puffing billy


BM
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael J
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: [LRRSA] Re: puffing billy


--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "Bill Russell" <bill.russell@...> wrote:

We also looked at a Senital Steam Railcar in Sri
Lanka at about the same time, but were also told "no thanks".
On an assignment in Sri Lanka (in February 1987) I had the honour of an
individual tour of the Dematagoda railway workshops in Colombo, for which
4-6-0 B2.213 was in steam and provided runs up and down the yard. The man
incharge of the steam loco restoration programme, ADA Abeysuriya, was my
guide and his passion for steam made for a wonderful day.

At this time the narrow gauge Sentinal railcar No. 331 had been renovated
and had made a trial run up to Homagama, but awaited approval for further
restoration work. Four narrow gauge Beyer Peacock J1/J2-class 4-6-4T locos
were still in service, but the remainder of the fleet was stored in the
workshops. I was advised that representatives of the Puffing Billy Railway
had inspected the locos with a view to purchasing some, but no further
response had been received. I documented a full list of the narrow gauge
loco fleet at that time.

Thus, the PBR would have been told 'no thanks' re the Sentinal as the locals
had plans for this. Whether anything more formal occurred re the J-class
locos might be explored further.

Four the record, I took a trip on the narrow gauge line from Colombo station
on a tain hauled by 4-6-4T J1.220 as far as Nugegoda, where a cross was made
with a Colombo-bound train hauled by Krupp 2-8-2DH NI.564, so I took this
train back.

Bob McKillop


Bill Russell
 

G'day All,

I cannot speak for Puffing Billy, but I think what I say reflects the
gereral informed attitude.

Most second hand steam locos available OS are not near what we
would call operable condition. If we acquired them we would expect them to
earn their keep. Add to this that while any particular locomotive may be
exotic, interesting, a one-off etc. I think Puff would rather design and build a
new locomotive. If based on a known design there should not be too many
teething problems.

The Shay locomotive we acquired was "going" when we were given
it. Lon Wymond (ex PBPS Presedint) saw it operating. When we rebiuld it
there will probably be no old parts on it.

Regards,

Bill Russell.

On 22 Nov 2006 at 5:08, Michael J wrote:

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "Bill Russell" <bill.russell@...> wrote:

We did make informal approaches to Sierra Leone about 20 years
ago and were politely but firmly told to go away. I don't know if
we looked
at the ones in Nepal. We also looked at a Senital Steam Railcar in Sri
Lanka at about the same time, but were also told "no thanks".
What a shame about Sierra Leone, and for that matter Sri Lanka. Funny
how some authorities are happy to sell stuff for scrap, but not for
preservation. I understand similar problems are encountered by people
trying to approach the Indians about narrow gauge equipment.

By a miricle one of the Garratts (a 4-8-2+2-8-4) survives in Freetown,
and is fortunately being preserved. I understand a Sentinal is still
operational in Colombo but there is no longer any track for it to run on!

As for the Nepalese locos, this seems to be an off again, on again
thing depending on politics in Nepal. If PBPS is genuinely interested,
they might keep their ears open on that one.

Your points about train length are well made.

Michael




Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au

This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"

Yahoo!7 Groups Links




bll_hnks
 

When the restoration of G42 was being considered, various scenarios were
envisaged as to how it would be utilized. Apart from various specials
it has proven itself to be an effortless performer when hauling the
Luncheon Trains and regular Pass trains with 16 or 17 cars by making
easy work of them. When an NA is used on a heavy Luncheon Train, you
know you have a big load, even when limited to 10 mph. Not so with G42.



At busy times like the summer holiday season, G42 is often rostered on
the Lakeside shuttles with 16 or 17 car trains that are frequently fully
loaded. This is when G42 really shines; doing what it was built for,
hauling large trains and eliminating double heading of NAs. With an
average seating capacity of around 25 per car, that's a loading of 400
people. Some trains out of 'the Lake', when people want to get home
with their tired children, seem to have a lot more than 400 on board.
The bulging NBHs attest to that!



Those 17 car trains are long and you won't see much of G42 from the van,
that's why I ride in the cab and swing the shovel.



Regards,

Bill Hanks



________________________________

From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On
Behalf Of Bill Russell
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2006 3:40 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] Re: puffing billy



G'day All,

Just because you have a big engine does not mean that you have
to haul big trains. G42 is more economical (fuel and water) than an NA.
Where a normal Puff load is close to maximum for an NA it is a doddle
for
G42. I don't know about the relative maintenance costs.

We do have an NGG 16 which is currently in pieces being
compared to the blueprints (purchased in 1973) and the drawings being
(converted to)/(used to prepare) CAD images. When this is done an
estimate of the cost of re-gauging can be done. My guess is that it
could
happen within 15 years.

