Thanks Robin. That certainly looks like a fairly standard SY except for
the tender which, to my Aussie eyes, looks surprisingly like those fitted
to the Western Australian Government Railways Pm and Pmr Class Pacifics
built by North British in the early 1950s but I don't suppose that's of any
significance. SY.0006 was certainly a different beast. The funny thing
is, I've had the pics of SY.0006 for more than 20 years and its only just
dawned on me how different to a standard SY the loco was.

Cheers,
Rick Coles

On 11 February 2012 02:12, Robin <rgibbons@...> wrote:

>
>
> Yes, thanks for the interesting picture. There are some pics of SY0001 at:
> http://bbs.railcn.net/viewthread.php?tid=77639 . The worksplate would be
> a collector's item.
>
> --- In Steam_in_China@yahoogroups.com, railographer <gen1@...> wrote:
> >
> > SY 0002 is pretty derelict but I didn't notice anything out of the
> ordinary when I saw it in 2006. It had the usual taper boiler, with dome
> and sandbox in the same position as the standard JF6 or SY. All the boiler
> pipework was missing but there was no hole for the feed valve visible on
> the side so I assume it had the usual top feed. The only thing that marked
> it out as different was a tender without the characteristic sloping back.
> SY 0001 was broadly similar judging by the photo in the Summer 1993 issue
> of CRJ but it did have the same stepped footplate as SY 0006.
> >
> > I did wonder why the JF6 evolved into the SY without receiving a Russian
> boiler when they had become standard on larger locomotives with a similar
> heritage, i.e. the JS and RM. It now seems that at least one prototype SY
> was built was built with a Russian boiler but for some reason it was
> rejected in favour of the original American design for series production.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing the photos with us Rick, as a result we know a little
> more about the evolution of Chinese locomotive designs. SY 0005 was
> reported in use at Xilin, north of Nancha, on several occasions and it
> would be interesting to know whether it differed from the production design.
> >
> > Duncan
> >
> >
> > On 10 Feb 2012, at 02:55, rickcoles2003 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your thoughts Duncan. Your explanation seems a most
> likely one but as you say, we'll probably never know. I've uploaded a
> second photo of the loco. Its no better photographically, I regret, but
> it does show a wider view and I think does more clearly illustrate that you
> are right in supposing the boiler does not have a taper. I wonder if this
> was a "one off" or if other early SYs were the same. SY.0002 at Fuxin
> must have been observed and, I guess, photographed but I can't find any
> reference on the web to a pic of the loco.
> > >
> > > Second pic of SY.0006 is at :
> > >
> > >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Steam_in_China/photos/album/1242634950/pic/2080015\
437/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rick Coles
> > >
> > > --- In Steam_in_China@yahoogroups.com, railographer <gen1@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> A very good question! It looks like a cross between a JF6 and an SY
> with a bit of Soviet intervention. The JF6 was the Japanese light 2-8-2
> design on which the SY was closely based. The handrails, cylinders tender
> and lack of an air receiver under the smokebox are similar to the JF6
> design. The large smokebox door hinges and steps from the buffer beam to
> the footplate are similar to the SY but steps of this design were
> retrofitted to a good number of pre-war engines. The buffer beam, stepped
> footplate and cab are different to either design although the cab has some
> features of both classes. The buffer beam looks like a replacement for a
> damaged original.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the most interesting features are on the boiler. The JF, JF6
> and other standard Japanese designs had a top feed, as does the SY, but
> this loco has its boiler feed at around 45 deg on the side of the boiler, a
> feature found on the JS and other classes with a Russian design boiler with
> an external steam main. The regulator valve is also very far forward, as on
> the JS and other designs with an external steam main. These are not
> features that would have been changed during the life of the loco.
> > >>
> > >> There's a picture of a stripped down JS boiler showing the external
> steam main, and regulator valve (immediately behind the chimney) on my
> website.
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.railography.co.uk/photos/china_ind/pingdingshan/files/04-D-0224.htm
> > >>
> > >> It's not very apparent from Rick's photo but the boiler doesn't
> appear to taper towards the front like a standard JF6 or SY either.
> Although the boiler looks similar to that used on the JS, it's diameter
> appears to be smaller and similar in size to a JF6 or SY boiler.
> > >>
> > >> All this makes me wonder whether the loco was a prototype SY with a
> Russian design boiler. The JS was basically a JF with a Russian boiler and
> the RM was an SL6 with a Russian boiler so it wouldn't be a great surprise
> if a Russian design boiler hadn't been tried with JF6 frames, cylinders and
> running gear during the development of the SY design. Sadly, we'll probably
> never find out.
> > >>
> > >> Duncan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 9 Feb 2012, at 03:31, rickcoles2003 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I have uploaded a sadly not very good photo of a loco in steam and
> shunting at the February 7th Rolling Stock Works in Beijing on 14th August
> 1991.
> > >>>
> > >>>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Steam_in_China/photos/album/1242634950/pic/1410028\
834/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc
> > >>>
> > >>> The other two locos present on the same day were JS.5254 (partially
> stripped of its skyline casing to expose its funnel and not in steam) and
> JF.2446 in steam and shunting.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have always supposed the loco in the photo to have be an SY Class
> and given its very low number to have been either a very early production
> model or even a prototype (although more learned sources suggest only
> SY.0001 and SY.0002 were prototypes).
> > >>>
> > >>> However, when I look at the photo, this loco is quite different to a
> standard SY. Some feautures could be the result of modification. The
> skyline casing and heavy buffer beam could have been added later. It also
> could have gained a square tender from another loco (a JF perhaps). But
> the step in the running plate over the middle drivers and the straight
> sided cab are less likely to have been modifications.
> > >>>
> > >>> So my question is - is this really an SY Class at all and if not
> what is it?
> > >>>
> > >>> I await the Group's thoughts with interest.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Rick Coles
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]