Jump to content
 

Prototype for everything corner.


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Western Aviator said:

A Class 50 on a freightliner on the WR was a very infrequent occurrence. This video features 50046 at Bristol Temple Meads in 1989:

 

 

 

An excellent nostalgic video. Thanks for livening up my hot and humid afternoon. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The van looks to be lettered as a " COV AB", if you look through the signal ladder you can just make out the vacuum pipe. It was a through pipe, so no brake when operating in vacuum. The van in the earlier photo of D820 Grenville would be of the same type. The code was later changed to VAB and then VAA when the through pipe had been removed.

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

Class 50, Stanier?? BSK and a brand new VAA

 

D432 Carnforth 1971 by KDH Archive

 

71 015 170471 D432 Carnforth

 

Nice stubby signal for a prototype.

Surely the platform is not for public use with all those trip hazards?

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
37 minutes ago, montyburns56 said:

58016 on a routine Cambridge to Birmingham New Street service in 1992

 

58016 11 9 92

 

 

Those Cambridge - New Street trains were a real throwback - I went that way c. 1987: five, I think, Mk 2s, including compartment stock, and taking forever - three or maybe even four hours? I think we had a 31? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Was it actually in steam, or is the steam coming from the boiler of the Peak behind it?

 

Could be interesting if it is in steam, also more or less in full forward gear!

Edit: looking closer it seems the 'steam' is coming from somewhere behind it, also given the rust on the valvegear it's likely not been in steam for some time.

Further edit: the photo is dated May 1967, according to Wikipedia 'Clive' was withdrawn in April. Maybe a bogie problem brought about it's withdrawal or it had donated it's own to keep another loco running?

Edited by great central
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Out of interest, how far could it be moved in that condition? Could it be towed at say 20mph to a scrapyard? Or would it be confined to shed limits?

 

According to BR database it was broken up by McWilliams at Shettleston so I doubt it would have been dragged so far while missing the bogie, more than happy to be proved wrong though.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Out of interest, how far could it be moved in that condition? Could it be towed at say 20mph to a scrapyard? Or would it be confined to shed limits?

Hi Rodent,

 

The bogie may well have been defective and taken out for repair so that the locomotive could be towed to the scrapyard after being refitted. There is no way the locomotive would have been moved very far in the condition shewn as the approximately 17 tons that the bogies supports would mostly be transferred onto the leading and driving set of coupled wheels pushing them over permitted axle loadings. The limit of its movements would be from the wheel drop to the nearest space in the yard that was convenient stabling.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, the line that keeps on giving with this thread :)  


BEN_BUCKI_KWVR_Ingrow_41241_16_07_2021.jpg.e5f54d2f0a66629f0e22dcf126595924.jpg

 

Ivatt tank loco, in the freelance 'house' livery it first carried for the reopening in 1968 (and into which it was restored for the anniversary in 2018), propelling -at some speed too- a BR-era Atlas  maintenance wagon.  I was walking down to Ingrow Station, and 41241 was on a test run prior to re-entering traffic the next day, having been out of service since January.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

........ There is no way the locomotive would have been moved very far in the condition shewn as the approximately 17 tons that the bogies supports would mostly be transferred onto the leading and driving set of coupled wheels pushing them over permitted axle loadings. ........

........ but if the boiler was empty the axle loads would have been significantly reduced !

  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But not by enough! There is a substantial weight in those two cylinders, but the real problem would be a lack of side control, allowing the leading end to sway beyond the loading gauge.

 

Following the Harrow accident in 1952, 6202 was moved to Crewe on her own wheels - or some of them - at dead slow speed. A replacement bogie, probably from 6257, which was in Crewe Works at the time, was fitted under the front end. At the trailing end, the trailing truck was badly damaged when the bolsters on the hind drag box were pushed forward, so a replacement truck could not be fitted. 6257's tender, in primer, was sent to Harrow and attached to 6202's frames to provide some lateral stability during the journey.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

..... but the real problem would be a lack of side control, allowing the leading end to sway beyond the loading gauge. .....

..... though anything ( i.e. a brake van ) coupled to the leading end of the loco and screwed up tightly would have restrained that sufficiently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

But not by enough! There is a substantial weight in those two cylinders, but the real problem would be a lack of side control, allowing the leading end to sway beyond the loading gauge.

 

So move it out of hours as an Out of Gauge Load at low speed.  You'd need to check the axle weight was OK for the route.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My time as a guard came soon after the end of steam, so the situation would not have arisen. Had I started a few years earlier and I found that as part of my train, I would have refused to take it. Moving at night as an OOG load would have required lot of working out of the potential overhang, a check of clearances along the route to make sure that no platforms could be fouled, not to mention bridges and tunnels. It would be a lot easier to borrow the bogie from another engine, sling it underneath and take it that way, even if it meant returning the bogie on arrival. Moving it in that condition would be too much trouble for a simple movement of a withdrawn engine, and such a movement would be contemplated in only the most exceptional circumstances.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...