Engineering Standards, ex-82045 The way ahead?

Very interesting points. Having worked mostly in the car industry and on both sides of the design / manufacturing divide it's pleasing to see how things have moved on.
In the old days (30+ years) there was a lot of suspicion, division and 'silo' management (only looking at your bit). The analogy was to throw the drawing over a high wall and say 'Go on you bu..ers. Make that then'. I tend to believe that this view was prevalent in UK manufacturing industries and particularly on the railways with the 'High Gods' in the design office passing down drawings to the shop floor. (4 weeks experience in Derby Works, never question the design... just get it made)

On the manufacturing side it was pretty common to get a print from the design office and we would sit down and think about how to make it and then alter the design and have 'construction' drawings which were 'shop floor' only, or only to get a product to production and then someone from service coming along and saying, how the hell are you going to change that.

All of this was experience which never seemed to go back up the chain to the design office or shared within the works but remained local and part of the skill set of each area.

Thinking back, that way of working wasted time and effort on all sides. Once the 'sides' started talking and working alongside each other progress was much better. The relevance of this to the Heritage movement? Well today we are a much more compact organisation and information and techniques transfer much more rapidly. You could argue that it is not only the materials but the techniques (manufacturing and design) that have changed for the modern heritage industry. These techniques will come from the technologies available economically to us. So fabrication instead of castings, machining instead of forgings, design optimisation etc. The technologies available today are optimised for businesses. Why would you spend hours making a wooden pattern with core boxes when a sacrificial poly pattern can be made directly off the CAD model. The challenge is to use these benefits to our advantage, the key is people working together and communicating.

PS I do realise that 'Heritage' should also include processes but at some point in the future we are going to have to face up to harsh realities if we want to see our magnificent machine still operating.

 

Interesting, I had not seen that. Presumably thoroughly tested by computer modelling. They screwed up the last time round (albeit nearly 50 years ago) as they had not considered the unique issues posed by the double fairlie boiler's role in the overall structure, and had to re-learn what the designers in 1872 had worked out. https://www.ffestiniograilway.org.uk/full_article?a=musical-bogies-part-i

 

Not for the first time, the 82045 thread has been hi-jacked.

 

Poly patterns are indeed the way to go for large one-off castings such as cylinder blocks, but where multiple-use patterns are required i.e. for grate sections or commonly used fittings, then traditional wood, resin or alloy patterns are still the norm. There is already a good deal of communication between heritage railways and loco owning groups on the subject of materials, procurement of spares, and the sourcing of patterns.

Andy

 

You're dead right, of course....'fraid it rather goes with the teritory..... more so, when the header includes a thought provoking phrase such as 'The Way Ahead'.

I'll just head off to play "hunt the appropriate thread" before we wake a moderator.

 

Indeed, I should have stated for one offs. End of hijack...

 

Ta.... the nearest thread title found, "Advances in Technology" turned out to be an eclectic debate on archaeology! Couldn't find anything for 'New Technology', 'Integration' or 'owt else along those lines.

S'pose we'd better give the 82045 thread back to it's rightful owners!

 

I am intrigued about the reason for the corrosion of modern boiler plate. Did the older material have thin laminations which provided layer of protection against corrosion? Has anyone asked a metallurgist why modern plate corrodes more quickly? The main constituents of the steel must be the same so perhaps the answer is in the smaller trace elements.

 

I'm not a metallurgist but I have seen boilers where the bottom few inches of plate have been replaced and later exposed at the next repair/overhaul and the corrosion of the new plate was significantly worse than the old plate. Possibly due to the better quality control and the relative lack of impurities in the modern steels.

 

I was lead to believe it was something to do with the recycled content in new steel and some of the corrosion already being present where as old steel made for the first time was 100% fresh. Having pulled bolts of both a 1920's car and cars from 1960's onwards and comparing how many nuts have rusted solid and snapped in the removal I would take the 1920's steel any day.

 

In the case you mention above what was being used in the way of feedwater Treatment?

 

Been doing a bit of reading. It seems that the electrochemical potential of old steel with oxides on the surface is different to that of new clean metal, and the new steel is eroded preferentially *even if they are the same composition steel*!

 

No idea. The boilers I'm referring to were in a boilermakers for repair.