NCC Jinty

[Sequoia]

Hi,

 

Did the NCC Jinty's ever run south of the Border. I see that Dapol are producing a model in O gauge but no mention of the NCC livery?

 

Kevin.

[jhb171achill]

No.

 

Their only function was round Belfast docks. As far as I am aware, neither of the pair ever even pulled a train on the NCC!

 

The NCC livery was black with single maroon lining and shaded lettering "N C C" on the tank sides, as was the norm then.

[Old Blarney]

No.

 

Their only function was round Belfast docks. As far as I am aware, neither of the pair ever even pulled a train on the NCC!

 

The NCC livery was black with single maroon lining and shaded lettering "N C C" on the tank sides, as was the norm then.

 

Rails around Belfast - Andrew Crockhart and Jack Patience.

 

Page 37 "Two LMS Jintys numbered on the NCC. 18 and 19, were regauged and transferred from England in 1944 to help ease the shortage of motive power at the time. First rostered on local passenger services, this must not have been a success as their vacuum gear was later removed. They were usually found shunting round the docks and at York Road"

 

Further text describing the photograph and location of No 19 viewed shunting a UTA coach adjacent to Jennymount Linen Mill.

[jhb171achill]

One lasted until about 1963. I think the other was long gone by then.

[leslie10646]

One lasted until about 1963. I think the other was long gone by then.

 

Yes, I remember seeing No.19 around from time to time during my evening visits to York Road with John (now Lord) Laird). I first went down in 1961 or 1962, but never saw No.18. Indeed by then only two Castle Class U2 4-4-0s were around - Dunluce and Dunseverick.

 

Just to bore you with facts, they had been 7456 and 7553 on the LMS, becoming 18 and 19 respectively. Latterly, they bore a UTA "Red Hand" Coat of Arms.

 

Leslie

[jhb171achill]

Given lottery wins of some magnitude, if a preserved one in Britain was going begging, it could be brought here and regauged - perfect for the DCDR!

 

But then, the GNR tank loco in Cultra, or No. 30, would be better........

[murrayec]

Hi

 

In model world, a Jinty is perfect for conversion to a Inchicore Class J10 or J11, the J10 is slightly easier as it does not have a curve to the front of roof. I'm currently doing a Gauge OO conversion for the Greystones layout, this will also be done for my Gauge N layout.....

 

Eoin

[jhb171achill]

Under your expert hand, that would be an absolute delight to see, Eoin.

[murrayec]

Hi jhb

 

I will post up a few photos in a 'Jinty Conversion to J10' thread very soon, the plan has been struck but not implemented yet...

 

Eoin

[jhb171achill]

I was just thinking - with the curvature on some of the dock lines, it's a wonder that anything six-coupled got around there at all!

[Andy Cundick]

NCC Jinty No18 has been spotted a Valencia Harbour,usually in the last hour of a show,Andy.

[jhb171achill]

NCC Jinty No18 has been spotted a Valencia Harbour,usually in the last hour of a show,Andy.

 

Last hour before closing time?

:-)

[Colin R]

Given lottery wins of some magnitude, if a preserved one in Britain was going begging, it could be brought here and regauged - perfect for the DCDR!

 

But then, the GNR tank loco in Cultra, or No. 30, would be better........

 

I would agree with you but if money was no object why not build a new one in 12 inches to the foot scale, sure would be quicker to get running and to extend the BCDR to a rebuilt station at Ardglass, we can but dream.

[jhb171achill]

If a new-build was to be a likelihood, like the RPSI's talk of another Jeep -v- a mogul, practicality would have to not just be more important than emotional preferences, but would have to oblitarate such thoughts.

 

In practical terms, the best options for a new build would be just about big enough to take the DCDR's maximum likely load (three to four bogies) over a distance of maybe 6 miles (9km), with least coal consumption.

 

We're looking at a Jinty perhaps, a GNR 2.4.2T, a MGWR J26 (ideally; simple reliable machines), or the West Cork "Argadeen" 2.6.0T. Pretty much all else else either would eat too much coal or would be too light (e.g. 90!). 90, of course, or the sugar locos, are perfect for current operation, the shortness of which makes even a Jinty of a J16 an unnecessary extravangance.

 

The RPSI's No. 3 "R H Smyth" was also an absolutely ideal locomotive for Downpatrick.

[Colin R]

If a new-build was to be a likelihood, like the RPSI's talk of another Jeep -v- a mogul, practicality would have to not just be more important than emotional preferences, but would have to oblitarate such thoughts.

 

In practical terms, the best options for a new build would be just about big enough to take the DCDR's maximum likely load (three to four bogies) over a distance of maybe 6 miles (9km), with least coal consumption.

 

We're looking at a Jinty perhaps, a GNR 2.4.2T, a MGWR J26 (ideally; simple reliable machines), or the West Cork "Argadeen" 2.6.0T. Pretty much all else else either would eat too much coal or would be too light (e.g. 90!). 90, of course, or the sugar locos, are perfect for current operation, the shortness of which makes even a Jinty of a J16 an unnecessary extravangance.

 

The RPSI's No. 3 "R H Smyth" was also an absolutely ideal locomotive for Downpatrick.

 

 

I totally agree with you, a new build loco has to be of use and as much as we would like to have everything that has ever operated, a heritage railway places a different kind of restrain on what locos you need. Should it come to pass and that Downpatrick was able to rebuild back to Ardglass and or just to the outside of Newcastle, then the sort of locos you need will be much different to those you have now.

