North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Leaking tubes are usually an easy fix; initially that is. The trouble is, once they start they tend to do it with increasing regularity until eventually it becomes an almost daily occurrence. This is what happened with 76079. The only solution then is a re-tube.
Although the line is rated as RA7 locomotives up to RA9 are permitted subject to speed restrictions over certain bridges so a Scot or a Jubilee would be permitted, subject to gauging. The question then becomes whether they would go round the curves and I suspect they would.

 

Sounds like potentially reasonable news if 30926 can at least be patched up and kept running for the peak season at least. IIRC, when 5690 visited the NYMR back in the 1980s it was said at the time to be not very happy going round the curves at Goathland summit. They have probably been eased since then and even LNER pacifics get round them OK, but 60007 wasn't very happy with the ones at Whitby and so the Jubs and Scots (which I think have longer fixed wheelbases than Black 5s) might not be either- but do NYMR services now encounter the worst curves?

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/61796596150/permalink/10163289063601151/

68030 is on the way to the NYMR

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk

 

Part of the deal that saw 80136 gifted to the Railway. It will be interesting to learn the future plans for it.

 

Call me cynical, but when it does get back into service, what can it actually do?
Surely it isn't expected to pull normal service trains, it maybe a good engine but it isn't THAT powerful.

 

........and your evidence for that statement is? Presumably you weren't around, or sufficiently sentient to notice, when classmate "Antwerp" was in regular use on heavy trains between Grosmont and Pickering (mid 1980s)? It may not have been ideal but it did the job at a time when there was a shortage of big engines, so there's no reason to think 68030 couldn't be used on lighter low season services, but even if it can't it could still be hired out to generate useful income.

 

There's quite a bit it could do. Early and late season trains aren't generally 7 coach sets. Unless there is a change of mind, the idea of dragging such trains around all year long as gone, even with the Whitby trains and five coach sets and even four are relatively common. Back in the day when 'Twerp was a regular engine (because there wasn't much else) it used to handle 6 coach trains, even with the inevitable Austerity leaking glands. Its main problem was it was a fickle steamer. A suggested conversion to oil firing could hopefully cure that. There's also plenty of scope for hiring out, although I'm not convinced there is a good business case to overhaul it just for that reason. The boiler is already under overhaul with Allan Schofield at Heritage Rail Traction although I don't know how advanced that is, nor do I know the state of the mechanical bits currently on their way to Grosmont.

 

I have to admit that I'm also dubious whether it would be worth overhauling just to hire out but if it could be kept gainfully employed that way bin the peak season and relieve the load on the bigger engines in the low season - there seems little point in using 92134 on 4-5 coach trains! - then it seems to me that it could prove to be very useful, and add a bit of variety to the ASG!

 

Sorry, haven't got time. Too busy fixing all the damage that 257 Squadron did to our track and bridges....

 

There isn't any plans to overhaul the loco straight away, it will await resources (both human and loco) to then start

 

Oh yes? Please do tell us more...... I take it that its visit was not a great success then?

Peter

 

Peter I think it is a response to post #640 here. Made me smile anyway.

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/kent-east-sussex-railway.908661/page-32

 

I think your sarcasm detector needs repairing!

 

Right, Ok - I've clearly missed something here, but I'm still not quite sure what.

Peter

 

Ah, got it thanks Gary. I had forgotten about that exchange from some months ago. It had me worried for a few minutes about 34072.

Peter

 

As a sort of PS to my post above, I've just watched 92134 depart from Grosmont with the 16.30. Its train consisted of four coaches. That's well within the capacity of an Austerity.

 

Rated 4F , so whatever factors might be considered on an 18-mile line these locos are very capable in haulage terms

Jon

 

That's an old argument that fails to take into account suitability for the job in hand, such as firebox and boiler capacity, bearing sizes, water and coal capacity and so on. They were, after all, designed as shunters, not for use over longer distances. There's no getting around the fact that, for a four-five coach train, the Austerity will be perfectly adequate, but a Lambton tank or J27 will almost certainly be a better tool for the job and, had it stayed on the NYMR, "Moorbarrow" would have been worse. Look at Bagnalls "Victor" and "Vulcan" for an example of a powerful shunting engine that proved to be rather unsuccessful on longer runs - or was it just the WSR crews that didn't know how to manage them?

 

Having seen 60 and 29 at NTSR, it really drives home how short the coupled wheelbase of the austerity really is.