1014 County of Glamorgan

The A1 boys managed OK without having to sacrifice another loco so one assumes the County project could have gone the same route.

 

what would you prefer? A working example of a class that didn't survive or a derelict member of a class that did in numbers?
.Most of that 8F is still around and can be resurrected, at the cost of building a boiler (An expendable item as someone pointed out earlier) as and when (and if) funds and labour become available.

 

Fair point, but if the 8F had previously been passed over due to having a poor firebox, then it remains a fact that modified for the County it will still essentially be an old tired boiler! Now if you say "ah but the worst parts will be replaced", then you move back towards saying with £250k in the kitty, look seriously at a new build firebox, surely?

As an aside, but related, do we know if there is in fact a UK organisation that will actually contract to build a new traditional large firebox? The "Patriot" people presumably have someone in mind? Also Rileys built an "almost" new box for 60103, and at South Devon Engineering (ex-Pridhams) it looks as though the "Taw Valley" firebox is largely new, but will presumably be welded not rivetted. I think the 82045 group on the SVR are quietly confident of finding a UK firm for their Standard 3 box in a couple of years.

 

Oh for goodness sake, I was being ironic. Making a new boiler is a big deal. History relates that the use of the flanging plates from the 8F boiler for the County boiler meant a big financial saving, that's why they did it when they couldn't get a boiler to meet the design requirements for the 99xx out of standard boiler components.
And yes, it was always the fashion in GWR territory to destroy unwanted old locos in order to use the components to build new useful ones, and we have at least four Manors, one Dukedog and three 72xx that prove it.
But this thread really is doing nothing worthwhile: I must stop adding to it.

 

if anyones seriously losing sleep over 48518's boiler.. there is a spare 8f boiler knocking around in Turkey, I believe is coming back with a tender and wheels / fittings which may end up on 44901 and 45551.

in short.. there's 2 8f's in Turkey earmarked for scrapping, one complete in every sense of the word, another "complete-ish, but barry-esque"... those two in Turkey combined with the surviving frames of 48518 could rebuild two 8fs from 3... and for not a great deal of cash... that is if anyone really wanted to restore 48518..., besides being boiler less, it has no wheels, cylinders, tender etc etc.. its basically a set of frames... that may not even be from 48518 originally.

 

I dont think the discussion is currently about the 8F boiler going back on 48518, rather the merits or otherwise of using old and worn parts duly modified and the worst bits repaced, to produce the "County" boiler.
Maybe anyway we are all a step too far foreward, in that if the LNWR boiler man is merely stripping the 8F firebox to an extent where he can pronounce on the actual viability of the modifications required, and that will surely include consideration of the worn state of the useable bits, then maybe it is prudent for us to wait and see the outcome of his investigations. Clearly he will not give the go ahead for the firebox rebuild if he ends up finding little or nothing worth saving.

I dont think anyone then seriously expects the unit to go back onto 48518.

 

seems to me some people like to have a pop at the GWS (and the GWR in general) when they equally should be condemning the other groups who have used parts of this loco and others (Ie almost ALL locos have used parts gleaned from other locos in the preservation era thanks to Mr Woodhams relaxed attitude to buying spares, outright theft of the same and locos being stripped in the Preservation Era)

 

This is a very good point. I've been wondering about this boiler prssure question for some time. I was also under the impression that the staying arrangement was different on the County firebox in order for it to be pressed to 280lb (later reduced to 250lb). The 8F firebox staying is (I believe) designed for 225lb boiler pressure.

Does this mean that the completed County, if running with the 8F firebox, would be set at 225lb boiler pressure? If so, that's a pity as it would appear to be a "de-tuned" version of the original. In their last form with the short double chimney, higher superheat (I think) and even with 250lb boiler pressure, the Counties were ferocious machines, in the right hands.

It will be a pity if corners are cut and the loco runs at 225lb boiler pressure, in order to reduce the costs of the rebuild.

 

A boiler is a different kettle(!) of fish when compared to wheelsets axleboxes and other parts taken from locos either during their stay at Barry or afterwards. In my opinion when the boiler was removed for the 8Countyf that opened the floodgates for the carcass to be stripped.

 

Since we'll never resurrect every lost class I can't say that not having a County would concern me unduly.

 

How about using a GNR boiler to build an LBCSR loco? Would you prefer not to have an extra southern loco?

 

We are starting to drift off-topic now, so having been responsible for bringing this thread back into view, can I respectfully suggest that maybe we should let it rest until the "County" people get the results of the LNWR boilersmith's investigations.

Thanks

46118

 

The major difference being that the Atlantic boiler didn't need major modification, was in good condition and didn't require the destruction of another loco! But of course you knew that and were just being provocative.

 

The construction of the Brighton Atlantic is not resulting in the destruction of another loco.

 

Yes, the SVR itself, which possesses one of the best boiler shops in the country, and has already turned out one, albeit much smaller, brand new boiler for Dolgoch. At least, that is the impression that I have got. They use a lot of volunteer labour so the advantage of having the boiler built at BH would be that at least the more menial work on it could be conducted by those volunteers, which equates to a big saving.

 

No but it prevents the use of the boiler to build another more correct loco so the principle is the same.

What's more the loco hasn't been destroyed, most of it still exists , much of it being used on other locos. The important bit, the mainframes, are probably available to anyone who might feel he need to re-build it. With so many 8fs around, including at least three "imports" that would seem unlikely to happen.

What would you view have been had, lets say, 8233 needed a new boiler and this one used for that? That would also involve dismantling the derelict loco but I suppose that would be OK, as would the use of , lets say, a Merchant Navy boiler to restore another loco to service that had a boiler problem.

I get the feeling that it's more that its a "GWR" loco that's benefitting that is the problem here.

 

Why would you want to build another GNR Atlantic?

To me it's the fact an intact loco is being scrapped for parts, and that parts of it are being used to do a half-arsed job of making a County. If the boiler from 48518 was used for 8233, I'd be quite happy with that, because there would still be an 8F boiler floating around. However, now that the boiler is being split into component parts there's no going back.

 

The swapping of boilers for locos was common, and still is to some extent, the Isle of Man Railway for example used the boiler of No.8 Fenella to help No.1 Sutherland return to steam for the line's 125th anniversary in 1998. By the way isn't a boiler from another MN being restored for 35027? Comparing pooling boilers between classes of locos, and using a boiler from an 8f to create a bastardised boiler for a County-alike are two different things. And I disagree with the idea that the seemingly general discontent with using the 8f's boiler is down to the fact that it's for a GWR loco.

 

It's a bit harsh to compare the Brighton Atlantic's boiler to that on the County. For starters, the Atlantic boiler when the locomotive was withdrawn, was used purely for steam raising purposes, and was out of frames for a good couple of decades after the event. Arguably it has been a stationary boiler for longer than it was possible for it to have been on a single member of the GNR Ivatt Atlantic class.

EDIT: To clarify, it was a stationary boiler longer than it would have been used on Ivatt Atlantic X or Ivatt Atlantic Y separately in service, given that boilers were swapped round regularly between class members.

I personally think a whole new boiler would have been a better bet; but since it's one of a great number in preservation, and by no means "LNER built" as I understand it, I'm struggling to understand the alternate view of it being fitted to a unique locomotive. The 8F is not a rare beast, and there seems to be genuine doubt as to the provenance of this particular collection of parts.

Whatever happens and however they decide to build up the boiler; good luck to them, sincerely.