92134

One could potentially make the argument that, if the NYMR want to take 92134 to Whitby, and if they were able to get approval from NR for this, then as the instigators behind this they should be the ones to pay for the fitment of the necessary equipment. Besides, we don't know exactly what the agreement is between 92134's owners and the NYMR and who pays for what, it's possible the NYMR are already providing some financial support for the 9F in some way shape and form

 

I'm pretty certain (but not quite 100%) that there are no problems with common crossings (please not frogs with is an American term which for some reason has been adopted by railway modellers). There is no real need for wing rails on common crossings, other than the practicality of building them, unlike check rails, which are fundamental to the safe operation of turnouts. The high wing rails that you are referring to are probably simply due to wear as the wing rails don't get any and look to be much higher on worn crossings.

With regard to 92220, it has certainly been to Whitby in the past (in 1987 according to Wiki but that seems late to me). I don't know whether this was a unique event in terms of 9F's or whether others had done so in steam days but I have my doubts about the latter.

 

I understand that there is another problem in relation to the 9Fs fllangless driving wheel. These days the widespread use of axle counters instead of track circuits on the network depends on a wheel flange depressing the counter to operate it. Running a loco without a flange on one of its wheels is likely to confuse the hell out of the system. I know that there are no axle counters at Whitby (yet) but I wouldn't expect to see a 9F there or anywhere else on the network.

Peter

 

Back in the 70s and 80s I'm pretty certain BR fitted some high speed points and crossings with cast manganese common crossings which had raised wing rails. Though the flangeless centre driver would have to have moved quite a way across to be in any danger of hitting them.

 

Can't you just type it into the system as a 2-8-0

Tom

 

First we’ve heard of this at Grosmont shed

 

I don't think you type anything into the system Tom. It works by counting the axles of a train as it passes. A flangeless wheel may be counted at some points and not at others and the system then thinks the train is incomplete. The job then stops while they try to figure out what has gone wrong. Think of it like a track circuit failure.

I'm sure that there are others on the forum who understand the operation of axle counters much better than I do.

Peter

 

I might have gotten confused with another pair of locomotives though I was told this back in May which of course clearly got out of date then. But if anyone does have the best knowledge of stuff like that it will of course be those at Grosmont and closely associated with 92134.

 

As I said, not 100% certain and happy to be corrected. However, I’ve never seen any and I can’t see any logic in having them. What would be the benefit?

 

I’d have thought that so long as the counters act consistently then there’s no problem - they count the axles into a section and then out again. (BTW I never realised that they rely on physical contact - I assumed it was some kind of proximity system or beam).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Axle counters don't rely on the flange to 'depress' anything. They're a contactless device which generates an electro-magnetic field and which detects the change in this field when a lump of metal passes through it. I've no idea if they've ever been thoroughly tested with flangeless driving wheels (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans have done it, they have a lot of 2-10-0 locos; I've never looked at the centre driving wheels to see if they have flanges though). My guess, though, would be that axle counters would detect flangeless driving wheels perfectly reliably and at most there might need to be some sort of trial data to add it to the relevant safety case.

 

German 2-10-0s don't have flangeless centre drivers. I believe the rear axles have some lateral movement and there's some articulation in the rear set rods. Plus their track isn't built with the sort of tight radiuses that are common in the UK.

 

OK, thanks, so that would make obtaining test data more difficult. I think the rest of my post stands though.

 

I can't comment on them having sideplay on the rear axle but the DRG standard 2-10-0's such as the class 44's & 50's have the first set of coupled wheels in a Krauss-Helmholz bogie with the leading pony wheels in order to negotiate curves more easily.
Ray.

 

Now I'm back home Steve, I've dug out a picture I took of 92220 at Whitby on Sun 11/10/87 while working some Whitby - Goathland shuttles for BR that day

The loco had spent the summer of 1986 on the railway, including some weeks marooned at Pickering due to a landslip at Beck Hole that severed the railway. In 1987 it was only on the railway for the weekend (or was it just for the day?)

Peter

 

I'm just wondering if there would be anything to gained by testing an axle counter with a 9F on a heritage railway, just to see how consistently it works. Having said that, there may be hundreds of axle counters on NR, all with different sensitivities. I'm just guessing, though.

 

https://myproducts-thales.com/products/axle-counter-systems/az-lm

Is a link to an axle counter system in use on the Cherwell Valley and Oxford North to Bicester Village routes. It provides explanation on how they work and the components that make up the system.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

The flanges on the driving axles are pretty thin, all the same. Not quite good enough to shave with, but ... ...
The driving sets from 3-cylinder locos seem to be popular as gate guardians, and show this quite well.
Pat

 

If a 9F owner wanted to go main line and this was raised as an issue, I'm sure there would be a heritage railway willing to house the kit for a trial.
I can think of 3 or 4 different makes of Axle Counter, and I'm not sure if all are approved for use in the UK, but you'd need to test all of those which are, unless either (a) someone has done it already or (b) you are only going on a specific route and can demonstrate that there aren't any there.

The raised check rails are more of a problem, really. If you could prove that there weren't any on a specific route then you might be onto something. Not knowing the area, I'm unsure if that is the case between Grosmont and Whitby; it would only take one set of points to have been relaid with raised check rails in the last 30 years to make the whole route unviable.

Beyond that section of line, I can't see much of a case for fitting all of the modern safety gubbins on a freight loco which would be severely limited by viable routing options as well as top speed. How would the cost ever be recouped?

 

2-8-2. Simples.