The 9F as a heritage railway locomotive

Seriously Paul, no it’s not. Can you do the honours please? Cheers mate.

 

Not to mention that the dangers of excess are also not just in one direction - it was an excess of teetotalism that gave America Prohibition, and all the harms that caused. Perhaps a degree of moderation in all things, including size of chufferitis, is better for us all.

 

What a crass remark.

 

The East Somerset has done, twice, but had to take them down the branch to Merehead for a good workout. Over 2000 tons as I recall.

They are outstanding locos to operate and crew, provided that you are doing the sort of work they were designed to do. Spend a day shunting with one (on either side of the cab) and it will damn near kill you. They are also absurdly big for heritage use, and whilst the visitors love to see them, there is always a more economical option than a 9.

 

They are both addictions . A 9F cannot run over Network Rail and, apart from the NYMR, are far more than required by tourist lines.

 

Which is really the central point.

Tom has demonstrated that operating costs are largely irrelevant, and one would hope that last generation UK steam wasn't too bad on overhaul costs per mile run, so the ability to put bums on seats must be all important.

Its a commonplace round here to say the general public doesn't care so long as it chuffs, but I think that's over stated. Firstly because without *some* interest in steam railways why would you pay for tickets in the first place, and secondly there's the interesting personal example of my mother, who came back from a coach tour which featured a steam trip disappointed because "they only had some american things" hauling the train.

 

This should give anyone suffering from Big Chufferitis total heart failure then.......



The worrying thing is that this was taken 23 years ago now........

 

No Paul they’re really not comparable. Please don’t be silly.

 

Wonder if that ever happened in BR times...

 

Overhaul costs per mile will be fine if the loco is doing the mileage BR used to do. There is no heritage railway in the UK that could put even a fraction of that mileage on a loco, so a mandatory boiler overhaul and probably a mid-life retube will end up being done at a fraction of the "good value" mileage.

Whilst a 9F, like any Standard, is easy to maintain, the sheer size makes it many times as expensive as a more modest loco.

We could operate a 3 train service with a small prairie and use the same amount of coal as the 9 needed to raise steam. Don't forget heritage railway water is metered too, and a 9 uses lots (and similarly lots of water treatment).

If you have the punters you can swap some profit margin for the delight of a 9. If the punters are marginal you'll use a smaller loco.

As I said before, in the heritage world there is always a more economical option. Thankfully it's not always about economics and we can still see the big engines running.

 

Having read all the above, I'll point out that 92220 along with 80135 saved the NYMR in 1986, after the Greenend landslip.

Sawdust.

 

There you go again. Get a sense of proportion.

 

May 13th 1978.
A birthday treat from my then girlfriend was a trip from Birmingham to Carlisle and back which involved haulage by 92220 over the S&C.
Turned out to be a more significant date than my birthday, Eric Treacy died whilst photographing the train at Appleby:

 

It's still true.

 

I was on that trip too,

https://www.flickr.com/photos/brist...vnh-nd8vFJ-nd6vhw-nb1Nrv-ecWbSp-9DC2Qv-9DEUaj

A sad occasion...

 

Apart from the last sentence, agree completely

 

Tom, as ever, is on the mark with his analysis (and no doubt with his steam.) Whether a loco uses more coal is going to depend on where on the efficiency curve things sit. look at these fro a BR Cl.4 4-6-0. It is at its most efficient (8%) trundling along at about 23 mph and producing 12,000 Tractive effort, about half its rated 25,100 lbf. That means that you are getting the best use out of every pound of coal that you throw on the fire. 12,000 lbf tractive effort isn't an absurd figure for heritage trains and will be reached on many heritage railways. Put a smaller loco to work on the same train and its efficiency will probably be somewhere around the 4- 5% mark, especially if it is not superheated. That means that you are using significantly more coal to do the same job, mainly because much of it will be being thrown out of the chimney.

The figures on the graph show that, on the NYMR, dragging 7 and 8 coach trains around with a Cl.4 drops the overall efficiency down to 6-6½% and the loco is pretty much at its front end limit in so doing.

 

It’s BS is what it is, I don’t think people like George Best or Brian Clough passed away due to problems with their 9F addiction. Please stop, Paul your making yourself sound bloody silly.

 

I’ve always wondered whether the Bishop of Wellchester in a certain film was based on him? Or was he still a Rector at that time?