7802 at WSR

My father was on the 1015 from BL yesterday. About 3 minutes into the journey a very loud bang and this happened. Guess it will be out for a while.
Almost 1200 until they got away on the charter behind the 7F

 

Can I suggest any speculation regarding the above is kept off of this page, or elsewhere for that matter.... Not helpful to anyone.

 

Why?

 

I understand why, but technical discussion about these sort of things can be interesting and I invariably learn a great deal from them.

 

There can be little doubt about the immediate cause of the damage*. What circumstances led up to that are best left for the WSR to investigate and, only if they see fit in due course, to tell the rest of us about.

* Edit (and further edit): I was jumping to the conclusion of water in the cylinder, having failed to notice the missing piston rod, which implies also a missing piston. Post #20216 suggests a likely cause.

 

Why? Because people often wrongly try an apportion blame with little or no understanding of the issues or the stress and hassle it can cause to all parties involved. Give those involved chance to investigate and put out a statement when able, we seem to live in a society where people think they have a god given right to know all the information instantly these days. Be bigger fish to fry for a few days i'm sure...

 

I agree with the need for discretion - if nothing else, people need to be able to talk freely without feeling at risk of being (mis)quoted everywhere. But I disagree with the "if they see fit" point when one of the key issues with the WSR is stakeholder engagement. Sharing a summary of what's happened and, later, why it happened would show openness without unduly exposing volunteers or staff to external pressure.

For the avoidance of doubt, that does not and should not be taken to imply that any such statement should be released through this or any other online forum.

 

I am surprised no-one has said "bad luck" so far, which it is.

 

Which loco was involved? It seems to me that they were lucky, whichever one it was, as the cylinder doesn't seem to have lost any chunks of metal. Still, a stark reminder that they are about on the edge for locomotive availability.

 

Sadly, I think you are incorrect and there are missing pieces.We shall see.

 

It looks fairly clear on the picture that fragments have broken off the main cylinder casting around each bolt hole.

 

Piston Rod is missing from the Cross Head too (although the Cotter appears to be still in place.)

 

7802.

 

This incident is very sad and caused considerable disruption to the timetable. However, maybe a blessing that Bradley didn’t fail on her previous trip, hauling the Quantock Belle dining train on Saturday evening.

 

Not every hole, but definitely some, e.g. the one in the lower right. I think all the silvery metal is a fracture face.

As a general proposition, can that kind of thing be repaired (e.g. specialist welding), or is a new casting the only option? If the latter, they should set up a dedicated appeal (those seem to have higher success rates than broad, and thus necessarily vague, ones) - I'd send along a few shekels to help.

Either way, not good - my condolences to everyone at the WSR.

Noel

 

And the Erlestoke Manor Fund as well

John

 

Essentially, because while we can all see what happened, why it happened is not discernible from a single photo.

I'm reminded of a derailment on another heritage railway a few years back that got caught on video and posted to YouTube. Cue scores of pages of speculation and name calling and apportioning blame. What those commenting largely failed to realise was that while some of the immediate actions were clear - loco moved off from a stand and derailed on a trap point ahead - that was all that the video showed. No-one commenting knew what the position of signals were; what lever movements had been made in the box; what conversations may or may not have happened between loco crew and signalman etc. In other words, most of the information needed to understand the incident was not apparent from the evidence online, yet that didn't stop endless speculation.

The current instance I would suggest is similar: were I asked to investigate, I could think of several lines of enquiry I would like to follow up to find out "why", none of which are remotely obvious from the photo, which merely shows the end result.

Tom

 

It is both unfortunate that this has happened, and very fortunate that no one has been injured as a result. On the basis that luck is usually made, not given, I'll reserve judgement as to whether it is bad luck until after the cause of this incident has been identified.

 

In reply to this post and picture.

There will be much speculation about what has happened to a locomotive on the WSR leaving BL at 10.15 yesterday. I offer this in an effort to calm a flurry of guesswork. I have no other knowledge of the incident apart from that contained within the photograph attached to post number 20195. What can we establish from the photograph?

1. The locomotive is of GWR design in origin. It has a bogie so cannot be 9351 or 7752. Therefore it must be one of the Manors. Painted green so not 7822. 7828 does not have the cable conduit running under the edge of the foot plating. The locomotive pictured must be 7802, the position of the cover plate on the cylinder cladding for the oil pipe connection behind also supports this identification.
2. It is obvious from the picture that the front cover of the right hand cylinder is missing.
3. The cylinder cover is usually attached to the front of the cylinder casting by 14 off fasteners. These being 7/8" Whitworth studs tapped into the cylinder casting. Only one of these studs remains in situ at the bottom but without its nut.
4. The remaining 13 studs have either broken, stripped the threads in the cylinder casting or have broken and pulled away part of the cylinder casting. The areas of metal which appear light grey will be the areas of metal broken by sudden rupture ("snapping"). The two studs at the 3 O'clock position appear to be broken. A considerable amount of the front face of the cylinder is broken away around 9 of the studs.
5. It is not possible to see if the piston is still inside the cylinder, but as there is no evidence of the piston rod sticking out of the rear of the cylinder it is probable that the piston and piston rod are missing.
6. The crosshead appears undamaged and the cotter which secures the piston rod into the crosshead is evident sticking out of the crosshead on the very left of the picture.
7. Although the detail is slightly blurred it appears that the hole in the crosshead where the piston rod is usually fitted is not empty. Since the cotter is in situ it is logical to assume that part of the piston rod remains inside the crosshead socket. And that this part of the piston rod is retained by the cotter.
8. The cotter is fitted through the crosshead at an angle of 45 degrees to horizontal. There does not appear to be any visible evidence of the cotter on the broken face of the piston rod. From this it can be assumed that the broken face of the rod is not in line with the end of the slot for the cotter.
9. The broken face of the rod comprises of 4 distinct areas of different shades of grey. A patch at the bottom is very light grey with a light grey band above it. At the top a vertical line divides medium grey to the right and dark grey to the left. The dark grey may be shadow or some other reason.
10. Freshly broken steel will be light in colour, darker colours indicating a surface that has either defects or has been cracked for some time.

It is not possible to determine from the above exactly what has happened but the distinct areas of discolouration on what appears to be the broken end of the piston rod suggests that it has probably been cracked for a period of time (the dark area), fatigue has caused the crack to slowly propagate (the medium grey), then rapidly (the light grey) until the point of sudden rupture (very light grey). All other damage to the front of the cylinder being a consequence of the detatched piston travelling forwards unrestrained and hitting the front cover. If this is the case the location of the crack will have made inspection impossible without dismantling, and the crew will have been innocent participants in the saga, but very concerned until they had bought the train safely to a stand.

What has caused this all to happen will have to wait for a full analysis by an expert in the field following inspection of all the parts. Until then that's about all that we can deduce.

Knowing the cause will not dispel the disappointment for the passengers on the train yesterday who had their day disrupted, even more so to the locomotives owners, owning a steam locomotive is trouble enough without problems such as this. Fortunately they are quite rare.

Andy.

 

While not wishing to speculate about causes etc, or make light of the situation, I can't help wondering how far the crew had to go to retreive their errant piston?