5711 What if

 
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
Since 3801 is back in the running and thoughts are now turning to what other locos are worth restoring in NSW a standard goods is one possibility and a pig another but is that giant of NSW locos 5711 restorable?

Sponsored advertisement

  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Of course it is. How big's your wallet?
  DCook Chief Train Controller

Location: The standard state
Since 3801 is back in the running and thoughts are now turning to what other locos are worth restoring in NSW a standard goods is one possibility and a pig another but is that giant of NSW locos 5711 restorable?
Mufreight
There have been many discussions on this topic in the 3801 thread and the Restoring a standard goods to operational condition thread but from what I understand THNSW is considering it, a boiler inspection was carried out earlier this year and any restoration would likely be to static due to the immense costs and maintenance problems associated with a loco of such size, in saying that it has been mentioned that any work carried out on it should not obstruct a potential return to service

Currently locomotives considered for operational overhaul by THNSW are 3203, 3616, 3820 or 30, 5711 and 5910 so there may be a chance

Unfortunately I find it highly unlikely that it will ever run again
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Since 3801 is back in the running and thoughts are now turning to what other locos are worth restoring in NSW a standard goods is one possibility and a pig another but is that giant of NSW locos 5711 restorable?
There have been many discussions on this topic in the 3801 thread and the Restoring a standard goods to operational condition thread but from what I understand THNSW is considering it, a boiler inspection was carried out earlier this year and any restoration would likely be to static due to the immense costs and maintenance problems associated with a loco of such size, in saying that it has been mentioned that any work carried out on it should not obstruct a potential return to service

Currently locomotives considered for operational overhaul by THNSW are 3203, 3616, 3820 or 30, 5711 and 5910 so there may be a chance

Unfortunately I find it highly unlikely that it will ever run again
DCook
The question must be asked, why would you conduct a boiler examination on an.engine in preparation for static restoration?
  DCook Chief Train Controller

Location: The standard state
One other thing I should have said, I really doubt THNSW is in a position to be able to restore it, there is an immense lack of communication between the board and volunteers, between the volunteers and the CEO and between the CEO and the board
To get an idea of the state that the board is in just look at their 2019 AGM report
https://a8c979a7-e97b-4cb0-8cd4-235cb93451ce.filesusr.com/ugd/367ea5_8a10b2f66f484e1c8cc708ae69631870.pdf
  a6et Minister for Railways

Since 3801 is back in the running and thoughts are now turning to what other locos are worth restoring in NSW a standard goods is one possibility and a pig another but is that giant of NSW locos 5711 restorable?
There have been many discussions on this topic in the 3801 thread and the Restoring a standard goods to operational condition thread but from what I understand THNSW is considering it, a boiler inspection was carried out earlier this year and any restoration would likely be to static due to the immense costs and maintenance problems associated with a loco of such size, in saying that it has been mentioned that any work carried out on it should not obstruct a potential return to service

Currently locomotives considered for operational overhaul by THNSW are 3203, 3616, 3820 or 30, 5711 and 5910 so there may be a chance

Unfortunately I find it highly unlikely that it will ever run again
The question must be asked, why would you conduct a boiler examination on an.engine in preparation for static restoration?
michaelgm
There has been more than a few reports regarding the condition of 5711, but the mechanical side of things and the boiler. Some years back a forme DLE from Armidale who had been a fitter and worked on the 57cl was visiting another driver friend of mine at WCK back in late 80's, he told us some interesting bits of information especially in regards to 5711. He and a couple of others had been involved in some areas of work at Thrilmere, they had an agreement with the RTM that they would do a thorough go over of the loco and be able to asses its condition, overall he said the general mechanical condition looked quite ok. The boiler also was in very good condition and an overhaul on it would not be hard to do.

I have not seen them since the meeting, the driver is over in the Pilbara now and don't know about the ex DLE.

Having each type of engine checked over as far as the boiler condition is concerned provides for the possible restoration to be carried out based on costs and in this day & age those who have worked on these engines in the past both crews and fitters and the like. Doubt there would be any big engine experienced men be alive these days, maybe some at Goulburn who were firemen on them.

