thought were reasonably well regarded at Saltley.