9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

Please think a bit more about what you have written - there is such a thing as Cause & Effect.

The reasons why the majority see reasons for not returning a 9F to the mainline is precisely because ANY proper analysis of the situation does indeed mitigate against a positive outcome!

That analysis is not going to change any time soon - even if you do chuck money and 3rd party manpower at it. In fact as more and more of the nations railway is renewed, the proportion of track free of raised check rails will only decline, making things harder, not easier.

 

Take the tyres off the centre drivers and run it as a 2-8-0; it'll look the same and a 19-tonne axle load won't trouble today's track.

 

Has any official formal "proper analysis" been carried out?
Whilst I respect you seem knowledgable like several others, most of what has been written seems informed hypothesis rather than reported findings. How is the ban documented in fact?

 

I think it very unlikely but perhaps the only way it could happen is if Network Rail or one of the largest ToCs were very keen to do it themselves for some (unfathomable at the moment) reason. Like LUL 150 in 2013. No loco owner or tour operator would have thought they'd ever be allowed to run steam hauled wooden-bodied trains on an UndergrounD line through the heart of London - but one day LUL came knocking complete with all the in-house resources needed to solve the numerous technical and regulatory dificulties.

 

No an official / formal / propper anyaysis has not been undertaken - but you don't undertake such an analysis (which will take LOTS of time and money to perform) unless there is reason to believe that it will be produce worthwhile results.

Virtually every business idea / proposal that has ever happened (which is ultimately what the concept of running a 9F on the mainline is) and however successful it might be has had to get past that 'is it worth investing time and money in it question.

Much like the 'let's reopen xyz railway' that appear from time to time - it's all very easy to campaign for / suggest things on Internet fourums, but that means nothing unless someone is prepared to invest time and money in progressing things in the real world. In the case of the 9F, the fact that no established loco opperator has thought it worthwhile to take such steps speaks volumes.....

 

Correct - although 'regulatory issues' are a red herring as regards the 9F. The reasons why the 9F has been banned are entirely technical - regulations wise it is no different to any other steam locomotive which operate on the National Rail Network.

 

The problem with raised checked rails is associated, I believe, with a certain type of cast manganese steel crossing nose with an integral raised check rail (which looks a bit like a projecting flat plate). I understand that this type is no longer being installed, so the problem should not be growing. The difficulty may be that there is no definitive information as to where these crossing noses are located.

 

This entire debate is hypothetical and not a campaign as you put it. Folk are genuinely interested to know whether a solution could be found.
WRT an actual attempt, I know of at least two now former 9F owners that initiated feasibility discussions but were largely stonewalled from the outset. At the time there was no leverage to persuade the powers that be to even state what the formal evaluation process would be let alone apply costs to it.
Was 92220 eventually banned or did it just finish a ticket? If the latter it was a pity that another 9F was not already certified because there would have been an obligation, certainly under open access, to do the analysis to reach a definitive outcome.

 

There is one question which may have already been covered. Even if the check rail question could be solved there is the question of pathing. What speed would be allowed for the small wheel size, 45MPH? 55MPH?. Speed restrictions across junctions.? Could you fit a 9f path into our 100 - 125 MPH railway?

 

Notionally it would fall in the same band as K1/K4, 76xxx, would it not?

 

And if it were not for Mallaig how much running would they get

 

The K1 certainly is almost exclusively Jacobite for a combination of reasons predominantly that itis one of the few locos suited to that route and it suits the owners.
The K4 has worked quite extensively elsewhere, notably acouple of seasons on the Fellsman which would be meat and drink for a 9F.
The main comment though was merely in relation to the speed limit for a 9F being in the same band as the other types mentioned.

 

I was looking at the wheels of an 0-6-0 tank this weekend. It had flangeless centre driving wheels. I am almost certain that when I saw it working before preservation in the 70s it had flanges on all wheels. I also spotted an 0-6-0 diesel also had flangeless centre wheels at Foxfield. So it is not just a 2-10-0 in UK that have this it seems. But of course I would never expect to see anyone wanting to put an industrial 0-6-0 on the mainline

 

Centre flangeless driving wheels are relatively common on industrial locos. We also had underground six coupled diesel locos with them by both Hunslet and Hudswell. Great fun when the flangeless wheels drop off on a curve!
One other surviving non-industrial with flangeless wheels is the Super D 49395. I don't know of any others apart from the 2-10-0's.

 

Speculation and ideas can be put forward until the cows come home but a mainline 9F just isn't going to happen. Would any owner be prepared to pay for mainline certification, TWPS and all the other costs involved for a route restricted loco of limited use?
There will always be a use for smaller mainline locos on secondary such as Cromer, Whitby etc. Of the three locos mentioned the K4 hasn't done much work on the West Highland Line, the last time it was taken up especially for the annual photographic charter and 76079 has only been there once, again for the charter.
The K1 is a powerful engine for its size and is allowed 7 Mk1s to Mallaig, the same as a Black 5. The earning capacity with steaming fees for the Jacobite must be high but I have heard that the curves and gradients on the Mallaig road knock hell out of the locos

 

As we don't have any steam Bo-Bos to sail round the curves it perhaps shows that the North British / LNER had the right idea of double-headed 4-4-0s.

 

I think you'll find that the derailments of the 1Co-Co1 diesel classes (Classes 40 / 45 / 46) at Glasgow Central and the consequent Incident Reports plus the regular checks of 92220 after main line runs have provided the evidence that suggests these and modern rail are incompatible. IF - and it's a big IF - testing is to be undertaken the questions of when and where (on today's crowded network) can the necessary tests be undertaken - and who will foot the bill ?

Sadly we old-timers have to accept the constraints of the modern railway and realise that opportunities will decrease for main line running as we return to the early days when only certain routes were able to accept steam running.

 

ckp railway surely?

*hides*

Patrick

 

Clearly an impetus will only arrive if a body with the will and the means emerges, which is sadly highly unlikely. Perhaps the more realistic option would be like 5521 fitted with air brakes and operating on the continent.
Only being vaguely aware of the 1co-co1 problem, what was done to facilitate D345 on the main line?

 

The LNER transferred some K2s and built the K4s for the WH and it then became almost exclusively worked by 2-6-0s