One thing for certain is that I will never see it run again.
  DCook Chief Train Controller

Location: The standard state
For some information on 5711
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=4807235
Just from some of the pictures alone it is possible to see the immense level of deterioration to some parts, most notably the tender which is currently being overhauled at Valley Heights
  ssaunders Train Controller

One other thing I should have said, I really doubt THNSW is in a position to be able to restore it, there is an immense lack of communication between the board and volunteers, between the volunteers and the CEO and between the CEO and the board
To get an idea of the state that the board is in just look at their 2019 AGM report
https://a8c979a7-e97b-4cb0-8cd4-235cb93451ce.filesusr.com/ugd/367ea5_8a10b2f66f484e1c8cc708ae69631870.pdf
DCook

Would appear the Board don't like being asked about too much detail from the members, if in doubt brush off the members concerns and push them aside as if they are little people.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

One other thing I should have said, I really doubt THNSW is in a position to be able to restore it, there is an immense lack of communication between the board and volunteers, between the volunteers and the CEO and between the CEO and the board
To get an idea of the state that the board is in just look at their 2019 AGM report
https://a8c979a7-e97b-4cb0-8cd4-235cb93451ce.filesusr.com/ugd/367ea5_8a10b2f66f484e1c8cc708ae69631870.pdf

Would appear the Board don't like being asked about too much detail from the members, if in doubt brush off the members concerns and push them aside as if they are little people.
ssaunders
Isn’t that a prerequisite for ANY board membership?
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Surely in this post corona world there won't be a lot of funding sent from TfNSW to THNSW for heritage loco restoration of yet another loco, when there are already quite a few locos operating?  Particularly when there are a few steam locos in the THNSW fleet that need attention anyway?
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Surely in this post corona world there won't be a lot of funding sent from TfNSW to THNSW for heritage loco restoration of yet another loco, when there are already quite a few locos operating?  Particularly when there are a few steam locos in the THNSW fleet that need attention anyway?
"james.au"
One hundred percent agreement. If any loco is to receive enough attention to get it back onto main line steels, let's pick either 3642 or 3830 ( or other stored 36 or 38 depending upon which is the most practicable).
  DCook Chief Train Controller

Location: The standard state
Surely in this post corona world there won't be a lot of funding sent from TfNSW to THNSW for heritage loco restoration of yet another loco, when there are already quite a few locos operating?  Particularly when there are a few steam locos in the THNSW fleet that need attention anyway?
One hundred percent agreement. If any loco is to receive enough attention to get it back onto main line steels, let's pick either 3642 or 3830 ( or other stored 36 or 38 depending upon which is the most practicable).
Valvegear
3642 is considered toast, too much work on too many parts is needed, not to mention the cracks in the frame
3830's boiler is considered to be one of the most deteriorated boilers at Thirlmere and will need a full rebuild that has to be financed by the PHM as they own it. They will not give the money to THNSW as all of their money is focused on the move to Parramatta

The most likely locomotives to be overhauled in the coming years would either be 5910, it just needs major firebox repairs and wheel repairs or 3616 which needs a full restoration, primarily of the boiler and was also well liked by crews. 3616 also has the best frame condition of all the surviving 36s

A spare 59 class boiler is currently in storage at Thirlmere and could easily be fitted to 5910
There are many 36 class boilers that could be quickly reconditioned and fitted to 16
I doubt that any other 38s will be restored, 3813 for obvious reasons, 3820 as it has to be in as retired condition and 3830 owing to the reasons above

3001 is expected to be back by October and will most likely pull 2705 out of loop line service as 2705 is in need of a full overhaul
At the rate the fleet is going for all operators it is most likely that by the end of this year the following will be operational and accredited
2705(Restricted), 3001T, possibly 3112, 3237, 3265, 3526, 3801, 5917, 6029 and maybe R766
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Thanks for the informative post D Cook.

I guess I should have made one point clear in my previous post. The reason I plumped for a 36 or 38 is to provide another main line passenger loco with good hauling capability, and able to operate at line speeds.

