Under restoration/Never steamed in preservation

Actually what you said was:

Your presumption, here at least, seems to be that they had no desire to use Austerity-type locos. In fact they did use them, but for the most part found them unsuitable. The exception was the SDR , where thy were supposedly found to be ideal - until, that is, ex-GWR types came on stream.

 

I don't recall the Severn Valley using Austerities in the early days or is there another SVR you mean? They used 3205 and 46443 from day one.

 

Yep: No 193. I remeber firing it. I can't say that I enjoyed the experience!

 

They had no desire to make them operational in the end because they found them unsuitable - which is what you're saying... I agree with you! Nowhere in there did I say "just because they're Austeritys" which I think is what you're getting at. I think you just like quoting me!

 

(Sigh) I'll try once more! I've been quoting your earlier posts because you've made statements that are wrong and I've been trying to draw your attention to that.

The sequence of events at the SVR, WSR, NYMR and KWVR at least was that they acquired the locos, put them into working order and then found they were unsuitable. That isn't what you were implying. You have implied that there was no desire to use them in the first place whereas the reality is that they were put into service and given a trial. Admittedly 193 on the SVR didn't need a lot doing to it, but the ones on the other lines did need work doing to them.

A group on the Mid Norfolk have acquired an Austerity for use on that line - it will be interesting to see how it fares. RSH No. 40 on the Weardale has not exactly been the most reliable machine either, as far as I can tell. A five mile run seems to be about the limit for them.

 

The GCR have had numerous industrials over the years... two Sentinals, two Austerities, Robert Nelson No.4, Littleton No.5, No.39, Lamport No.3, Marston Thompson & Evershed No.3, Hilda, 7597, Barrington... all have moved on to other (mainly smaller) lines* and how many are now in traffic?
I know that several have run in preservation since leaving the GCR, and I am sure that at least a couple of them will return to traffic at some point, but I think right now the answer is 0. (At most 1 - I'm not sure where one of the Austerities ended up and can't remember it's number - not "68009"!)
Meanwhile the GCR currently has a pair of Austerities (a different pair!) under overhaul, even though they will be of limited use.
I don't think it follows naturally that the larger lines handing these things on means that the locos will have a brighter future.

*For accuracy, I should point out that one of the Sentinals did come back again - currently under a tarpaulin at Loughborough!

 

Ah I didn't mean to imply that - I should have been clearer. Still, through the mix up you've informed me on some things I didn't know about so it's all good

 

Visited the Isle of Wight Steam Railway today. Two trains in service with an Austerity heading both. My thoughts amounted to "Oh! No! neither an O2 nor an A1x in sight." This was the reaction of a gricer! The locomotives did their job well and "yer av'rage" passenger would not care a jot what sort of machine they were travelling behind. I recall reading accounts by people, who should have known, that they were tougher mechanically than, for example, an L.M.S. Jinty.

Readers will be aware of my thoughts that heritage railways have no need of motive power that can exceed 25m.p.h; they are not allowed to run faster. Keep the tare weights sensible and very few would need anything bigger. My thought, probably unfair, is that organisations have been casting around for excuses to run machinery that is perceived as being more glamorous than an Austerity. If that is the case it is bad business, at least bad in the long term.

Now we come to the starry eyed fraternity who use the existence of u/s motive power as an excuse to propose the re-opening of every which branch line. If it is u/s it will need money and labour to get running again whatever it is. However it may be expressed "Wouldn't it be nice" is the soppy, easy, bit. Actually doing the work and paying for it will get more and more difficult.

PH

 

Paul - I'm about 95% in agreement , though worth remembering that Austerities in particular aren't great locos even for 25mph up and down a few miles of track. Like many shunting locos, they suffer from a very short wheelbase, so tend not to ride well; and often shunting locos are over-cylindered (or under-boilered - take your pick!) because the nature of the duties they were designed for allowed short periods of heavy effort followed by a pause where pressure could be recovered. Taken together, they aren't the most forgiving locos to use, especially on longer, hillier lines, even if the nominal TE etc seems to indicate plenty of power. For similar reasons, the Bluebell tends not to send "Baxter" on thrice-daily 22-mile round trips of the line on a regular basis, even though, on paper, she is much bigger than a P tank with regard TE (8750lbs vs. 7810lbs).

