BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

I think you may yet owe an apology, I've counted the driving wheel spokes on this
http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrt311.htm and it's 17.

 

My my! I never thought my original post on wheel design philosophy would decend into such acrimony.
For the record; the drawing I used was SL/SW 48 which is the definitive article regarding the Class 3 (2-6-0 and 2-6-2T) wheels so far as the Drawings Registrar of BRSLOG is concerned. Further, before work on the pattern I did indeed confirm the number of spokes at 17 from several photographic sources. Those other photographs referenced here also confirm 17 spokes is correct. Unless Orion can prove there has been a massive cover-up by the CIA working in league with Area 51 I'm going to stick with that number.
Orion may I also offer my sincere thanks for providing the other posters here and myself with much entertainment.
Please; can this thread now return to Hengist and let any further debate about the BR Std Cl3 continue on the appropriate thread.
These are my final words on this topic on this thread.

 

Is spoke counting the new rivet counting?

 

Playing devils advocate, I learnt a long time ago that drawings can lie, or more precisely, the drawings may not be followed, but the camera, or rather the non-digital camera, does not lie. The RCTS book on the locos provides numerous pre-digital photos and, with those that you can count, the score is 100% with 17 spokes. Always possible that another patten was made later, with 15 spokes, and one or two locos had replacement wheels but the evidence for this needs providing.

 

Sorry to drift away from the awesome Class 6 but looking at the 82xxx photos, some of them official BR images taken when the locomotives were new, in Talbot, E (1982) "A Pictorial Record of British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives", OPC shows that the driving wheels have 17 spokes as far as I can make out. All the images are 3/4 views rather than "side on" so it is easy to miscount. No need for any apologies in my view, but sponsoring a set of said wheels would be nice!

 

Well its looks as though we are going to have to agree to disagree, I still get 15!

 

Put the bottom of the computer mouse above the spoke you start with, then count round. I've done this three times on some of the photographs and I keep getting 17 spokes.

 

Will you explain to the rest of us just how you arrive at that figure. Could it be that you refuse to believe the evidence of your own eyes?
The photographs clearly show the wheels to have seventeen spokes.

Meic

 

Got to be honest when I counted, i got 17 looking at the pictures.
Whats your source for 15 ?

 

Don't worry Brian, I think I know who we trust to make the right pattern for our engine!! and yes, a spoke or 2 does matter between 'friends'/engines.
Anyway, we need the 3 big cast frame stretchers before any wheels. Any one want to contribute towards the £100k for them?

 

Could they be borrowed off a 9F that isnt using them at the moment or is this size peculiar to Standards 6/7/8... just a thought

 

:lalala:

 

'Fraid not or we would have been down that road like a shot. They were a modification because the Brits kept cracking their frames with too much flexing etc. Only the Clan and Duke have them, or did the Brits get a rebuild with them as necessary/opportune??

 

Since everyone else is getting 17 from various images are you prepared to name your source for 15?

 

I have a hunch that Orion has been counting the spokes on a Class 2 2-6-2T (15 spokes), not a Class 3 2-6-2T (17 spokes). Oh dear.

 

Far as i Know the Clans and Brits didnt get them, they were a feature of post 1953 production, the Duke had them 9F's have them, the next lot of Clans Brits were going to have them...
I dont know that any we're retro fitted to Brits perhapsthe custodians of 7000 AND 70013 will know if they have them.

The Drawing for or the cast spring hanger/ stretchers for 9f's is not the same as the one for 71000, the wheel spacings and positioning of brake components mounted on these stretchers are of course very different and the purpose of the fittings was to provide continuous reinforcement to the lower edges of the main frame...
Whether using a combination of existing cast stretchers and welded reinforcement is practicable perhaps warrants further investigation.?
Also as the loco itself has a lesser piston thrust than the 7mt and is, as the record stands, intended for heritage use only is the 'upgrade' to integral castings really necessary or would the original design not suffice ? perhaps with a horizontal strip welded at the lower edge of the frame to give an inverted T (as on german 'standards')

 

:rofl:

 

Not a comment about wheels you'll be pleased to know.

Although there is much merit in your suggestion I have my reservations for a number of reasons. They include: -


a: Would such modifications be accepted by an insurer without adequate calculated verification of the revised design?
b: Would such a departure from the original design for the Clans (72010 onwards) invalidate any future VAB approval should operation on NR metals be contemplated in the future?

Conversations with various formal bodies regarding 82045 have clearly recommended sticking to its original design so far as possible. Slight depatures from drawings have been made to accomodate available materials. I.e. the frames are nominal 28mm rolled plate instead of 1 1/8".

 

The projected Clans, from 72010 onwards would have also been fitted with a cast rear dragbox, the same as that fitted to the Duke and the last batch of Britannias 70045-54, instead of a fabricated one.

 

Yes Brian, you are right on that point and a bit of homework soon suggests more trouble than its worth
But my last point is that certain new design 'improvements' intended for the final ( never built ) batch of Standard pacifics are themselves a departure from the original design, we're never put into service other than on 71000, and as such are more rather than less likely to trouble the VAB.. and are also more complicated/expensive to produce.