49395 Super D, Will it run again ?

I suppose the positive spin to all of this is that should it be put back into steam for another cycle at some point in time it won't require anything like the massive reconstruction it needed last time thanks to Pete Waterman. By all accounts at the time it really was a total basket case and all but hopeless in many peoples eyes.

So congratulations PW - you really did make a difference to this one

 

What could have been changed apart from a bigger and back closed cab for rainy days?
It is one of my favourites.Ran as three-cylinder compound once

 

Basically, the controls were placed anywhere with the crew having to reach up to the roof for the brake, and down to the floor for the water valves. There was no scale to the reverser; the driver had to go to full gear and then count the turns back, and remember where it was to make any adjustments or do it by ear. The fireman, until he got the hang of it, was forever smashing his knuckles on the handbrake handle. The regulator was the double beat type, and if the water level was a bit on the high side, could be impossible to close. In view of their appalling brakes, this was definitely not good.

LNWR men got used to them and generally had a grudging respect; L&YR and Midland men hated them with a vengeance. It was not unknown for one of these, on hearing that he had a D, to go home and ring in sick, thereby losing a day's wages.

 

Thank You.
Nothing fundamentally unsolvable.
Rebuild it as a 0-8-2 tank with Webb three compound cylinders.
It will be a much better money earner for the lucky heritage railway.
Much more interesting to explain for grandchildren,kinder to track and crew ,better fuel ecconomy etc.
Joy on one outside,Stephenson inside and Walscharts on the other outside.
Not more artificial than Tornado or P2.

 

While we are at it, can we have a Drummond T7 please? Lots of cylinders, Stephenson valve gear inside, Joy valve gear outside and lots to explain to the grandchildren, not least why it is simultaneously trying to go both backwards and forwards ...

Tom

 

Robert Urie made the H15 as a copy of the german P8 from 1906 in 1913.
It it sign of ability to copy something good.
The same Urie considered to put outside Stepenson on T7 in 1913 but then something horrible happened in Europe.
What he could have done was to put a Joy or Walscharts to one outside high pressure cylinder moved up between boggie wheels and put a single low pressure between frames
and couple up the driving wheels.It was considered unsafe to have coupling rods longer than 10 feet but the latest irish 4-4-0 had ten feet ten I think.

 

If you are referring to the GNRI VS class, the coupling rods were 10' 8"

Keith

 

Urie's notable contribution to locomotive design was to simplify as much as possible and improve general accessibility and reliability, while making inroads into superheating. Perhaps not surprising given that his previous employment had been as the Nine Elms and then Eastleigh Works Manager under Drummond, and he was doubtless fully aware of the real costs of maintaining Drummond's locos; and the proper balance between maintenance cost and thermal efficiency gained from excess complexity. The complex boilers with maintenance-heavy cross water tubes were reworked as quickly as possible; as were the fragile Drummond "water cart" tenders into the robust, reliable double bogie type that came to typify the later Eastleigh large locos.

Given all that, I cannot think of a loco less likely to have come from his pen than an asymmetrical compound with mis-matched sets of valve gear!

Still, we digress from Crewe...

Tom

 

You forgot to mention the injectors
Or the lubrication.
Or the tender handbrake.
Or its inability to make steam.
Or the valve gear.
Don't let the fitters get started on the thing, as well!

 

I very much hope the Super D will run again. It is one of my great regrets that I never saw her during her first ticket. I was still at school when she first returned to steam, so it was not so easy for me to travel about the country on my own; and she spent most of her time in the North of England, whereas I was in the South!

Eventually, when she was rostered for her final gala appearance at the East Lancs, I made a special journey to see her...and she failed

As for the footplate crews' problems. All I can say is, if you offered me the chance to fire her, I would jump at it...although whether I would actually have enough experience to make her steam is another matter!

 

Cracking bit of kit had loads of driving turns on it when I was at cvr and going as owners rep with it good strong free steaming loco in the right hands. Scares most crews when first get on it but once you beat it it does everything you could ask of it bit like an s160 fantastic kit if you no how to handle it

 

Won't argue on the first two and I mentioned the brakes in general, but their steaming was alright if the fireman knew how: they ran best with a thin fire evenly spread, not the Midland way at all. The Austin 7s' boiler was virtually a repeat of the Ds' boiler and was noted for good steaming, one of the few good points of the class. The main problem with the injectors wasn't that they didn't work but you that you couldn't see this as the overflows were out of sight near the loco centre line. The Joy's gear gave decent steam distribution, especially for the times, but at some risk to connecting rod breakage and possible catastrophic consequences. No compensation was ever made for weight growth over time, and as the gear employed a vertical component, this gave the engines their very odd beat.

 

I can only speak from experience with 49395 but it was generally a struggle for steam when on the NYMR. You could have water or steam but not both at the same time so it was always a case of mortgaging one against the other. At least it would still go with relatively low pressure. We agree on the injectors. In the dark they were a nightmare. The reference to the handbrake, again relative to 49395 and may be unique, was the fact that there was no stop on the handbrake and, if you wound it too far off, it fell apart. I never investigated it but I'm sure that, if it was a simple fix, it would have happened. Again, with the valve gear, the mounting of the bearing blocks for the reversing shaft was wrong so you could only shim in the wrong axis. A fun day, though, if you were up you were up to the challenge and, like everything that is regular, you get used to it.

 

I remember when it was on the NYMR, waiting on the platform at Goathland and watching it struggling up the hill from Grosmont. It seemed to take forever and there was clearly something not quite right. My guess at the time was falling boiler pressure, and your observations would appear to confirm that.

Dave

 

The LNWR was a proper railway *company*, not a frivolous quasi-amateur organisation like some others with their flashy liveries, staff comforts, logical classification systems and what not.
One of the many things I love about the LNW is the simple but dogged perversity of utterly refusing to have any locomotive classification system, except of course for the 0-8-0s. And when they did have one for the 0-8-0s, naturally no one used it (Ever heard anyone call it a G2a rather than a Super D? They were essentially a superheated version of a Class D).
Even Class G2 wasn't their *official* classification. On the diagram they are described as "8-w.c. Coal 20in Superheat Locomotive Class". Catchy, isn't it?
Likewise the class everyone calls Jumbo's were officially the "6'6'' straight link passenger engines (renewed)" or semi-officially the Renewed Precedent. Naturally, they were only nominal renewals, being essentially entirely new engines.
Class letters and numbers were not for real railways, apparently.
You've got to love that Crewe sass, all very late Victorian.

 

and in spite of their alleged fragility ,NW engines achieved astounding mileages ,both in total and between general repairs .
Charles Dickens 2000000 + Miles in 20 years . Jeanie Deans 1000000 miles in 10 years . and they were not that far in front of other class members .

FS barely got past a million in 40 years including a rebuild

 

Credited with well in excess of 2 million miles by 1963 at the time of withdraway by B.R. So what pointless point are you trying to make? Or are you just a fanboy suffering from sour grapes?

 

what pointless point are you trying to make .?
F/S 1.3 M miles at withdrawal
withdrawaway ? new word ! well done

 

FFS don't mention the Scottish play. Even if the super D encapsulates everything inadequate about pregrouping loco's it was still the fasteset Take-off out of Keighley I have had the fortune to experience ( maybe the Regulator and/ or valve gear was stuck...)

 

That's a distinct possibility!