4079 Pendennis Castle Overhaul

As far as 6697 was concerned, I think that that was the problem, it had old flues. Everything changed after the incident, the 10 year rule came in, not before time. Not sure about 7808, as it was still operating in 1979, at least. One reason I joined the GWS was after a trip to Stratford with 5900, 7808 and the Vintage Train.

 

Oh I know that, it was more the point that as there was 5 years between 5900 arriving and steaming (and it being 12 yrs after she was withdrawn by BR) one would assume a fair bit of work was needed/done before she steamed.

 

I can't say, a bit before my time at Didcot. Five years is not a long time for an overhaul, it depends on resources and what else is going on at the time.

 

As I understand it, the problem, if that is the right word, was that there was no legislation requiring a locomotive boiler to be examined. The only statutory requirement was the Factories Act and railways were specifically exempted from that Act*. This actually didn't change until the Pressure Systems and Transportable Gas containers Regulations came in in 1989. Thus, there was no problem in simply steaming your recently acquired locomotive without having any independent examination. Following the Didcot and Great Central incidents the Railway Inspectorate issued guidance on steam locomotive boilers but it remained only guidance and was not enforceable. Originally PM18, later revised and re- issued as HSG30.

*An anomaly of this was the fact that places like Crewe Works were Factories and had to comply with the Factories Act so locos working there had to be examined under that Act but there was no legal requirement to examine the same loco working out of Crewe loco on the railway. Fortunately, the railways generally had developed their own standards for examinations and standards and effectively were self policing their boilers. It wasn't necessarily the case with smaller concerns such a the Talyllyn, though. There is one anomaly that still exists with regard to hydraulic testing. Current legislation does not stipulate what the hydraulic test pressure should be but the Factories Act required boilers to by tested to 1.5 x SWP. The current ORR guidance specifies 1.3 x SWP based on BR standards but boiler inspectors still generally require 1.5 x SWP for industrial locos originally built to comply with the Factories Act and ex BR locos to 1.3 x SWP. I've just hydraulicked a 140 psi boiler to the 210 psi required by the boiler inspector and not the 185 psi required by HSE guidance.

 

As I remember it, the 10-year rule was adopted well before 1989 and was probably enforced by the insurance companies. When I was at Bold Colliery in 1980, we were amazed to find that a few of the NRM locomotives in steam still had the same tubes as when withdrawn from BR service! Of course they were government owned and did not need insurance. I am sure that some sample tubes had been removed for examination.

 

I must confess that I had never heard about the Great central incident albeit a quick google throws this up, https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=930 the Didcot incident seems to be barely mentioned anywhere, not even ever seen an indication of the year it happened?

 

Am I reading the report of that incident correctly, that the Perm Sec of the Department of Environment was crawling around in the firebox and wrote the report himself…? That's an episode of Yes Minister they didn't show…

Simon

 

One of the footplate staff involved with the GCR incident is, I believe, still involved, though at the GCRN these days and as far as I know not on the footplate.

It was a nasty incident by all accounts but it didn’t stop them repairing 377 and steaming it again (before it eventually left the line).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The '10 year rule' came in with the publication of PM18 and was based largely on what BR did and what the Factories Act Steam Boiler Regulations said, although there was no requirement to remove tubes or even lift boilers under the latter, only to remove cladding. PM18 was only ever guidance, though. The current Pressure Systems Regulations require a written scheme and this should have all the necessary requirements for examinations in it. Ten years is a norm but it is the owners written scheme and, provided the competent person (boiler inspector) agrees it can be a different period.

 

Would it be fair to suggest therefore that the boiler on 6697 hasn't been lifted since BR days?

Other than some more obvious museum pieces (Winston Churchill, City of Birmingham, Glen Douglas etc), how many other locomotives that have steamed post 1968 if any, would there be in this situation?

 

Would Mallard be another - I don't think it got much more than a retube in 1986, and I don't think the boiler was lifted for that.

John

 

In both cases what would be the position re asbestos, if there beneath the cladding could it all be removed without a boiler lift?

 

Pictures from 1985 show Mallard steaming with no boiler cladding at all, so I'd imagine any asbestos was removed during, or even before, the overhaul in the 80s. I can't imagine that having got the loco working they then lifted the boiler to clad it, so it must be possible to access sufficiently with it in situ.

John

 

Most of the NRM stuff that steamed for Shildon and Rainhill seemed to have had very little done to them. 790, No. 1, 673, 925 before it's overhaul at MHR.

Other countries aren't as rigorous with their regulations. Look at the amount of Swedish locos that get steamed once or twice a year for various celebrations. Obviously they have a different inspection regime to what we have. Then again, when they dragged a couple of B class 4-6-0s out of the strategic reserve after 40 years, they had planned to use one of them to get the other back to the museum! Only because the safety valves failed to lift was the move diesel hauled.

 

925 for sure had it's original tubes at Rainhill. Locomotives with wide fireboxes don't necessarily have to have their boilers lifted.

 

I believe in the US the rule is 1472 steaming days or 15 years, whichever is reached first. In other words unless your loco is steamed about 100 days a year you can go 15 years between boiler overhauls.

Peter

 

I've seen images of US loco boiler barrels being tested for thickness, with results chalked on in a grid pattern. Any idea if that is routine, or merely something for recertification of boilers which haven't held steam for bob knows how long?

 

It’s often done in the UK at the 10 year overhaul, as well. Probably elsewhere, too.

 

It’s all very well saying we want this or that loco overhauled but the GWS is a working museum and will have suffered the same financial setbacks as other museums die to Covid. The paying public want to see engines in steam, they generally don’t care which.
It is clear that to do that the Society will pick those that can be turned round most economically. We don’t know the mechanical condition of 5900, 6106, 6697 or 7808. Major boiler work will swallow up large amounts of cash. I suppose that the GWS could be criticised for concentrating too much on the new builds but it’s a business decision where to allocate scarce resources both financial and manpower.

 

It's also a decision for the scarce resources as to whether they are allocated don't forget. The care and feeding of volunteers is one of the top priorities for any organisation that uses them, and if they aren't involved in something that excites them they may not appear at all.