Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

I don't think you are quite getting the gravity of that particular incident.

You are correct that the locomotive is not responsible for the action itself; nevertheless, it is recorded against the locomotive.

 

It was not bad luck. It was also not due to the design of the loco as built but a change to that brought about by ignorance of those who rebuilt it.

 

I wonder what 34067's health was like back in 1963, when she became one of the early withdrawals - what reasons were behind that choice?.
There were only four withdrawals prior to November 1963.

 

My apologies Steve: I was not criticising the design, for clarity.

 

Any number of reasons could have been behind her withdrawal. With diesels beginning to take over west of Salisbury, fewer steam locos would have been needed to cover services and with 34067 being a Salisbury loco, withdrawal beckoned.

 

The little end failure was caused by a bad decision during overhaul about a detail of one component. It was that particular loco's bad luck to be the one affected. It was good luck that the consequences were no worse.

 

I was on the train and am aware of the gravity. My point is not to make light of such but to counter the oft heard view that Tangmere was a bad loco as put forward by Big Al. The incident could have happened to any loco in the same circumstances, it was 34067s 'bad luck' that it was the loco involved. The same can be said of Wootton Basset, a serious incident, that just happened to involve 34067.

 

Bear in mind that 34067 left Barry in 1981 and I doubt much of the motion including almost definitely the Connecting Rod that 'dropped', remained intact by that time? Also bear in mind that preservation over the past forty plus years will have needed to deal with any wear-and-tear from early 1960s.

 

If I read it correctly the RAIB report blames components - gudgeon pin, nut & cotter pin at least - manufactured in preservation and not the rod itself.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/RAIB_Winchfield2013.pdf

 

Manufactured and designed in the preservation era as I recall - a design modification had been made away from the original, without a sufficiently robust process of design review.

Tom

 

A design modification to one that works perfectly safely on other classes of loco.
Just saying.

 

No guarantee of it working on this class just because it works elsewhere, and then only as good as the maintenance and inspection.

 

Locomotive engineers learned a long time ago that if you put such things as cotter pins in a direction where they are subject to reciprocating forces there is a chance that they will eventually be knocked out. It won't happen every time to every loco but it will happen occasionally and to not take account of that is folly. It is similar with taper cotter pins on crankpins. They should always be set so that the pin is radial with the large end nearer the wheel centre; that way any centrifugal force is driving the pin tighter and not applying a loosening force. Reciprocating steam locos are essentially two or more hammers that will knock themselves apart if you give them half a chance and, strangely enough, if a person wants to remove a cotter pin or similar, the usual thing he will use is a hammer.

 

OK, can we see 'the list' please? A loco is only so good as the crew. Some locos need a bit more thought to them to get the best out of them. I suspect if you look at the mileage covered and loads worked and take out issues that I've mentioned that have little to do with the loco, you'll find it to be pretty darn good.

 

You do talk some nonsense at times.

 

It would be nice if, just once, when you make those sweeping critical statements you would back it up with a clarification as to what exactly is the "nonsense" from your point of view.

I don't necessarily agree with Al on everything he's written in this thread but maintaining a dialogue by way of discussion rather than grumpy down the pub-esque throwaways has got to be better, surely?

 

Is that not at least partly to do with the fact that by and large most locos that come the way of WC crews are Stanier designs, which are quite different from Bulleids and require quite different handling. If you're a crew member who has spent most of their training on Black 5s and the like and is used to working them, to occasionally be presented with an extremely different machine that wants different handling is going to be a challenge as you have to readjust your thinking of how to work it, and perhaps restrain yourself from instinct or dealing with certain circumstances the default way that works with the other locos you're used to. Yes, WCRC now have a Bulleid to work with and also do a lot with Flying Scotsman, but both of those locos are arguably more powerful than an Unrebuilt West Country, giving a bit more power in reserve if things go wrong, and are also more conventional, so might behave a bit more like the locos they are used to (pure speculation on my part, I will admit. I have not crewed any of these locos so don't know first hand what they're like!)

I wonder, were Tangmere to be part of a larger fleet of Unrebuilt Light Pacifics operated by the same crews, whether that would have had an effect on its reputation