Re: R711 (and other WCR stuff)

[G.Lambert@unsw.edu.au (Geoff Lambert)]

mercury@netspace.net.au (David A.) wrote:

>>One reason for the smaller tenders was to fit on VR's turntables: still a
>>requirement for 711.
>I can see that.  Clearly the R is a much longer locomotive than the
>streamlined S class pacifics, which must have been able to fit onto a
>70' table as I have seen a photo of one on one of the  North Melbourne
>Loco tables.  I have also seen photos of VR steam engines separated
>from their tenders in order to make use of too short turn tables, but
>this is not something that anyone in their right mind would
>contemplate doing now.  The fact that the tender is big enough as it
>is satisfies my curiosity.

Question 1:  Is it harder to separate a loco from its tender when it
has a mechanical stoker, as the Rs have?

Question 2: Doesn't an R fit on a 70' turntable?  I can remember when
the 53' (?) TT was replaced with a 70' one at Bacchus marsh, so an R
could be handled.  I've helped turn more R's on that turntable than
I've had hot dinners (well, almost).

Geoff L:ambert