Betton Grange

Yep.
In any case it doesn't really make much sense to talk about parts as belonging to this loco or that loco. Swindon just didn't work like that. Same as tenders. In preservation a loco in service needs a tender in service, and a loco out of service on show probably needs a tender, (although a viewing platform instead might have visitor appeal), but there's no point at all in having spare tenders lying round taking up valuable space and either rotting outside or taking up works space inside.

 

Well put, that's how I rationalise the current so-called replicas being built...Swindon would have done much the same

 

Not sure how you can say with any certainty that any other purchaser would have 5952 in better nick by now, whoever finally takes her on, it's going to take some serious time and money, very few people would be capable of turning a loco in such a state round in a relatively short term.

 

Because the other offer for 5952 was by a group ready to start 0n her as soon as purchased, whilst 6880 was always going to cannibalise her to finish 68' before doing 5952. 4 Years have passed since we bought 5952, so had she gone elsewhere progress would no doubt have been made by them.

However she hasn't gone elsewhere, she is now under the care of 6880 Society and it is written in the T&Cs of purchase from Ken Ryder that 5952 MUST be restored in her own right. An idea was made internally to do the overhaul alongside 6880, however this was rejected for a couple of reasons. So 5952 will have to wait her turn, but believe me there is the will within the 6880 Society to see her restored.

 

Good! - Did Ken insert a time limit along with the "must be restored in its own right" clause?

 

Err can't remember! I was in Portsmouth when Q/Rich etc did all the paperwork for this deal, but when I asked they were as honest as they could be with regards to the deal. When I next meet up with 6880 I'll ask the question, probably be the AGM as that's norm Feb time.

 

eBay Account now live to help raise funds for 6880
http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/6880bettongrange

Summary of the Working Weekend
http://www.6880.co.uk/12-members-working-weekend/

 

6880 CYLINDER APPEAL – JOIN “THE 200 CLUB”

Since 2003 work has slowly progressed with the recreation of a GWR Grange locomotive at Llangollen Railway, after all 80 originals were scrapped by British Railways in the 1960s. Since this original start date, all major components have been acquired or built except one, the unique Grange cylinder block.

In December 2008, a group of volunteers went to the National Railway Museum in York to catalogue drawings from Swindon Works that had been presented to the NRM upon its closure. By chance, the group unearthed the exact drawing for the 68XX Cylinder Block. With this discovery quotes were obtained for the pattern making and subsequent casting, with the grand total being over £60,000!

However, in 2013 fellow new build project “The Unknown Warrior” trialled the use of polystyrene pattern making for their cylinders, and early this year saw the first of three cylinders successfully cast from such patterns. With this method now proven, 6880 has had a quote for similar work to be done and the cost has been reduced to £20,000.

Therefore the Society is now launching its Cylinder Appeal, including an exclusive membership for those who want to help purchase this final major component. The 6880 “200 Club” is open to the first 200 people who donate £100 in a one-off payment to the Society.

Becoming such a member will grant you all of the following benefits:
*Access where possible to see the construction of the cylinders, as they are converted from a drawing on a piece of paper into the completed item
*Regular updates on the progress of the cylinders as they go through their various stages of manufacture
*An invite to an Exclusive “200 Club Day”, where the cylinders will be first unveiled. This will also include a full return trip along the Llangollen Railway, as well as an inspection of the cylinders & 6880 in Llangollen Workshops
*Inclusion on the Cylinder Appeal ‘Roll of Honour’
*6880 “200 Club” Certificate
*Exclusive 6880 “200 Club” Gift (TBA)

If you would like to join the ‘200 Club”, then please print off the rear of the new “Cylinder Appeal” leaflet, Tick the ‘200 Club” box and fill the form in before posting it to the address given at the bottom.

We are grateful to all donations however small or large they be, so if you would like to help this appeal but with a smaller contribution, then please do the same but tick the “Donation” box instead. All donations of £50 or over will still get a Certificate and inclusion on the Cylinder Appeal ‘Roll of Honour’.

If this appeal proves successful enough we will be able to deliver a fully complete cylinder block for 6880 before the end of the year, but we need your help to do this. So please, Please help 'Recreate the Engineman's Engine' for the 21st Century.

 

Excellent information, I have donated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Same, I was quite impressed with the stand at Llangollen Steam Gala.

 

Considering the famous Swindon standardisation, and that Churchward's plans had included a mixed traffic design with no. 1 boiler, more or less what subsequently appeared as the Granges, I'm surprised about "the unique Grange cylinder block". How and why is it different?

 

The valve chest and cylinders are further apart, that's one difference. I read somewhere that Swindon had picked up on a bit of theory from France or somewhere that suggested that the steam chest volume could usefully be increased, and they did this by bellying out the relevant spaces in the castings.

 

Does that make them wider than Halls & Manors ?.

 

AIUI Manors are fundamentally the same design.
My understanding, and more knowledgeable folk please speak up, is that I think the width thing is complicated because the loading gauge isn't a straightsided box: it comes in at around buffer height. So the height of the cylinders above the rails may be significant as well as the width, and Saint cylinders are higher than Hall cylinders which in turn are higher than Grange and Manor cylinders. So that while the increased separation between valves and cylinders is primarily vertical, the vertical position of the cylinders as well as the horizontal has an influence on the how a locomotive can be too wide for the loading gauge. In addition my understanding is that the reason why GW locomotives tend to have the most problems with loading gauge is because their horizontal cylinders tend to be lower than sloping cylinders on other lines.

 

The Swindon drawings show the overall width over cylinder cladding as 8' 11 1/4" the same as a Hall and 5/8" wider than a Manor. I suspect that most of the increase was in the internal steam passages and had no effect on the overall width. Just out of interest what differences are there between a 6800 cylinder casting and one for a 7800 apart, obviously, from the saddle radius? Ray.

 

That's interesting Ray, the drawing I have refers to the 68XX and 78XX being the same width, 8' 11 3/4" over the cylinders at 2' 10' above the rail head.

Regards,

Mike

 

The dimension for the 'Manor' came from Russel's book and having looked further into it believe the 8' 10 7/8" given is incorrect.
I have in front of me the Swindon drawing (No 107,421) reproduced in Great Western Journal and the 78xx width over "cleating" at 2'10" above the rail is given as 8' 11 1/4". The 68xx drawings (Nos 110530 & 106700) give the same dimension 8' 11 1/4" at 2'10". So it looks like Halls, Granges and Manors were the same width over cylinder cladding. Which drawing showed it as 8' 11 3/4" ?
Cheers
Ray.

 

I do appologise Ray, my mistake, having looked at it again it is indeed 8' 11 1/4" at 2' 10" above the rail head. Taken from a WR gauging/profile drawing dated 22/6/61 using drawing numbers 107391 & 108632. It was always my understanding that the Manor and Grange classes shared the same front end width due to utilising the same steam chest and cylinder arrangements but with the Granges being bored to 18.5" over the 18" of the Manor.

Regards,

Mike

 

No need to apologise Mike, I originally had the Manor dimension wrong.
Regards
Ray.