9F Locomotives - Restrictions on Network Rail

Well it would need a big hacksaw to begin. Would it be necessary to find a spare rear pony truck? Perhaps some form of radial mounting could be devised to use the back end of the main frames. With nine preserved it would hardly lead to extinction if one still in ex-Barry condition were converted. The main disadvantage would be a loss of adhesion. A simple loss of the rearmost driving axle would bring it down to around 62.8 tonnes but some weight insertion might get it up to the level of a Duchess or a King. It's not as daft as some of the hybrids currently proposed by cannibalisation.

 

If conversion to a 2-8-2 would allow a 9F back on the main line (as well as bringing to reality one of the Riddles might-have-beens) it does bear serious consideration. It would make as much sense as some of the other projects that are moving along at various speeds.

Could you just change the tyres on the middle drivers to ones with flanges? Or would you need new wheels? Or could you add cranks to the otherwise redundant rear drivers?

 

And to think that we regularly put pennies on the railhead. When we could afford it, that is.

 

Can there be many blokes of a certain age who didn't put a penny on to the line from time to time when they were lads? Didn't one of the films - Titfield or Railway Children - start like that? I must admit I never thought of it causing distress to the footplate crew, although where I would have done it speeds were very slow, so perhaps it wasn't that bad.

Dave

 

If you are proposing just disconnecting the rear wheel set then the rearmost three sets of wheels would need to be swopped around and /or retyred and/or rebalanced, and you would have to introduce a bit of controlled play onto the rear wheel set.
( and it would look odd)
Ditching the rearmost drivers and marrying up the rearmost part of the locomotive with new extension frames, trailing truck and adding a new firebox and cab ( the Clan dimensions would interface quite well) is an alternative.
Some serious design approval hoops to jump through there . and the loco wouldn't quite be as good in manyrespects as an original 9F.... But it would have some usefull attributes, especially if a 60mph derog could be granted... dream on

 

Sorry, I was taking as read replacing the rear drivers by a pony truck, probably similar to that on a Britannia, and appropriate alteration of the frames to accommodate that, but presuming no change to the boiler, firebox or cab, and wondering how little else you could get away with.

 

Just from looking at the general drawings you would have to amend the Pacific extension frames and stretchers to incorporate a boiler support in the right position and make the cab a 3 window affair with enough room for the fireman to take a run up...
Might as well re design the ashpan to make use of the space available as well
If there was 9F with wasted rear frames, a Firebox past the point of no return and a broken wheelset.....

 

No chance of a radial as per Aspinall's 2-4-2s?

 

If I remember correctly 92167 ran as a 2-8-2 before being withdrawn.

 

Indeed https://www.flickr.com/photos/glevumblues/6963715462/

 

It was afaik observed in this condition but there is no evidence to suggest that it ran under its own power as a 2-8-2.

The story as I understand it was that the rods were removed after a failure & the loco was 'dragged' by a diesel

 

Don't even have to be a certain age, I had a S160 + N7 smash a 2P* into oblivion the other year

*The monetary type, not a Derby built Caravan.

 

Did you glue it down? I have always found the coin flies off as soon as the first wheel hits and the problem is finding it.

 

Yep, in post 29. Not so sure about the Krauss-Helmholtz truck tho'........

Cheers,

Alan

 

Likewise.

 

The original specification was flangeless because the rigid wheelbase was likely to spread track, break chairs and distort points without this relief. These days track is more robust and most of the colliery / industrial sites where poor track and tight radii were found have gone. If NR is to be convinced some brave soul will have to have a centre wheelset re-tyred and tested on some heritage railways.

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper to create a Vampire simulated model ?
. I think the data they have would assume a Roller bearing axlebox, if s P2 is going to be allowed out then if it passes a 9F should be no problem

 

My suggestion is based on the availability of 9F hulks with a low prospect of restoration owing to (1) the numbers already done and (2) the fact that they cannot go on the main line.

 

Yes John I think we are in agreement but looking at the problem from a different angle
Proving a decapod with flanges on all wheels wouldn't be a problem to the Network, might encourage a few of those Hulks to be restored more quickly.

But fitting one up in real; life with a centre wheel flange ( a few grand), arranging tests, ( a few more grand) and potentially damaging a section of track that has to be relaid ( a few more grand and a lose-lose scenario) is a brave move
Producing a model and running it through a simulator though still costing a few grand might be a wiser first step ?
Producing a Model of your ' converted to a 2-8-2' loco and simming that would be a mandatory step in any case...