When 3801 headed the Bicentennial Train around the country, the train to Melbourne was scheduled to have 4472 Flying Scotsman double heading with the 38. When it became apparent that this was not going to be possible, 3642 was the next obvious choice but it ran a hot axle box and damaged the journal the weekend before. This meant that 5910 was drafted to assist between Campbelltown and Wagga Wagga. 5910 was restricted to 80 km/h, and the train steadily lost time all day. (Source: "Diary of the Bicentennial Train"by Tony Gogarty and Ron Preston).
  studdo Locomotive Fireman

Since 3801 is back in the running and thoughts are now turning to what other locos are worth restoring in NSW a standard goods is one possibility and a pig another but is that giant of NSW locos 5711 restorable?
There have been many discussions on this topic in the 3801 thread and the Restoring a standard goods to operational condition thread but from what I understand THNSW is considering it, a boiler inspection was carried out earlier this year and any restoration would likely be to static due to the immense costs and maintenance problems associated with a loco of such size, in saying that it has been mentioned that any work carried out on it should not obstruct a potential return to service

Currently locomotives considered for operational overhaul by THNSW are 3203, 3616, 3820 or 30, 5711 and 5910 so there may be a chance

Unfortunately I find it highly unlikely that it will ever run again
The question must be asked, why would you conduct a boiler examination on an.engine in preparation for static restoration?
There has been more than a few reports regarding the condition of 5711, but the mechanical side of things and the boiler. Some years back a forme DLE from Armidale who had been a fitter and worked on the 57cl was visiting another driver friend of mine at WCK back in late 80's, he told us some interesting bits of information especially in regards to 5711. He and a couple of others had been involved in some areas of work at Thrilmere, they had an agreement with the RTM that they would do a thorough go over of the loco and be able to asses its condition, overall he said the general mechanical condition looked quite ok. The boiler also was in very good condition and an overhaul on it would not be hard to do.

I have not seen them since the meeting, the driver is over in the Pilbara now and don't know about the ex DLE.

Having each type of engine checked over as far as the boiler condition is concerned provides for the possible restoration to be carried out based on costs and in this day & age those who have worked on these engines in the past both crews and fitters and the like. Doubt there would be any big engine experienced men be alive these days, maybe some at Goulburn who were firemen on them.

One thing for certain is that I will never see it run again.
a6et
That's what I've heard too. Restoration of 5711 was covered in the RTM newsletters in the late 80s or in the 90s. The boiler was inspected by the Railways' boiler inspector. After listing what had to be repaired, his comment was "typical 1955 boiler overhaul" (or words to that effect). My recollection of the newsletters is that restoration to service was possible but a significant impediment was operating it on the Cityrail network. Since it was limited to 40mph in regular service it would still be limited to 65Kph in tourist service, making pathing of it problematic. Newsletter emphasised the point of difficulty in keeping it out of the paths of regular trains ("we cannot avoid these trains" was its comment). As an aside, Craig Mackie's book details the trial of a 57 on the Melbourne Limited Express. My dad's father was a fitter at Eveleigh at the time and he worked on it after it came back into Eveleigh. His comment was it it shook itself to bits - fairly consistent with what I remember from Mackie's book.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Thanks for the informative post D Cook.

I guess I should have made one point clear in my previous post. The reason I plumped for a 36 or 38 is to provide another main line passenger loco with good hauling capability, and able to operate at line speeds.