We did make informal approaches to Sierra Leone about 20 years
ago and were politely but firmly told to go away. I don't know if we
looked
at the ones in Nepal. We also looked at a Senital Steam Railcar in Sri
Lanka at about the same time, but were also told "no thanks".

Running big trains implies big numbers of passengers. You have to
be able to accommodate these in toilets and resturants etc. Apart from
that
I imagine many tourists would prefer small intimate groups.

And the final point. With a 17 car train those at the guard's end
hardly ever see the locomotive. Bigger may be impressive, but it is not
always better.

Regards,

Bill Russell.

On 22 Nov 2006 at 3:00, Michael J wrote:

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> ,
"crannyjohn" <peterson.john.j@...> wrote:

Hello all,

My train was hauled by DH31 but I had a chance to inspect G42 in
action. A fantastic achievement; amazing to watch. I have a
question.
The Garratt was introduced to increase train sizes; Is this how it's
used on Puffing Billy?? Or are the train sizes the same as the
NA's??

Cheers
John
I remember when the Garratt was being proposed for restoration (25+
years ago) there was an article in Narrow Gauge discussing how it
might affect trains. At the time one morning train had a much higher
patronage than other trains out of Belgrave, and it was suggested that
the Garratt could haul that train. It sounds as if that problem might
have been overcome with the double header already mentioned. At the
time the Lakeside extention was brand new, and I don't think Gembrook
was anything more than a fantacy.

The problem with scheduling a train to meet the Garratt's capacity is
what do you do if it is not available. The article proposed purchacing
one of the South African garratts, which has subsequently occured. Of
course it will be some years before this loco is available. In the
meantime the already extensive timetable PB runs must place some
stress on the loco fleet, with only 5 nA's, which is possibly the
reason your train was hauled by a DH.

Ironically there have been a couple of opportunities over the years
for PB to obtain 2'6" gauge Garratts. There were Garratts available
when the Sierra Leone Government Railways closed, and more recently
there were two Garratts available in Nepal. They were up for sale two
years ago, but are now part of a proposed tourist railway there.

Cheers,

Michael





Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA
publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and
the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au

This group is for members who share common interests with the members
of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors
and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any
LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"

Yahoo!7 Groups Links




Michael J
 

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "Bill Russell" <bill.russell@...> wrote:

We did make informal approaches to Sierra Leone about 20 years
ago and were politely but firmly told to go away. I don't know if
we looked
at the ones in Nepal. We also looked at a Senital Steam Railcar in Sri
Lanka at about the same time, but were also told "no thanks".
What a shame about Sierra Leone, and for that matter Sri Lanka. Funny
how some authorities are happy to sell stuff for scrap, but not for
preservation. I understand similar problems are encountered by people
trying to approach the Indians about narrow gauge equipment.

By a miricle one of the Garratts (a 4-8-2+2-8-4) survives in Freetown,
and is fortunately being preserved. I understand a Sentinal is still
operational in Colombo but there is no longer any track for it to run on!

As for the Nepalese locos, this seems to be an off again, on again
thing depending on politics in Nepal. If PBPS is genuinely interested,
they might keep their ears open on that one.

Your points about train length are well made.

Michael


Bill Russell
 

G'day All,

Just because you have a big engine does not mean that you have
to haul big trains. G42 is more economical (fuel and water) than an NA.
Where a normal Puff load is close to maximum for an NA it is a doddle for
G42. I don't know about the relative maintenance costs.

We do have an NGG 16 which is currently in pieces being
compared to the blueprints (purchased in 1973) and the drawings being
(converted to)/(used to prepare) CAD images. When this is done an
estimate of the cost of re-gauging can be done. My guess is that it could
happen within 15 years.

We did make informal approaches to Sierra Leone about 20 years
ago and were politely but firmly told to go away. I don't know if we looked
at the ones in Nepal. We also looked at a Senital Steam Railcar in Sri
Lanka at about the same time, but were also told "no thanks".

Running big trains implies big numbers of passengers. You have to
be able to accommodate these in toilets and resturants etc. Apart from that
I imagine many tourists would prefer small intimate groups.

And the final point. With a 17 car train those at the guard's end
hardly ever see the locomotive. Bigger may be impressive, but it is not
always better.


Regards,

Bill Russell.

On 22 Nov 2006 at 3:00, Michael J wrote:

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "crannyjohn" <peterson.john.j@...> wrote:

Hello all,

My train was hauled by DH31 but I had a chance to inspect G42 in
action. A fantastic achievement; amazing to watch. I have a question.
The Garratt was introduced to increase train sizes; Is this how it's
used on Puffing Billy?? Or are the train sizes the same as the NA's??

