Remaining Ex Barry locomotives?

In reality, is any steam engine great to work on, I don’t think it is confined to just GWR locos, lol… Removing the inside valve and piston from a Bulleid pacific whilst cramped under a smokebox takes some beating when it comes to crap jobs on steam locos, that’s before you get to something bent or broken in an oil bath….
I’d rather remove something from the inside of a GWR loco any day over this…

 

That really depends on what you are doing. Washing out a boiler or brushing down a firebox are never going to be fun tasks. However, driving and firing undoubtedly can be and that is what the previous comments have been about. There’s the enjoyable pleasure of spending the day on a Standard tank, including all the prep and disposal to the nightmare of spending the day on the Super D. It’s an all round experience, as well. Driving a Castle can be fun if you exclude the preparation. That’s where the Standard 4 tanks win. They are easy to prepare, easy to drive and fire and easy to dispose.

 

I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned the Super D.

 

Thats the nub of it Steve. I missed out (?!) on the Super D but from what I've been told by mates who had "the pleasure" it was something of an acquired taste ....
As you say, something can happen even on "the best" of locos to spoil the day but on some locos the negative one's seem to be very few and far between.
All quite subjective too because some locos favour a person of modest proportions whilst others need a big reach and large hands to operate comfortably.
All that said, I've never been happier than on an Austerity ("J94") with 4 or 5 coaches in tow. It's not as "good" as a 4MTT but perfectly decent for the job in hand. There's also a bit more of a challenge with a smaller loco, the std tank is so forgiving on most heritage lines you're unlikely to get caught out firing but with an Austerity or similar/smaller you have to be even more switched on. Which is where the fun is.

 

What makes a Super D worse than a NER 0-8-0?
Am asking because my ideal UK freight is a two cylinder compound mix of a Webb A type and a Worsdell/Raven Netta.

 

The Super D has one advantage over a NER 0-8-0 and that is a large person can get on the footplate.

 

Plenty of 2-cylinder compound heavy freight types for you in Continental Europe. I think the ultimate was the Saxon XI HV 0-10-0, built as late as 1918. But with a low pressure outside cylinder of 860mm (34 inch) diameter, it would not have fitted British station platforms.

Beyer Peacock built large 2-cylinder compounds (2-8-2 and 4-8-4T) in the late 1920s, but for export to Argentina.

No 2-cylinder compounds made it to Barry, but we do have NER No 66 "Aerolite" in York Museum.

 

I wonder if the Swanage Railway would, at its first overhaul, allow their Adams 4-4-0 to be converted on the Wordsell-Von Borries system, as per No. 445? (*)

https://1920slocomotives.blogspot.com/2014/03/111-140-early-locomotives-and-in-works.html

(*) OK - wrong class, but beggars can't be choosers.

Tom

 

My plan is to have one high pressure cylinder (22 inch?)outside and one big low-pressure cylinder (33 inch?) between frames.

 

I believe the Adams engine only worked as a compound for about 3 years, before being converted back to standard. Compounding was always a minority taste among Britain's railways, although the LMS did construct the world's most numerous type of 3-cylinder compound in the 4P 4-4-0.

2-cylinder compounds were popular across Continental Europe in the 1890s, but then declined in favour. The model did seem to remain popular for road traction engines.

Apologies for the thread drift.

 

It moved away from York to Shildon about three years ago.

Peter

 

Bradley gives the following notes on comparative trials between 446 (compound) and 448 (simple) on Waterloo - Salisbury expresses, which took place in early 1888:

446 (compound)
Coal consumption: 32.7lb / mile
Water evaporated per train-mile: 26.8 gallons / mile,
Oil and tallow: 8.1 lb / 100 miles

448 (simple)
Coal consumption: 34.2lb / mile
Water: 26.1gallons / mile,
Oil and tallow: 6.2 lb / 100 miles

“The compound’s coal consumption was slightly lower, but insufficient to compensate for the extra cost and the greater use of oil and tallow, so after working 83,272 miles, No. 446 was returned to simple on March 1891.”

Tom

 

The Belfast & Northern Counties (later NCC) was a fairly prolific user of Worsdell-von Borries compounds, in both standard* and narrow gauges.
Pat
* Yes, I know it's not 4'8½"