When 3801 headed the Bicentennial Train around the country, the train to Melbourne was scheduled to have 4472 Flying Scotsman double heading with the 38. When it became apparent that this was not going to be possible, 3642 was the next obvious choice but it ran a hot axle box and damaged the journal the weekend before. This meant that 5910 was drafted to assist between Campbelltown and Wagga Wagga. 5910 was restricted to 80 km/h, and the train steadily lost time all day. (Source: "Diary of the Bicentennial Train"by Tony Gogarty and Ron Preston).
Valvegear
The 59's were regular pilots for mail trains on the Main North, if no 35 or pig was available they would work the mails.  While the speed was limited to 80Km/h they had no problems maintaining the general TT, most station stops were done quickly and if no passengers were getting on/off at a station they did not stop.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Surely in this post corona world there won't be a lot of funding sent from TfNSW to THNSW for heritage loco restoration of yet another loco, when there are already quite a few locos operating?  Particularly when there are a few steam locos in the THNSW fleet that need attention anyway?
One hundred percent agreement. If any loco is to receive enough attention to get it back onto main line steels, let's pick either 3642 or 3830 ( or other stored 36 or 38 depending upon which is the most practicable).
3642 is considered toast, too much work on too many parts are needed, not to mention the cracks in the frame
3830's boiler is considered to be one of the most deteriorated boilers at Thirlmere and will need a full rebuild that has to be financed by the PHM as they own it. They will not give the money to THNSW as all of their money is focused on the move to Parramatta

The most likely locomotives to be overhauled in the coming years would either be 5910, it just needs major firebox repairs and wheel repairs or 3616 which needs a full restoration, primarily of the boiler and was also well liked by crews. 3616 also has the best frame condition of all the surviving 36s

A spare 59 class boiler is currently in storage at Thirlmere and could easily be fitted to 5910
There are many 36 class boilers that could be quickly reconditioned and fitted to 16
I doubt that any other 38s will be restored, 3813 for obvious reasons, 3820 as it has to be in as retired condition and 3830 owing to the reasons above

3001 is expected to be back by October and will most likely pull 2705 out of loop line service as 2705 is in need of a full overhaul
At the rate the fleet is going for all operators it is most likely that by the end of this year the following will be operational and accredited
2705(Restricted), 3001T, possibly 3112, 3237, 3265, 3526, 3801, 5917, 6029 and maybe R766
DCook
Seems the frame on 42 has got the fractures back, it was a problem found when it was overhauled many years back at Goulburn, and was repaired there at the time, but with it being the primary Exp engine available for years by itself with the nanny out of service and no 38 either it meant it had to take the primary workload, with the 32's helping out.

The sending of 3609 to Junee for static display to me was a bit premature and it would be good to get a precision inspection of its frame, also the same with 3616.  As you say there are a number of new boilers around which could be given overhalls and be available for fitting to the pigs.  The overhaul of 3801's boiler at Goulburn shows that there are companies out there that are capable of doing major work on steam loco's what needs to be considered for the future is what happens if any of the loco's that have cast frames get damage which usually means that loco will not run again, as outside of China there are no companies that can manufacture cast frames anymore.

From my perspective, it would be a good move if 3642 could be sent to Goulburn for that engineering company to check the frame and either repair it or build a replacement frame for it.  They could also have the facilities to do a proper repair on the frame as well.

I had said before that with the move of 09 to Junee to be plinthed, it reduces the exp passenger fleet of steam loco's that could be made available for the work, with 3 pigs available, 3526 and 3801, it is not a huge number of operating engines going forward.  Depending on whether either 3820, or 30 were able to be restored to operational service again, that could change the status of the exp steam fleet.  My understanding in regard to the German boiler is that once 01 was back in service the German boiler was to be worked on to correct the errors that exist on it, that allows for a spare 38cl boiler and allow that boiler to be fitted to the frame of one of the other two 38's and have its boiler fixed as well.
  DCook Chief Train Controller

Location: The standard state
I think the one main problem in the future will be if there are enough skilled volunteers or workers in THNSW itself, as I said in my thread about the possibility of a THNSW youth volunteer program, it seems that there is an ever diminishing amount of young people entering not just preservation but the railways as a whole

If there are not enough people trained in these vanishing trades and works before all the old hands die then the whole tourist railway industry will collapse for certain

One major thing contained in the 2019 THNSW AGM report is the fact that the whole 3801 project team were told to disband and vacate the whole Chullora site before March this year on the insistence of the new Sydney Trains CEO (Howard Collins has been transferred to a state level role)

I sincerely hope that this is not Shirley in a new form
  studdo Locomotive Fireman

