Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

The bottom end of Boscastle is largely complete but the centre connecting rod has not yet been fitted. I believe they are working on the tender chassis and a new tank is to be fabricated as the old one was quite "leaky"! The new inner firebox, complete with thermic syphons, is finished and much of the outer firebox sheeting has been welded. I think the boiler will be returned April/May time?

 

Thanks for the reply. So in theory we could be seeing her out and about within the next couple of years?

 

Iagree re not a good idea to use the same rotating brushes to transfer oily deposits to coaching stock, remember steam loco lubrication is a total loss system

 

.... well apart from the inside motion on a spam can (in theory!)

 

Yes, there will still be work to do on the boiler when it comes back......But I believe there is a strong desire for Boscastle to be the first official loco to cross the "Gap"......

 

We wont mention the boiler lagging fires then!!!!!!!

 

It's a tale I've heard in the past but I cannot think of where I have heard or read of it. To be honest, I can't think of another good reason for providing the casing as it was. I can't see it being an easier 'fit' as it requires far more in the way of support when compared with the rolled cladding fitted to more orthodox locos.

Water ingress is unlikely to be of any concern in that respect. After all, a carriage washing plant is unlikely to be as penetrating as running through heavy rain at speeds in excess of 80 mph. Whether water ingress was a problem in any case is a different matter.

Steam loco lubrication is generally a total loss system, as you say, but it is fairly rare for oil from this source to get on anything above the running plate. Most of the muck covering a loco comes out of the chimney (including cylinder oil) or from brake dust and, not surprisingly, this also finds its way onto the coaches behind the loco.

 

Steve, if you look at any steam loco in the platform the running plate is well above platform height. Cariage washers clean down to platform height so there is a good 1 to 2 ft in which to pick up any contamination

 

Not disputing that. However, we are talking about a Bulleid pacific as originally conceived and built. These had the casing over the majority of the loco down to platform height. Very little in the way of exposed bits.

 

Wasn't the casing on the earlier ones made of some non metallic substance that I assume wouldn't fare too well in a carriage washer

 

I've got visions of them being made out of cardboard now...

 

Already mentioned previous page. An asbestos-based board.

 

Both the Winkworth and Mannion books refer to going through carriage washers and also the non use of "streamlining" due to war time conditions, but recognising the PR value in typical SR fashion. So are there any carriage washing Bulleid pictures?

 

I’ve been thinking a bit about the oft-repeated claim that Bulleid Pacifics were designed to go through carriage washers. I’ve come to a hypothesis that it isn’t true, but is a confusion of two separate things that are true.

The reasoning is as follows:

1. The SR were definitely using hand-held pressure washers to clean locos by the 1940s I’ve got in front of me photos of an M7 being cleaned in that way in 1943, and an N15x in 1946.
2. A slab-sided profile would be easier to clean with a pressure washer than a conventional boiler profile.
3. The Bulleid Pacific tenders (but not the locos) were built with a profile that matched the carriages.
4. I’ve never seen any evidence that a carriage washing plant was installed at a loco depot. Given that most SR sheds were somewhat under invested, the capital investment of putting in a carriage washing plant while, for example, the shed roofs were in a state of collapse by the late 1940s would seem odd priorities for investment.
5. By contrast, taking a loco light engine to a set of carriage sidings to be cleaned would be considerable unremunerative mileage, line occupancy etc, reducing the hours the loco was available. So it seems an unlikely expense - worst case is that it would require more locos to do the same work, which surely the accountants wouldn’t have countenanced when the build programme was being finalised.
6. No-one seems to have been able to come up with a photo of a Bulleid Pacific in a carriage washer. It may have happened, but if so it was rare.

Given all that, my hypothesis (no more) is that the locos were designed to make cleaning with hand-held pressure washers easier, that equipment either already existing, or being cheap to install, at the bigger loco sheds. However, over time, the phrase “mechanical washing” has got conflated with the “tenders had carriage side profiles” to become “the locos were designed to go through carriage washing plants”. I don’t think there is evidence for that, and the operational difficulties and costs of doing so would be considerable, whereas designing the casing to make washing using hand-held pressure washers easier seems eminently likely.

Tom

 

http://www.semgonline.com/steam/blp21.html

 

That’s at Carnforth in modern times so doesn’t count!

 

It's Littlehampton and a shunt not a wash as the quote makes clear. But it does show a Bulleid going through a carriage washer.

The quote was also included because it claims that Clapham Junction between 1963-67 was a location where it did happen.

 

My mistake but it's still a modern picture. They certainly didn't go through the Clapham washer but I would refer back a previous post of mine, cleaning was done at Nine Elms and almost certainly elsewhere using long handled brooms, much easier than getting up on the platform of a rebuild and doing it the hard way.

 

I’m merely relaying a claim that it did happen if you disagree feel free to take it up with the Southern Email Group who claim that it did happen at Clapham. http://www.semgonline.com/

There is a description of procedure for washing carriages at Clapham and an account of an M7 accidentally getting washed in the carriage washer here (about 1/4 of the way down) http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page30.htm

 

I've no idea on whether it was fact of fiction but one of your reasons doesn't really support your argument. Unless we look to building another Leader type locomotive, a steam loco cannot be built with a profile to match the carriages simply because the driver has to have a means of looking forwards and that means the profile forward of the cab has to be narrower than that behind the cab. I cannot think of a single loco design where the driver is required to lean out in order to see forwards, even if this was a common way of driving in practice.