Royal Duchy 2015

Just spoken to my dad who's at buckfast, they have just taken the carriages out of the open shed which have been there for years.
The pannier has just been coupled up to no.9 and they were just about to move her into there .
Dads spoken to a guy who seems to think she will be there for about a week.

 

Any chance of some test runs on the South Devon Railway, before she goes back?

John

 

Sometimes i do wonder, was the test run enough to ensure everything was bedded in? should engines have a period of running in before they are allowed back on the mainline after axlebox repairs? just out of interest, was No9 given a loaded test after its light test following the second repair? or was this run behind the 47 its first run for any distance?

 

What speed did they haul '09 down to Brizzle at? it was on the fast, but not under any load with that 47 on the front. It had a long LE down to Southall, but either way, the RD was the first workout at speed with a full load.

 

70000 is on Torbay duty next sunday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No 60009 will not work any trains on the SDR .As its heavily restricted as to where it can run on the line.
Its only there for repairs.

 

That was indeed part of the theory. How much was due to axle flex we don't know but we could carry out an exercise on a preserved example in order to examine the extent of the two factors. The acceptance of and indeed the perceived need for lateral flexibility as part of a frame structure during periods of design practice can cause issues. Later thinking is that the frame structure should be rigid and all lateral movement requirements included as deliberate design mechanisms though this has implications with respect to cost. It would be possible to have the leading hornblocks cast as a single linked unit though this would have weight implications. The need for the leading coupled axle to have some lateral movement or transferring this to the third axle is another matter. Unified drive is seen as the best way to apply three cylinders, divided drive forces the frames to absorb out of balance forces both drive and balancing. There comes a point where it is impossible to use four cylinders, you cannot provide a strong enough cranked axle. You can design a strong enough axle to permit a higher powered machine that is three cylindered. Which, in a way, explains my interest in the type and those problems that occur with it from time to time.

 

no i am not questioning fitness to run, i am asking in cases of where there has been major work done, such as new axleboxs or bearing work, may it be prudent for a period of running in before any main line work? such as having to under go milage accumilsation so that the chances of failing on a run are minimised , in no way was i questioning anyones decision, sometimes commercial conciderations can cloud peoples vision, i can see very good reason for making it mandatory that an engine has to complete x amount of trouble free running on an aprooved main line connected private line and a loaded test run, proir to being allowed to return to the main line pool.

 

There is no reason for new railway infrastructure to be so ugly even when being built to a budget. When I read for my civil engineering degree, a course in aesthetics was compulsory. I do not believe that has been the case for many years.

 

I may be completely wrong, but this looks to me like a temporary bridge.

I used to work for a company that is heavily involved in Station improvements and refurbishment, and in my experience, temporary structures for public use are constructed to extremely high specifications, albeit pig ugly. As ever, Elf & Safety driven.
Does anyone remember the temporary footbridge at Purley that was installed whilst the subways were being refurbished? That was a real dog!

Let's hope this one is only temporary.

 

Serious thread drift here.

Maybe someone should start a new thread for ugly temporary (or permanent) new station structures.

 

I worked it out on Sat from the times at roughly 75 mph.

 

Can't say, my dads been there all morning.
They would like to think so but obviously that's something that will have to be talked about between loco owners etc.
Her driving wheels are being dropped, so not a 5 min job.
Obvs people were saying lots of things , as they do.
But quite a few people are saying lack of lubrication to middle cylinder .
I live in bath, heading to parents in Devon next week, so hoping in a way she will still be there!

 

Hope no 9 back to full health asap. I'm not aware of A4's in preservation having any significant history of axlebox problems.

Ref bridge - clearly a temporary scaffold structure.

 

Remember 60007 went on a mileage accumulation (1000 trouble free miles), after maintenance, before venturing out onto the mainline, being mentioned many times.

Seemed to be a pre-requisite of her mainline acceptance.

Think this makes a lot of sense for all concerned.

 

Do we know which driving axlebox(es) were running hot ?

 

Agreed, obviously it is. I should have written enough to make it clear that my post was a more general comment.

 

Plus Cromwell ran a few services!!