I think the one main problem in the future will be if there are enough skilled volunteers or workers in THNSW itself, as I said in my thread about the possibility of a THNSW youth volunteer program, it seems that there is an ever diminishing amount of young people entering not just preservation but the railways as a whole

If there are not enough people trained in these vanishing trades and works before all the old hands die then the whole tourist railway industry will collapse for certain

One major thing contained in the 2019 THNSW AGM report is the fact that the whole 3801 project team were told to disband and vacate the whole Chullora site before March this year on the insistence of the new Sydney Trains CEO (Howard Collins has been transferred to a state level role)

I sincerely hope that this is not Shirley in a new form
DCook
DC:  nothing, and I mean nothing, could be worse than Shirley. I remember it well. It was a horrible time that I hope will never be repeated, not only for us as railway heritage enthusiasts, but for the good of the railways in general. I appreciate your concern though.
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
a6et: Cast steel bed frames (38's, 57's, (58's), 59's, 60 classes) can be welded. There's plenty of evidence in the ones I've seen that they needed repairs over the years in service. A crack is not a death sentence.

Curious that there's a garratt buffer beam lying on its own in the yard at Canberra. Anyone know why?
  a6et Minister for Railways

a6et: Cast steel bed frames (38's, 57's, (58's), 59's, 60 classes) can be welded. There's plenty of evidence in the ones I've seen that they needed repairs over the years in service. A crack is not a death sentence.

Curious that there's a garratt buffer beam lying on its own in the yard at Canberra. Anyone know why?
apw5910
Happy to be corrected.  I guess I reflect on some earlier death sentences imposed on some 38cl owing to damages, more than likely as a result of dieselisation.
  neillfarmer Chief Train Controller

Yes, the cast bed frames were low carbon steel to enable them to be suitable for welding (and also for toughness). The 59s were allowed 45 mph, or 75 kph. 5910 probably got up to 80 kph regularly on mainlines. With 60" drivers it should be good for 100 kph but the old NSWGR did not like running locomotives with 2 wheel pony trucks at speed so I would guess neither would the present day safety regulators.
5910's advantages are it's wide grate and 36,000 lb tractive effort (same as a 38). It's disadvantage is the limitation on speed.
3616 advantages are it's 115 kph max speed. The Giesel ejector gives it approx 10% reduction in water and coal consumption and potential of another 10% more HP. This comes about because of the reduction in exhaust back pressure. It's disadvantage is the narrow grate between the frames, and it too, would be prone to frame cracking. For the fans it has a quieter and different sounding exhaust which might not suit everybody.
I think the resurrection of 5711 remains out of reach with the foreseeable funding for THNSW, it is just too big.

I do not subscribe to the criticism of the Board and Management of the THNSW. Theirs is a thankless task that can never satisfy everybody. They, and their volunteers, deserve our thanks and support.

a6et's comment regarding 59 class on mail trains gives the impression that this was a regular occurrence. I don't think it was regular, the Northern Mails were invariably 35 and 36 class whenever I travelled on them. 59s would have been suitable power as these trains were not fast but the 59s were more valuable as freight power. I am sure if there were no 35 or 36 class available a 59 would have been the next best thing. I seem to recall reports of them working the Newcastle Express and Mail trains but only in emergencies when nothing else was available, it would have been very rare. FWIW 3616 was a regular mail train locomotive so its frame may be less weakened (not being used as western push-up power).
  a6et Minister for Railways

Yes, the cast bed frames were low carbon steel to enable them to be suitable for welding (and also for toughness). The 59s were allowed 45 mph, or 75 kph. 5910 probably got up to 80 kph regularly on mainlines. With 60" drivers it should be good for 100 kph but the old NSWGR did not like running locomotives with 2 wheel pony trucks at speed so I would guess neither would the present day safety regulators.
5910's advantages are it's wide grate and 36,000 lb tractive effort (same as a 38). It's disadvantage is the limitation on speed.
3616 advantages are it's 115 kph max speed. The Giesel ejector gives it approx 10% reduction in water and coal consumption and potential of another 10% more HP. This comes about because of the reduction in exhaust back pressure. It's disadvantage is the narrow grate between the frames, and it too, would be prone to frame cracking. For the fans it has a quieter and different sounding exhaust which might not suit everybody.
I think the resurrection of 5711 remains out of reach with the foreseeable funding for THNSW, it is just too big.

