Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

I wouldn't say they are a false economy as there's relatively low initial cost for the new article. However, I suppose it depends on what goes wrong with them. It seems that it is easier and cheaper to patch-repair steel fireboxes in this day and age than copper, particularly now welding techniques have advanced, but there comes a time when even this becomes uneconomic. The problem with copper is its high initial cost, although I suppose you are paying for longevity. However, the inability to keep a locomotive warm in today's operational environment probably illustrates the shortcomings of steel as a medium for constructing fireboxes, whereas the daily grind between washouts during the SR/BR era more than likely helped to prolong the life of a steel firebox due to the minimal amount of cooling between trips.

 

The problem with copper fireboxes is the material itself -arsenical copper. I think its regarded as dangerous to make and the only place where it is now made is in the third world, where H & S is not such an issue. In time they'll catch up with Europe and either a safer method making it will have to be devised, or a replacement alloy developed if all our copper 'boxed engines aren't to become museum pieces or receive replacement steel 'boxes. In this respect, 82045 is not the loco for the future that it is claimed, because they plan to fit it with a copper firebox, and I'm not sure that it is tenable long term. I think that steel fireboxes will become the norm and the transition shouldn't be too painless because they are cheaper in first cost, and then it becomes a case of looking after them to get the maximum life from them.

 

There have been a couple of updates regarding 34039:

http://www.boscastleloco.co.uk/#/9th-sept-2011/4555476533

 

Is there a reason for replacing the syphons when making a new box? Burrows and Wallace in their 1958 paper on experience with the steel fireboxes of the Bulleid pacifics noted that one MN was running with a boiler without syphons (and had shown an edge in efficiency, albeit with the limits of experimental error), and it appeared at the time that thought might be given to removing them on other locos.

 

I wonder how they were defining 'efficiency'? I can't see how boiler thermal efficiency could be improved by removing the syphons - that's a significant amount of high heat transfer surface you're losing, along with any improvement gained from increased circulation? I guess it wouldn't matter on heritage lines, but it would certainly be noticeable on the main line.

 

I'm surprised myself that they concluded that it had the edge in terms of efficiency. As Sheff says, the syphons improve circulation in the firebox, so I would like to know what terms of reference the report was written under as well. Was it more efficient in terms of burning coal (improved draughting as a result of the mass of steel being removed from the firebox)? In which case this is a completely different issue to the one the syphons were intended to address. Reading Winkworth, his account of the modification was that it offered little, if any, advance on the fireboxes as designed, and was not worth the expense of introducing.

 

There's been a news update on Southern Locomotives Ltd's website; some good and some bad. See here:

http://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html

 

Bugger! Someone's always got to break the news. I'm surprised it hadn't leaked out sooner. I didn't dream that it would be SLL's own website that would spill the beans.
Manston is out of traffic for a while for some reason or another. And that is all anyone needs to know.

 

I also understand that "Sir Archibald Sinclair" has been "mothballed" at the Bluebell.

Regards
Chris:

 

Yeah I just read that myself on the Bluebell e-mail group. The words "mothballed indefinately" sounds a scarily long time it could be out.

 

Anyone know a time scale for Sir Archibald Sinclair.

Thanks

 

At least until 34053 is complete, in any case due to the lack of space at Herston works. Shame about 34059. After starting out as a a promising year for Bulleids, it looks like it will end on a bit of a lower note. Never mind; plenty to look forward to in 2012 (completion of 34053, 34046 should be going mainline, potential completion of 35006 towards the end of the year, 34070 returning to traffic and probably more)...

 

Anyone one seen this on the RM web site. The loco looks very impressive

http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/eastleigh-naming-for-miniature-channel-packet

 

From the Bulleid Society website:

27th October 2011
Sir Archibald Sinclair

No. 34059 has been withdrawn from traffic as a result of stay problems on both sides of the lower firebox and cracks in the area of the junction of the syphon top flange to the crown sheet. The exact process for the repairs is under discussion but it is likely that the locomotive will remain out of traffic for some months.

 

Is this the same problem reported at the start of the month? Or something new?

 

Same thing.

 

I notice that UK Steam is showing 35028 running as 35017 when it re-appears from it's maintenance period and the latest news about 34053 can be found here http://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html

Cheers,

Paul

 

Now THAT is a turn up for the books.

 

28's run as Belgian Marine a few times in preservation, hasn't it?

 

I think you're right. Certainly seen it at least once as 35017.