92212

Is 92212 no longer planned to return to the mainline, or will she just be running on preserved lines?

 

I believe that she has effectively been banned from the mainline due to her flangeless wheels conflicting with modern pointwork. I'm sure someone better qualified than me will fill in the gaps!!

 

I had a feeling that her flangeless wheels would have an effect. Thanks for the reply. It will be nice to see her at the end of this year.

 

That is correct! This has been discussed in previous threads in recent months. Although she was done to mainline standards in running, she failed because of the centre wheels from memory not running on the pointwork - Hence, possibility of derailment.

 

If I can remember, there was a risk of the flangeless wheels riding up and over the pointwork, potentially causing the centre driving wheel to derail, which would lead to dire consequences when the rear two follow suit. Its a worthwhile precaution, although it is a shame we won't see a 9F on the 'Big Railway' again...

 

Since 1968 there have been some alterations to the allowable heights of check rails, I believe that the check rail may now be up to 6.5mm higher than the running rail. The concern was with the flangless wheel running higher than the rest it may encourage the following wheelsets to ride up on sharp curves and drop the flange on the rail head or outside the rail.

 

How feasible is it to fit flanged tyres onto teh centre driving wheelset?

 

Depends on how tight a curve you need to go through, although it should be possible, from an engineering viewpoint, to fit flanged tyres in lieu of the current flangeless ones

I might be wrong, but I can't imagine that the driving axle has much in the way of built-in sideplay; it wouldn't be needed with flangeless wheels. BUt with that length of rigid wheelbase, there would have to be quite a lot - which might not be acceptable -or a restriction on the minimum radius of curve allowed. This would be a problem, at least in sidings, and certainly so on preserved lines.

 

On a positive note however, consider just how much use a small-wheeled loco would actually be on the National Network. All credit to Carnforth though for enabling their 8F to run on passenger trains, even if at 50 mph or so you tend to think "thats not what it was designed for"!

Again to be positive, a 9F on a heritage line is not going to be over-taxed, and so will not wear out too quickly.

I bet--for instance--the NYMR would not refuse one!

46118

 

I'm not sure about that - there are no plans to restore the WD 2-10-0 at the moment, suggesting they're not necessarily overkeen on 2-10-0s; there are more bits to wear out and maintain than a 4-6-0 and perhaps a bit harder on the track?

 

One of the reasons the WD at the NYMR hasnt been overhauled yet is because in its last ticket it ran over 100,000 miles in 10 years. The loco was very useful and was used alot, it now needs alot of work having run all those miles. The NYMR needs to find the right place and the right time financially to put it into the works.

Alex

 

I don't know about that! 92220 was very popular on its two visits and I don't think it was regarded as a track basher. The WD gets pushed to the back of the queue as it is literally worn out and requires a lot of pennies spending on it. It racked up the mileage - 107103 miles - in its 10 year stint between overhauls so it wasn't as if it was a problem loco. Incidentally, I think that this is by far the greatest mileage run by any preserved loco BETWEEN overhauls.

 

Regarding 92212 and the ML : I heard that the safety equipment (OTMR etc.) for ML running has been removed from the 9F during it's current overhaul and is going to be put on 70000 Britannia.

 

Although they are both powerfull 2-10-0's, in terms of ride and build quality the WD's and 9F's are miles apart, which i would imagine makes am 9F more desireable.

A thought straight out of the model world - would fitting thinner tyres to the centre driving wheels allow them to ride up over the check rails rather than foul them and risk derailment ?, might change the way the loco is sprung and weight distrubution but when you had 5 driving axles to begin with the increase in axle load would be minimal.

 

Regarding speed, I recall doing 66mph behind 92220 on the York circle in the 80s - faster anyone?

Dave

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

 

Oh yes. The very famous "90 with a 9" run.

Yes. One did get properly timed down Stoke Bank at 90 mph.

I can't find the report of it at present, but it caused quite a stir in the railway press and the timing community at the time. I think it was in the Railway Magazine they discussed the run, and the speed those small wheels would have been going!

I think the circumstances were that the train loco on an up express failed somewhere near Grantham and the 9f was substituted.

There was also just one other instance of a 90mph with a 9f, (not the multiple instances that web reports would have you believe). I think maybe in East Anglia somewhere.

I would guess someone on this Forum may well have the magazine issue concerned and could post the correct facts here. Very early 1960s, again from memory.

 

Re the above.

Have found this online, which adds just a little to my post.

From the details that were published, (all those years ago!), I think the 2-10-0 just reached 90 mph. It didn't exceed it as the above report states.

The National Railway Museum page on the class also make mention of 90mph. But incorrectly infers that it was maybe done quite a few times.

http://www.nrm.org.uk/collections/loco/eveningstar.asp

 

The loco recorded at 90 was 92184 on 16 August 1958.
It worked the 1.10pm Edinburgh to Kings Cross train of 14 coaches, 485t gross, between Grantham and King's Cross. The log was first published in the November 1958 issue of 'Trains Illustrated'.

That log is reproduced on page 6 of 'The Power of the 9Fs' by Oxford Publishing Co.

'Steam World' issue 256, October 2008, has an article on 9F passenger workings and a photo of 92184 on the train at Grantham that day.

 

I'm well aware of that, but you could argue that there was a choice between the WD and 45428, for example, and the Black 5 was chosen. There is a school of thought that the NYMR's curvature is not kind to a 2-10-0 chassis and although 3672 did run 100,000+ miles it was well worn out at the end of it.

This is all conjecture though - as far as I know no-one has asked the NYMR if they'd like a 9F yet! Perso9nally, I'd love to see one there again.

 

92220 put up some interesting performances during the time it was based at Didcot in the 1980's....

would be interested to see some of the timing logs for the runs it did to Stratford ---- and on the Welsh Marches..

Ian