I do not subscribe to the criticism of the Board and Management of the THNSW. Theirs is a thankless task that can never satisfy everybody. They, and their volunteers, deserve our thanks and support.

a6et's comment regarding 59 class on mail trains gives the impression that this was a regular occurrence. I don't think it was regular, the Northern Mails were invariably 35 and 36 class whenever I travelled on them. 59s would have been suitable power as these trains were not fast but the 59s were more valuable as freight power. I am sure if there were no 35 or 36 class available a 59 would have been the next best thing. I seem to recall reports of them working the Newcastle Express and Mail trains but only in emergencies when nothing else was available, it would have been very rare. FWIW 3616 was a regular mail train locomotive so its frame may be less weakened (not being used as western push-up power).
neillfarmer
Neil, for what its worth, yes the primary MP for the mails on the North to WCK and then to Armidale were 35 & 36cl in both directions, there were however times where one were not available owing to repairs or failure, on these occasions as was common around the state was if an engine was having problems control was notified and the depot in advance where it would normally come off was notified of the problem, in these cases the ideal was a similar class of loco was used, however, when no other passenger engine was available, then the 59's were used. Each depot generally had a pilot for the mails but down and up trains.

As such at WCK, if no 35 or 36 was available then the 59's were used, yes not regularly but were used & the aspect of a pilot loco was part of the NSWGR policy and not just at WCK but elsewhere as well as the pilot engines were generally ready to go as they were fully prepared in the depot. From my understanding from the WCK drivers at the time I was there, when the 59's were used they were given an 80km/h speed approval & the hardest part of the working was the up mails owing to the lesser grades and higher speed boards that restricted their overall running times.

The 59's tended to get some more regular passenger train working on the Short North as the 35's and 36's were withdrawn, and usually they were used on the stopping passenger services rather than the exp's. Like the 35's though they would top up water at Cockle Creek to ensure enough to get to NCL and back to BMD.

A case point and different to the 59cl aspect was a tour that was run in 64/65 IIRC as I forget the exact year when the first of the triple headed tour train to Moss Vale via Unanderra rather than the TF & K class being available owing to a failure and Enfield Loco to light them up early enough, they were replaced by two engines out of Eveliegh that were pilots, 3258 & 3802.

The concept also the engine off the Moss Vale pax sat at Moss Vale facing the south as pilot for mails in case of failure.

I agree with you regarding 3616 while I only ever worked on it once, it was certainly superior to other pigs, the short south allowed for 36cl to take the same tonnage as freighters, 38 & 59cl with a slight reduction in length loading, certainly 16 was the pick of the pigs in that time frame, but I also worked on several others that were pretty much close to it, much depended on who the driver was and I worked with 3 that knew how to get the best out of them and not affect the fireman either, (there were many I never worked with on the South though) those were Enfield drivers and I had 4 trips with Goulburn drivers all bar one were the same in the way they worked the engines.
  neillfarmer Chief Train Controller

Yes, the cast bed frames were low carbon steel to enable them to be suitable for welding (and also for toughness). The 59s were allowed 45 mph, or 75 kph. 5910 probably got up to 80 kph regularly on mainlines. With 60" drivers it should be good for 100 kph but the old NSWGR did not like running locomotives with 2 wheel pony trucks at speed so I would guess neither would the present day safety regulators.
5910's advantages are it's wide grate and 36,000 lb tractive effort (same as a 38). It's disadvantage is the limitation on speed.
3616 advantages are it's 115 kph max speed. The Giesel ejector gives it approx 10% reduction in water and coal consumption and potential of another 10% more HP. This comes about because of the reduction in exhaust back pressure. It's disadvantage is the narrow grate between the frames, and it too, would be prone to frame cracking. For the fans it has a quieter and different sounding exhaust which might not suit everybody.
I think the resurrection of 5711 remains out of reach with the foreseeable funding for THNSW, it is just too big.