Cheers
John
I remember when the Garratt was being proposed for restoration (25+
years ago) there was an article in Narrow Gauge discussing how it
might affect trains. At the time one morning train had a much higher
patronage than other trains out of Belgrave, and it was suggested that
the Garratt could haul that train. It sounds as if that problem might
have been overcome with the double header already mentioned. At the
time the Lakeside extention was brand new, and I don't think Gembrook
was anything more than a fantacy.

The problem with scheduling a train to meet the Garratt's capacity is
what do you do if it is not available. The article proposed purchacing
one of the South African garratts, which has subsequently occured. Of
course it will be some years before this loco is available. In the
meantime the already extensive timetable PB runs must place some
stress on the loco fleet, with only 5 nA's, which is possibly the
reason your train was hauled by a DH.

Ironically there have been a couple of opportunities over the years
for PB to obtain 2'6" gauge Garratts. There were Garratts available
when the Sierra Leone Government Railways closed, and more recently
there were two Garratts available in Nepal. They were up for sale two
years ago, but are now part of a proposed tourist railway there.

Cheers,

Michael





Material posted on this group may be adapted by the editors of LRRSA publications for use in those publications, including Light Railways and the LRRSA web-site www.lrrsa.org.au

This group is for members who share common interests with the members of the LRRSA, but the contents of postings are those of their authors and opinions expressed do not necessarily conform with those of any LRRSA member nor of the LRRSA Council of Management"

Yahoo!7 Groups Links




Michael J
 

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "crannyjohn" <peterson.john.j@...> wrote:

Hello all,

My train was hauled by DH31 but I had a chance to inspect G42 in
action. A fantastic achievement; amazing to watch. I have a question.
The Garratt was introduced to increase train sizes; Is this how it's
used on Puffing Billy?? Or are the train sizes the same as the NA's??

Cheers
John
I remember when the Garratt was being proposed for restoration (25+
years ago) there was an article in Narrow Gauge discussing how it
might affect trains. At the time one morning train had a much higher
patronage than other trains out of Belgrave, and it was suggested that
the Garratt could haul that train. It sounds as if that problem might
have been overcome with the double header already mentioned. At the
time the Lakeside extention was brand new, and I don't think Gembrook
was anything more than a fantacy.

The problem with scheduling a train to meet the Garratt's capacity is
what do you do if it is not available. The article proposed purchacing
one of the South African garratts, which has subsequently occured. Of
course it will be some years before this loco is available. In the
meantime the already extensive timetable PB runs must place some
stress on the loco fleet, with only 5 nA's, which is possibly the
reason your train was hauled by a DH.

Ironically there have been a couple of opportunities over the years
for PB to obtain 2'6" gauge Garratts. There were Garratts available
when the Sierra Leone Government Railways closed, and more recently
there were two Garratts available in Nepal. They were up for sale two
years ago, but are now part of a proposed tourist railway there.

Cheers,

Michael


Chas Bevan <bevac@...>
 

Hello all,

A bit embarassed to admit that yesterday I rode on Puffing Billy for
the first time. It was a fantastic ride from Belgrave to Emerald lake.
I was particulary impressed by the frendliness of the volunteers with
everyone but especiallly little kids. A few budding train enthusiasts
I think. Anyway anyone out there who are involved with Puffing Billy
please pass on what a great experience it was.

My train was hauled by DH31 but I had a chance to inspect G42 in
action. A fantastic achievement; amazing to watch. I have a question.
The Garratt was introduced to increase train sizes; Is this how it's
used on Puffing Billy?? Or are the train sizes the same as the NA's??

Cheers
John
John, Speaking unofficially, I would suggest that the main (or basic
reason we rebuilt the Garratt was "because it was there". Economic
factors and future use were considered, of course, but we wanted it
built. It can pull long trains but does not often do so.It usually
does the mid-day lunch train to Lakeside and return with the train
being approximately the same size as the normal trains . The longest
regular train is the 10.30 on one of the timetables and is double
headed Nas. It is really two trains that divide at Lakeside, one
portion returning to Belgrave, the other continuing to Gembrook.
Chas B










--
Regards

Chas Bevan. Kallista Victoria


John Peterson
 

Hello all,

A bit embarassed to admit that yesterday I rode on Puffing Billy for
the first time. It was a fantastic ride from Belgrave to Emerald lake.
I was particulary impressed by the frendliness of the volunteers with
everyone but especiallly little kids. A few budding train enthusiasts
I think. Anyway anyone out there who are involved with Puffing Billy
please pass on what a great experience it was.

My train was hauled by DH31 but I had a chance to inspect G42 in
action. A fantastic achievement; amazing to watch. I have a question.
The Garratt was introduced to increase train sizes; Is this how it's
used on Puffing Billy?? Or are the train sizes the same as the NA's??

Cheers
John