Where I am in 100% agreement is with the statement "If it is u/s it will need money and labour to get running again whatever it is" and to which I might add "and wherever it is" Moving an unwanted loco from a bigger line that no longer has need for it, to a smaller line that thinks it does, rarely seems to work in the favour of the smaller line, IMHO - at least not if they think they are getting a nice quick project to get steam "up and running".

Tom

 

JFlambo - what a discussion you have started! I have to say I was with 61624 in his understanding of your comments, but no matter now. I think you were making an assertion that more railway = more locos and I think this is not always true. More railways = more demand for locos, but not necessarily more restored locos available for use, especially bearing in mind that smaller start-ups often do not have the engineering capacity or the cash reserves of a bigger railway (excepting a sugar-daddy set up which can contract everything out).

Another point is that many lines still use smaller locos even when the 'should' be on to large ones - if you were looking for a home for an Ivatt class 2 many, many railways would be very interested even the very biggest ones, though they might still need bigger ones for their heaviest trains. Look at the Bluebell which uses its small engines a great deal, or the Great Central which runs a BR class 2, even the North York Moors still runs the Lambton industrials. That is where the 'desire' part becomes a bit complicated (try going to the Bluebell and saying they don't need the Adams anymore). They might not be what is required on a full summer day, but can still do a useful job when it is quieter.

 

It would be interesting to know how this is classified? This has got to be the least known ex GWR loco in the UK.

The cut-down frames, motion and four-coupled wheels from Oxford, Worcester & Wolverhampton Railway steam locomotive No.34, later GWR 252. Leeds Industrial Museum, Armley Mills, Leeds.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14581588@N05/4735888906/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14581588@N05/4735888892/

The loco which was built in 1855 originally had a 0-6-0 wheel arangement. Withdrawn in 1904 most of the loco was scrapped however the cut-down frames, motion and four-coupled wheels were set up as an instructional model. These remains were late acquired by the Leeds Industrial Museum and are currently stored dismantled in a part of the museum not open to the public.
It is hoped that in due course the remains of the locomotive will be re-asembled for display in the locomotive gallery.

Regards,
Gareth

 

Trouble is Paul, we have to go with what we have left. If we designed from scratch you would probably end up with a standard four tank with smaller wheels! Most engines around were designed to go over 25mph, so we can't rule them out or we would have very little left!

 

I'm not banging the drum particularly for the Austerity but based on my sole short footplate experience of one I thought the riding was perfectly acceptable at heritage railway speeds.

Not saying that we should rule out anything capable of speeds over 25m.p.h. only that such speeds are not only un-necessary but also not allowed. Thus when new builds are under consideration wheels of 4ft. 7ins. diameter are okay, 6ft.7ins are pointless.

Paul H.

 

Ouch!

Tom

 

Don't Austerities also have an issue with side to side movement when traveling at 25 mph causing track to become distorted?

 

Tell me about it! haha.

You're bang on the money (never used that term in my life, but I just typed it out then - really surprised myself). I think a new start-up would really struggle, unless they were backed by somebody with loads of £££. I make the mistake of thinking some heritage railways are 'new' but then realize they've been around for a lot longer than I think. (ie: Seems like only yesterday that I was walking around derelict Kirkby Stephen East. Then I think "Oh, that was nearly twenty years ago...")

Brilliant post. I imagine there are some railways that have, sure - authentic locos to the railway/area and please the preservationists, but they're not fit for the purpose any more because of the heavier traffic. Good point there.

 

Could be. I am in no position to confirm or deny this. However I would caution that "received opinion" is as powerful in this area as it is, for instance, in motoring matters. In other words views held which are largely repeated from what someone else has said. Very difficult to avoid in life!

PH

 

I have an opinion about industrial locos. It is simply that they are essentially fine for heritage railway use but 'industrial' and 'main line' don't mix. Once you try, you get problems. You are an industrial loco railway or a main line loco railway. I have a similar opinion with regard to steam and diesel. Railways that try and mix the two, end up with problems. I'm not talking about the use of diesels for shunting/thunderbird/etc., but in normal service.

I've said it several times before but big wheels are no detriment to running at 25 mph. A steam engine produces maximum torque at minimum revs. If you disagree, tell me why I am wrong?

 

i would have thought that a railway portraying the period when steam handed over to diesel would be how most enthusaists today remember it and thus really popular

 

Clearly if this were entirely correct no-one would have created specialist machines for low speed work. Heritage railways are low speed work. Forgive me but I fear you are looking for an excuse to run bigger machinery than the job justifies. This costs!

PH