I do not subscribe to the criticism of the Board and Management of the THNSW. Theirs is a thankless task that can never satisfy everybody. They, and their volunteers, deserve our thanks and support.

a6et's comment regarding 59 class on mail trains gives the impression that this was a regular occurrence. I don't think it was regular, the Northern Mails were invariably 35 and 36 class whenever I travelled on them. 59s would have been suitable power as these trains were not fast but the 59s were more valuable as freight power. I am sure if there were no 35 or 36 class available a 59 would have been the next best thing. I seem to recall reports of them working the Newcastle Express and Mail trains but only in emergencies when nothing else was available, it would have been very rare. FWIW 3616 was a regular mail train locomotive so its frame may be less weakened (not being used as western push-up power).
Neil, for what its worth, yes the primary MP for the mails on the North to WCK and then to Armidale were 35 & 36cl in both directions, there were however times where one were not available owing to repairs or failure, on these occasions as was common around the state was if an engine was having problems control was notified and the depot in advance where it would normally come off was notified of the problem, in these cases the ideal was a similar class of loco was used, however, when no other passenger engine was available, then the 59's were used. Each depot generally had a pilot for the mails but down and up trains.

As such at WCK, if no 35 or 36 was available then the 59's were used, yes not regularly but were used & the aspect of a pilot loco was part of the NSWGR policy and not just at WCK but elsewhere as well as the pilot engines were generally ready to go as they were fully prepared in the depot. From my understanding from the WCK drivers at the time I was there, when the 59's were used they were given an 80km/h speed approval & the hardest part of the working was the up mails owing to the lesser grades and higher speed boards that restricted their overall running times.

The 59's tended to get some more regular passenger train working on the Short North as the 35's and 36's were withdrawn, and usually they were used on the stopping passenger services rather than the exp's. Like the 35's though they would top up water at Cockle Creek to ensure enough to get to NCL and back to BMD.

A case point and different to the 59cl aspect was a tour that was run in 64/65 IIRC as I forget the exact year when the first of the triple headed tour train to Moss Vale via Unanderra rather than the TF & K class being available owing to a failure and Enfield Loco to light them up early enough, they were replaced by two engines out of Eveliegh that were pilots, 3258 & 3802.

The concept also the engine off the Moss Vale pax sat at Moss Vale facing the south as pilot for mails in case of failure.

I agree with you regarding 3616 while I only ever worked on it once, it was certainly superior to other pigs, the short south allowed for 36cl to take the same tonnage as freighters, 38 & 59cl with a slight reduction in length loading, certainly 16 was the pick of the pigs in that time frame, but I also worked on several others that were pretty much close to it, much depended on who the driver was and I worked with 3 that knew how to get the best out of them and not affect the fireman either, (there were many I never worked with on the South though) those were Enfield drivers and I had 4 trips with Goulburn drivers all bar one were the same in the way they worked the engines.
a6et
Yes a6at, i agree with your comments.
People may wonder why the 57s were maintenance monsters compared to the 60s, both being similar in capacity. The problem with the 57s was the third centre cylinder and its associated motion. Like all 3 cylinder  power the centre big end bearings tended to run hot and the motion was subject to dust thrown up by the loco. Its inaccessibility meant that although it was a weakness inspection was often neglected. As the Gresley motion wore the slack altered the valve events causing the cylinder to do more work adding to the problem. The 60s could be easily split into 3 sections and the motion, all outside, was lighter than the heavy rods of the 57. Towards the end several 57s were run as 2 cylinder locomotives for short periods but their capacity in this form was limited to not much more than a standard goods. I think 6029 will offer enough challenges to the maintenance staff, a 57 would offer much more and drain rescources away from other more suitable engines.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Question. RE third cylinder.

The internal conrod is attached to the first driving axle, yes? As H220.
Is there any other concealed motion, ie internal side rod?

Thanks, Mick.
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
No, attached to the second, as per the outside motion. But there's a gooseneck in the leading driving axle to avoid hitting the internal conrod as it goes around.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: a6et, DCook, james.au

Display from: