Large Prairies

ROD 2-8-0
Stanier 8F
WD 2-8-0
WD 2-10-0...

 

GWR mogul 5322 ?

 

Goin off subjet a bit.....methinks

 

Ok, fine, "which of the above" vice "which"...

 

Welcome to round 65 of My Line/Loco's is better than yours......

I must admit i've wondered if their would be any market for a Mainline Large Prarie, all the tank engine running advantages (better visibility and backwards running) but with a higher speed than a Pannier (i'd imagine 60).

 

Tell me more? What are these allegations?

 

Couldn't give you a source, but I seem to remember reading from someone on the NYMR (quite possibly on this forum actually) that it was considered to have plenty of power, but be a very poor steamer (far worse than an average austerity) due to a poor quality overhaul / damage (can't remember which) thus hindering its ability on the bank. As said, only from memory...

 

The only problem may be the GWR outside cylinders!

 

We did think of putting 5199 on the mainline it was really a case of throwing the idea about to see what issues we would have.
These being
Route availability
Water issues
Cost of OTMR and TPWS
Cost of Boiler inspection
The real headache was what amount of work she would get and would it cover the costs
The Cambrian coast was one place we wanted to take her

At the moment the idea is a no goer but never say never

 

Add to this coal capacity issues
Size of cab issues
Reemphasis of the water issue (distance between water stops say no more than 30 miles).
Greater need for a pit to prepare and inspect

Then remind yourself that, nice though the Panniers on the mainline are, their operation is only possible in a limited way where the route/other traffic is suitable.

The idea would only stack up financially on a short haul, frequent repeat job where integration with other traffic was not an issue - ie something similar to a Heritage Line operation!!!

 

Speaking as someone who was a cleaner when lil bear was still an egg,(no detriment to him, we are born when we are born), as probably were you, judging by the content of your posts, I would back him up completely. You clearly know nothing of your subject, somewhat less of the English language, (gunna?...please), and are merely a wind-up merchant.

jtx

cleaner, passed cleaner, fireman, passed fireman and driver

Severn Valley Railway

Definitely not a "bowling green."

P.S. Industrials are great, but not on 8 Mk1s at 25 mph for 16 miles.

 

Just wondered, as I spent some time working on Antwerp's boiler when it had its last NCB overhaul at Allerton Bywater. To my knowledge,we didn't bodge anything. Antwerp wasn't the best of steamers when in use on the NYMR but they had fitted their own version of a kylchap blastpipe (not a Hunslet one) and I never rated this piece of kit.

 

I rode at high speed behind a small prairie on the mainline just last year for 94 miles in 2 hr 34 minutes (excluding water stops).. that is 1 water stop, the first wasnt required and so became just a pathing stop.
No other messing at pits etc.. just a straight forwards fast mainline run.. behind a little engine and one of the most memorable trips ive had.

I updated the forum as the train made it's progress here..


http://railways.national-preservati...5-5521-returns-to-the-UK/page3?highlight=5521

Mainline prarie in the UK... why not ? - the trip with the Panniers in November was an equally memorable day out, I also recall riding 80080 in the 1980's on the mainline at Andover I'm all for tank engines on the mainline. In 1991 I even had a mainline run behind an industrial 0-6-0 for 12 miles.

 

Thanks for the comments on Main Line running. Perhaps we might see one on the ML in the future.

 

steve once she moves to selinge if your ever near by let me know , would you happen to have drawings of the correct item because a poor steaming engine on a line that is mostly at 1 in 30 isnt going to be fun

 

Sorry, can't help with the drawings. I don't know if anyone else can. Hunslet were very secretive about such things in the time I had anything to do with them. They obviously realised that giving drawings out was a sure way to enable you to go elsewhere for things at a cheaper price. Even proprietary equipment was often modified so that an off the shelf item wouldn't fit. This was particularly so with the Gardner 4 & 6LW diesel engines used on underground locos. You couldn't even go to Gardner and get a spare part because it wouldn't be right in some cases!
Next time I have a few days at the KESR I'll make a trip to Sellinge.

 

Right, for those of you who know what I'm on about, would you agree with the following ? I can now see what you guys meant by it's not crystal clear as to the history of Large Prairies but hopefully I'v given a general jist of things. Thanks for any feedback.

 

The logic is flawed - if you read your quote literally we would not have 5164/5199 as the series would have stopped at 5151? (recommencing with 4100 - 4179).

I think the 3150's were widely regarded to be banking engines - not so sure re the 3100's.

Who says GW loco history is boring?!?

 

Thanks, I can see where I got confused and that was with the modification of 3100s to 5101s. I think below is a lot better. I'm just trying to create a quick summary for the 5199 Group as they are hoping to get a webpage going.