Sweeps Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Is Evening Star our least worked locomotive and therefore is it in excellent condition now? I know it only had a working life of only 5 years but did run in preservation but not sure how long, so is it the least used and therefore capable of being returned to steam with minimal effort? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Or, to re-open a can of worms somewhat past its sell-by date, is the preserved 92220 the same locomotive outshopped and named ceremonially at Swindon in 1960? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 Well out of boiler ticket of course so it would need a lot of boiler work (probably retubing and maybe at least some stays replaced, definitely all of them to test). It has spent a lot of time standing around so the bearings might well need work. Oh and of course it's banned from the national network so could only ever run on preserved type railways. As there are other 9Fs about I doubt teh NRM would be prepared to spend any money on it and might not even be over keen to let it out on loan in view of its historical significance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeps Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 But it can't have seen much use, can it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 But it can't have seen much use, can it? A reasonable amount I would think although it was a bit of a 'glamour' engine when at Canton so it did some passenger work (at quite high speeds) and of course it had a session on the the S&DJt which wasn't exactly a cushy life. I can't find any reference anywhere to its mileage run on BR but as it was in traffic for 5 years it was probably shopped at least once albeit only for an intermediate. Some of the other late built 9Fs didn't last all that much longer but probably accummulated more mileage but then in reality what does mileage matter apart from bearing wear. The main thing is boiler condition and the life of tubes and stays and they are as much age related as mileage related (with reasonable maintenance). In theory 92220 should be in no better or worse condition than any other (F with a similar mileage on the clock and the same boiler state/age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 Mike, Why is it banned ? Speeding ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Just two points. One is that a 9F has to be transported via a lorry if it's visiting any railway, therefore a expensive loco it visit anywhere and slightly over powered for most railways. Also the odd one or two PW Depts will come out with a few four lettered words if they know one is visiting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dava Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 18, 2014 Evening Star had an overhaul at Didcot about 1980 then ran extensively mainline, such as the Scarborough Spa & Cumbrian Mountain Express, until the ER banned it because the flange less center drivers could foul point crossings. It was retired by the NRM on the grounds of its historical significance, but mechanical condition and tyre thickness is good, it would of course need a full boiler overhaul. After the Scotsman debacle, the NRM does not have the appetite for another steam loco overhaul. Dava Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2014 Mike, Why is it banned ? Speeding ? Flangless centre driver causes problems on point work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2014 Flangless centre driver causes problems on point work. Seems to be an odd reason - how ? Does it drop off the rail head into the gap ? And why is it a problem now and not when the 9F were made, and it's not a problem on heritage lines ? ( slight off topic, sorry). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2014 Seems to be an odd reason - how ? Does it drop off the rail head into the gap ? And why is it a problem now and not when the 9F were made, and it's not a problem on heritage lines ? ( slight off topic, sorry). Current NR group standards do not permit wheels without flanges which immediately bars the 9F but allows the use of the Stanier designed 8Fs on the national network. The reason for this is due to the evolution in running and check rail profiles and dimensions since the days of steam which increases the chance of derailment occurring, particularly at anything approaching a sensible speed for mainline steam operations. The only way this can be resolved is if NR went back to more traditional profiles, which clearly isn't going to happen. Ultimately you can forget any chance of seeing a 9F out on the main line again - it simply isn't going to happen. Unlike NR of course, Heritage railways can of course apply their own standards based on the characteristics of their own trackwork and mainly thanks to their lower line speed plus the use of older and more traditional rail profiles, the risk of derailment caused by the lack of a flange on the middle set of drivers is something they feel is minimal. Any attempts to compare the use of 9Fs on such lines and their potential suitability for the mainline network is fundamentally flawed due the quite considerable trackwork differences present between the two most of which will be invisible to the casual observer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2014 Thanks for that, all perfectly clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 It isn't so much rail profiles per se, but modern crossings often have raised check rails. On the tighter crossings a flangeless wheel could foul and ride up over them, and although a derailment would be unlikely, it would certainly damage both loco and track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2014 It isn't so much rail profiles per se, but modern crossings often have raised check rails. On the tighter crossings a flangeless wheel could foul and ride up over them, and although a derailment would be unlikely, it would certainly damage both loco and track. And 92220 did of course become derailed in exactly that way which is why the ban started when investigation found that the flangeless wheelset didn't get along with some modern patterns of crossing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
92220 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 It might be obvious from my username what I think, but I wish they would return 92220 to steam! I imagine that the sums spent on Flying Scotsman, plus the 9F mainline ban, mean that the NRM is very unlikely to do this because it is impossible to justify the expenditure. Boiler and bearing work notwithstanding, it must be in better basic condition than FS was before the recent work, but that's not really the deciding factor. An alternative would be for them to renumber and name the lined green 92214 as ES, even if only temporarily. Plenty of locos adopted different identities, and many were on replacement boilers, wheels, frames etc etc to the point where they were original only in terms of name. To see it with 12 on along the GC would be well worth it. Iain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The thing is, though, what would actually be achieved by putting 92220 back into steam? As we know, she wouldn't be allowed out on NR metals, she's too big for many preserved lines and there are several other examples of the class both in service and being restored. Sadly I cannot see Evening Star steaming again any time soon, if ever. This is, I'm afraid, one occasion where the head has to overrule the heart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25901 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I think that with limited funds and people , the NRM could do well to look at there smaller steam locos for use on there brake van rides and for loan to other railways. It would be nice to see them deal with the smaller stuff instead of the grand projects Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Well, 9F's may be big, but you can still give them a good thrash on a preserved line, albeit not for long! Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQSHCtQyiQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2014 In terms of historical significance Evening Star is one of the few preserved steamers which is genuinely historically significant in its own right as opposed to be representative of something significant. I'd love to see it steam on the main line but sadly for all the reasons commented upon in this thread think it is unlikely. The 9F's were a splendid looking design and in lined green I think Evening Star was a glorious looking machine, a wonderful closing last hurrah for British mainline steam. On the question of whether it is the same locomotive, I think nowadays it tends to be fogotten just how maintenance intensive steamers were and even when they were in mainline service they were pretty much like Trigger's brush. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 On the question of whether it is the same locomotive, I think nowadays it tends to be fogotten just how maintenance intensive steamers were and even when they were in mainline service they were pretty much like Trigger's brush. I don't think it was a maintenance issue I think the story was that Evening Star got collision damage, was beyond economical repair, but to save face its identity was swapped with another 9F. Probably just myth, and its been done to death so I hope it does not kick off again here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Hadyn Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 92220 is stil 92220, you can still see evidence of a very heavy coming together at the front end. All the bits are stamped 92220 too. We set out to determine this one once and for all a few years ago after one of the magazines claimed she wasn't what everyone thought she was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The Earth is flat, no-one has walked on the Moon and Elvis has just left the building on his way to B&Q. Personally, I think 92220 is the original (or as original a steam loco can be etc etc). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Original or not, she is the "Star" loco at NRM as far as I am concerned. Keep her as is, clean & polished & in a prime position. I saw her in action only once, back around 1964 in a dirty state hauling a freight through Cheltenham station. Nameplates intact as well. After the Flying Scotsman debacle I wouldn't let the NRM loose on my Mamod !! Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chameleon Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I had a chat with an NRM curator once who told me the boiler was knackered. Dunno if Sir H can confirm this but regardless, if they won't cast a new cylinder block on an otherwise perfectly good V2, I doubt they would replace original parts on a prize loco with several classmates out there already. Especially one that won't be allowed to run on mainline metals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 92220 Crewe Works 09-04-1967. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.