Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

Lewis Nodes, director of rolling stock, has posted this on the Bluebell Yahoo group on the subject of 34059, I hope he won't mind me posting it here:

 

It;s good to see that they are on the case. They've had some rough times with Archie and BV's boiler lately. Hopefully once repaired Archie will settle down to a long period of trouble free running.

Great shot on the previous page of Archie, Bryan.

Regards,

Paul

 

A salutory warning for those who think Bulleid boliers are trouble free! Steel fireboxes are cheaper in first cost but wear out faster than copper ones.

 

What a ludicrous statement.

 

I believe the plan with the work required on 34059 is to be completed once 847 is finished and 541 is a considerable way through it's own overhaul, then once the work on 34059 is completed it will indeed have a full 10 year ticket again. so in 2 or 3 years time the railway shall hopefully have 3 big-uns to play with, followed by 73082!!

 

Why is that?

 

I imagine because no-one has claimed that Bulleid boilers are trouble free, but I agree that the response was a bit forceful. However, even with intermittent patch-repairs, I should think a steel firebox would take a long while to reach the initial cost of a copper version, particuarly when followed by the correct water treatment and sympathetic firing methods (I'm speaking in general terms on a matter of routine, and not raising a specific issue before anyone gets the wrong idea and starts an argument. In any case, the firebox of 34059 seems to have been a known issue when restoration was underway). As I see it, the main down-side is the time out of service to facilitate such repairs, as this episode illustrates quite concisely.

 

The Bluebell website put this up yesterday ''Bulleid Pacific No.34059 "Sir Archibald Sinclair" was withdrawn during October 2011, in need of further firebox repairs, which will take about 9-months work, and which probably won't start immediately''. It then gives you a link to the loco's page on the Bluebell site which looking the description is what Lewis Knodes put on the Yahoo page the other day.

 

What a ludicrous statement.

Really? When 60163 was having boiler problems we were told by the Bulleid protagonists that the boilers on these engines were not susceptible to such problems. Actually the truth of the matter is that all boilers wear out but I don't think that many people have adjusted their mindsets to the fact that steel fireboxes do not have the same lifespan that copper ones do. It has always been a question of "you pay your money and you make your choice", but in future that choice may not be there as arsenical copper becomes harder to get hold of. It is for that reason that I think 82045 is "the way ahead", as its supporters suggest, because they are planning to build it with a traditional copper firebox and I don't think that will be a sustainable option in the longer term.

 

There is another news update with regards to 35006 here; http://www.gwsr.com/enthusiasts/dep...n-project/progress-reports/2011/november.aspx

Coming on well! Lets hope the Brake Ejector can be made fairly quickly? Just out of interest, does anyone know how long a new one is expected to normally take to be machined?

 

Read the news update!!!

 

I did; states 1000 man hours. They've ordered a new casting, so does anyone know if this is being done currently offsite? Or likely to be done once it has been recieved?

 

I presume it'll be produced off-site, due to the highly specialised nature of casting the intricate parts that a brake ejector comprises.

 

Do you think that more man hours offsite will see this being done quicker? I hope so; as this is one that is yet to steam in preservation.

 

I shouldn't think they have much choice in the matter, as I doubt they have the necessary equipment to machine this particular assembly, although I'm happy to be corrected on this. From what I remember, they said its probably set them back about a year, so this is probably the reason why. I wouldn't want them to rush it. However, my only (minor) gripe with this restoration is the use of plain wheelsets on the tender instead of BFB wheels, and contrary to what people say, it is quite noticeable, as they are on 34046. Call me pedantic, but I feel strongly about this sort of thing; I hope they will consider a set of BFB wheels at some point in the future, if only to put some icing on the cake. If I had the money to donate, I would, and I presume therein lies the problem; the lack of it. Aside from this relatively minor issue, I'm looking forward to this myself, as its not often that we see a 'new' Merchant Navy emerge from the works, so to speak...

 

At least it has its own tender and isn't on the musical Bulleid / Tender mix and match roundabout...

 

I agree, it's odd but the devil is in the details,I have always thought that 73096 looks wrong with that LMS tender frame (look at the axle box covers!) and I understand why things like this are done and I very may well have done the same if faced with the same challenge but it looks just wrong.

I think too that 34007 looks odd with the 9' wide Merchant Navy tender as does 76017 sombox lamp irons.

 

Cue music... And OldChap, that's exactly my point. I can see why it has been done, but if they have gone to the expense of restoring it in any case, why decide to go for the quick fix? It certainly wasn't a time issue, as it could have been done in parallel with the tender tank, for example. Finance was probably the reason, but as you say regarding 73096's tender frames, it doesn't make it any better. At least time is on the side of the owning group to cast some in future.

 

Surely the issue here lies with the owner who has the final decision and not the MHR?, though I can see where you guys are coming from.

Regards
Chris:

 

Have there been any developments regarding 34073? Several months ago, the Railway Magazine talked of a possible sale to an un-named individual who was looking to restore it to main line standards. Since then, all has gone quiet, with no mention of the sale being completed or abandoned.