82045 The way ahead?

Perchance 84030? See Bluebell Railway - Locomotive Works News - 84030
- patterns made jointly for 84030 and 82045 pony truck components.

Tom

 

The first update of 2013 is now on 82045 :: January 2013 news update

 

82045 Latest news. Plenty of riveting, machining and casting.

AGM Kidderminster Museum, 2o'clock, 6th April. All welcome.

82045 :: February 2013 news update

 

Nice article in this issue of Steam Railway on 82045. Also on 84030.

 

Also on 72010 & standards in general.

 

A question for those with greater knowledge than myself. 82045 is a class 3 Loco, although at the upper end of the class. What maximum load is she going to be capable of pulling ?

 

I think a fair answer would be "remains to be seen". There's photos of them in the hilly South Wales valleys with two or three behind (which would have been well within their capabilities), but then they worked the ECS's into and out of a fairly flat Waterloo which could be 11+. So it will depend on where it is being used. Fresh out of the box I'm sure it will be a strong performer but I would expect that the engineers behind 82045 will not want to see her overworked and shaken to pieces.

I expect that on the SVR she'll manage eight max.

Of course, this should be seen as "stop-gap-speculation" until someone with more knowledge than myself comes along!

 

"I expect that on the SVR she'll manage eight max".

Can`t argue with that Jamie. Tony thinks the same and yes she will not be shaken to pieces if the Trust can help it!

Regards
Barbara

 

Not going to send it Southall for the boiler to be uprated to 350psi, have the cylinders bored out to the max, double Kylchap blastpipe with German smoke deflectors - and of course painted apple green out so that it can pull 27 coaches over Shap at 80mph!

smiley thing...

 

Arrrrrrgh!! Heaven forbid........;-)

 

If I win the lottery I'm giving that a go.

 

If you win the lottery Jamie - we need a boiler first !!! ;-)

 

Mind you, would be epic while it lasted - for about 27 minutes until it fell into a heap of bits :smile:

More seriously, wasn't the boiler on a 82xxx based quite closely on the GWR boiler on a 51xx? But the cylinders on the 51xx are considerably bigger than on an 82xxx - that suggests that in either one design or the other, the relative proportions of boiler and cylinders aren't right. So did the 51xx have a reputation for being under-boilered? Or the 82xxx have a reputation for being over-boilered? Given the later development of the 61xx with higher boiler pressure, I'd suggest it is more likely that the 82xxx is "right" and the 51xx was underboilered - does anyone care to comment? Swindon design practice isn't my core area of expertise!

thanks

Tom

 

One of the maxims of the standard classes was that they we're 'over boilered' and would produce sufficient steam for the cylinders at fairly moderate draughting
Theory being that if you really needed a lot of steam it would be there at the expense of efficient combustion, but for everyday duties enough coal to cover the bars and enough air for it to burn would get you what you needed at an efficient combustion rate and IF you needed more you got the next size up In the case of the standard 4's/ 9fs More was needed and the next size up wasnt suitable/ didnt exist so the draughting was upped (double chimney) ..
so in theory you could put a double Lempor on a Brit and run the cylinders without a liner and it would gallop up shap with whatever on at 80mph... but probaly trash its cylinders./ melt its superheater elements/ shake its motion off and generally fall to bits sooner rather than later.

 

My own experience of the 82s is of their time in south Wales. They were used on the Cardiff Valleys interval service which consisted of Five carriages (Six in Summer). The boiler, based on a well proven design, produced plenty of steam and they could keep time with those loads but the nature of the work, stop - start and smart running between stations, didn't really suit them and they soon became 'rough'. They struggled a bit on the Vale of Glamorgan line, particularly restarting from St Athan, heading west. However they usually made up time with a good non stop thrash between Llantwit Major and Bridgend. They did not last long in South Wales and were exchanged for 51XXs. Of all the classes to work the interval services, the Taff As were probably the favourites due to their smooth running. The 82s were not 'bad' locomotives but I often wondered why a Class 3 was considered adequate for the Cardiff Valleys, even the venerable Taff As were classified 5 by BR. We were looking forward to an allocation of Std Class 4 but the diesels came instead. A pity really, they would have been ideal for the job rather than wasting their time on featherweight trains on Southern branch lines.

 

Under boilered? I don't think so. They were a very successful design and continued to be built into BR days. They put in stirling work in the south Wales valleys which, I would suggest, was a pretty good test for any design.

 

Would of been interesting if Doncaster had fitted some of the LTS standard 4 tanks with double chimneys. The design work had been done.

 

Well, it appears that the 3s were deliberately overboilered and the 51s less so. We learn something new everyday!

 

Yes, I was just curious - the two designs have nearly identical boilers (and therefore presumably similar rate of maximum steam production) but the 51xx has considerably bigger cylinders (and therefore presumably maximum steam consumption). Seems like it is the 82xxx that is overboilered, rather than the 51xx being underboilered, though, from what people have suggested. At least it probably meant that, in order to meet their designed power output, the 82xxx's didn't need to spray half-burnt cinders across half the countryside!

Tom

 

Oh but they did. You always knew when an 82 was up front by the constant rattle of cinders on the carriage roof. Of course they had 'Self cleaning' smokeboxes.