|
Q. Why don't you rebuild the class 14 back to original, with the proper Paxman engine?
A. There are some locos in the collection – such as “Grace” (last s.g. Loco built by Hudswell Clarke) - which Andrew regards as having historic significance and will not therefore be materially changed. Others however, have less intrinsic value in an existing condition and therefore may be modified to suit current requirements.
The Class 14 901 (originally D9524) had already been repowered once in industry (its current Rolls-Royce is its third prime mover) and returning it to “original” is neither practically nor financially worthwhile. (It would mean sourcing an obsolete engine, rewiring the locomotive to 110V, new exhaust and air intake systems, re-made plumbing and opening up the Voith to de-gear it back from 1800 to 1500rpm - all of which would just make it "the same" as all the other Class 14s in preservation.) Similarly Andrew always took the view that any further Class 14 that came his way would be considered on its merits - if complete or nearly so, then the Paxman and 110V systems would be retained. When he was offered D9500 in summer 2010 he thought long and hard. The engine was stripped, there were no exhausters, various other bits were missing but he knew that to many enthusiasts, re-vamping the "prototype" Class 14 would be sacriledge. Nevertheless, scrapping it would have been an even bigger shame and without a doubt that was the alternative fate for the loco.
Similarly, the class 03, bought with the remains of a Deutz air cooled engine and hydrostatic link installed, will not be refitted with Gardner and fluid coupling but is being retro-fitted with a Cummins and 2-speed Twin Disc hydraulic transmission to be a more practical return to running order.
"Main line" locomotives were generally treated as a "class" and modifications were therefore carried out on all examples and fully documented - but on the industrial market many locos were built as "one-offs" and individual owners might choose to modify their loco to suit their requirements. For example few industrials were built with any form of train braking, but as roller-bearinged stock became the norm many were retrofitted with train braking for safety and practicality. The 03 is also a case in point, not only was it re-powered but - presumably because the owner was unaware of what weight the loco ought to be or the implications of adding weight on to axles and springs - roughly 10tons of steel slab was added to the loco, scaling it at just under 38tons.
Moreover, the vast majority of industrial locos were not - in this country - expected to do "tripping" duties. Most industrial sites were closely connected to the national network and the typical industrial probably averaged only walking pace through its working day. Indeed, from a safety point of view some industrial operators would not want their locomotives able to travel at speeds which, within the factory/quarry/mill/sidings would be dangerous.
But when put in a heritage railway environment operators seem surprised to find that the loco won't do 25mph without overheating the transmission, and often such locomotives are casually dismissed as "rubbish" as a result. Of course, they were not built with that sort of work in mind, and if they are to earn their keep it is not unreasonable that alterations be made to suit, and in many respects this is in keeping with the philosophies of their former owners.
Return to the FAQ List
|