 

I do not know the trackbed on the BCDR and what operational problems may exist, so I am hesitant to suggest a type of loco that might be nice to have but totally unsuitable for the heritage operation. If a new loco was required then why not look at one of the old BCDR 4-4-2T designs? as it must have been suitable for the operations back then so it should be OK now.

 

Of course we still have the old SL&NCR 0-6-4T which as far as I am aware has never worked since it was taken into preservation, could this be a suitable candidate to be restored for future BCDR operations?

[jhb171achill]

You're absolutely right, Colin.

 

"Lough Erne" and, appropriately, BCDR No. 30, would be operationally suitable, but would eat more than a smaller loco, and would thus be uneconomic on all but the St Pats & Santa trains. A Jinty or J26 would be better, if available.

 

There is one very severe gradient in the cutting just south of Downpatrick - in fact, short as it is, one of Ireland's most severe, as the line south of DP was very cheaply built. However, given a decent run, its shortness is such that even a Sugar loco can get three bogies over it.

[Noel]

. . .and would thus be uneconomic on all but the St Pats & Santa trains. A Jinty or J26 would be better, if available.

 

Hi JB. Please forgive my total ignorance, but could boilers in steam locos be heated with oil/kero rather than coal? Cleaner and less expensive if they can get high enough temps? Running for cover now. Noel

 

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_oil_fire.htm

Edited May 16, 2017 by Noel

[Colin R]

Hi JB. Please forgive my total ignorance, but could boilers in steam locos be heated with oil/kero rather than coal? Cleaner and less expensive if they can get high enough temps? Running for cover now. Noel

 

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_oil_fire.htm

 

Hi Noel

 

That was the case of the Festiniog Railway a few years ago and I think some of them still run on oil, however the big problem is that in order to use oil to burn, it heats up the firebox too quickly and cause cracks in the corners and other such mechanical problems, this is what I have been told by those who play with these things on a regular basis.

 

There are of course solutions to any problem and the web is full of them, if you have the time to find them and you are in the mood, why not try the 5AT website http://www.5at.co.uk/

 

You may have gather by now I am a bit of a magpie when it come to finding info on the web, I don't believe in redesign the wheel when one already exists.

[Broithe]

Hi JB. Please forgive my total ignorance, but could boilers in steam locos be heated with oil/kero rather than coal? Cleaner and less expensive if they can get high enough temps? Running for cover now. Noel

 

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_oil_fire.htm

 

CIÉ had 93 oil burning steam locos in 1946/7, but, as coal supplies returned to normal after the war, the scheme was dropped - with a short resumption in 1954.

[Mayner]

Hi JB. Please forgive my total ignorance, but could boilers in steam locos be heated with oil/kero rather than coal? Cleaner and less expensive if they can get high enough temps? Running for cover now. Noel

 

http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/m_in_gwr_oil_fire.htm

 

 

 

Oil firing tends to work best in locos designed for oil firing, not sure its cleaner than coal from an environmental perspective.

 

Like the GWR CIE converted many locos to oil firing during the 1947 coal shortage, but abandoned oil firing once coal became readily available. One of the problems was excessive boiler/firebox wear on old locos due to a combination of deferred maintenance during the Emergency and the greater stresses from oil firing.

 

The Festiniog fired their locos for many years on waste oil, and more recently diesel before returning to coal firing

[Broithe]

Short of the fact that the machines already exist, there is little to recommend burning oil in a steam engine, rather than in a diesel. If the fuel is suitable for diesel combustion, then the efficiency difference will be immediately apparent.

 

There is rather less need for a fireman in the crew, though, as fuel transfer can be more easily automated.

 

IÉ oil-burners were identified by large white discs on the smoke-box door and the sides of the tenders.

[jhb171achill]

Coal is a more economic option. Apart from the practical issues mentioned above, the cost of conversion, maintenance if the apparatus, greater maintenance requirements and so on, the running costs of a diesel would be less.

[murrayec]

Hi

 

Check out L.D.Porta, he transformed the ould steam engine into a high efficiency, multi fuel burning system in Argentina back in the late 40's. His efforts were stunning but very little accepted by British loco engineers- they never even heard of him. Some of his small locos still run today....

 

Flash steam boilers are the one, though its not the same as shovelling coal or burning black oil, but very efficient, generating more steam than required to run a loco. These systems are very small would fit in any loco boiler and made of modern stuff. Currently used in modern heating systems for large buildings. They are also portable.

 

On the preservation side of things Alan J Haigh loc engineer and others have designed high efficiency furnace & boiler systems for some of the preserved locos in the UK, one loco they did in North Wales runs it's trip on one bucket of coal where before its modern restoration it required several for the same trip.

 

Eoin

[Noel]

Thanks, that's very interesting stuff guys. One question, did operators using oil not put in place procedures to raise boiler temps more gradually when using oil to bring locos up to operating temperatures, and therefore avoid the problems highlighted above?

 

Only reason I posed question about oil/kero was as an option for preserved steam locos in light of perceived high coal costs.

[murrayec]

Noel

 

That's a case of 'Now' and 'Then'

 

If a new build was to be designed anything is possible, all dependant on the group doing it- lets go authentic! or lets go modern and efficient!

 

Eoin

[Mike 84C]

The Festiniog used a by product of refining for bitumen known in the trade as LMD. Its a high sulphur product that can only be used for external combustion, eg. boilers, on land but works very well in ship engines of most types. The sulphur is not a problem once off shore!