MHR Restorations and Overhauls

if its the one's I'm thinking off, they're not exactly in good nick are they......

 

I didn't think that the 80xxx and 75xxx had many parts in common apart from a few standard boiler and other minor fittings. It was the 76xxx which shared a common 'ancestry' with the 80xxx. Ray.

 

Interesting. I'd heard it was the other way around - 75xxx and 80xxx are closely related but the 76xxx was mostly different. But that's only what I've picked up in conversations around the MHR and wouldn't like to imply any deep understanding.

 

I understod it to be the other way round, from an academic point of view (several books say the 4-6-0 and 2-6-4 share parts, the 2-6-0 being different)...

any other railway own all 3 variants of 4MT ? - answered my own question.. NYMR with 76079, 80135 and 75029.

 

Well all I can say is as an active volunteer on 75079; I have seen the common parts being made for 80150!

 

firebox, rear boiler barrel and dome, cylinders, bogie, driving wheelsets, shall I go on.

 

Please do, I'd be interested to know the commonality!

I know a lot of parts are being made, sourced or whatever for 80150, but not what or from where, be interesting just how much of the above there is between the two.....

 

Rather than me list everything here, may I suggest you visit Ropley Works and ask S.H.

 

I would, but when I go down, I nip into the yard to see whats what before the workshop wakes up and then and put a shift in at Alton, so not possible, sorry!

So you were saying............ just how much %age wise is the commonality?.......

 

Well, if you look at all the yellow metal fittings, you are talking about 95%. However they might be in different positions on the two Classes. Ashpans and all the operating gear are the same. Other than the return cranks, the motion is different. Regulators and operating gear are the same.

 

Why thank you kind Sir, being neither a rivet counter or book worm, that is most informative.

I honestly didn't know there was that much commonality between certain classes!

All I know is, I like & enjoy steam - nowt wrong in that is there?.......

 

I hate to sound like the smart arse here but isn't the commonality one of the key points of the Standard classes?

 

Colin Chambers said last night that 41312 would probably be outshopped next as the owner has said that not much needs to be done on the bottom half of the loco. 76017 will be close behind. Not sure about the order of the rest. Colin said that work on 34105 is progressing well but the folks working on the bottom half of the loco have to catch up with the boiler work as this is very advanced.

 

Apologies gents, you're quite correct - must've had a senior moment there.
Memo to self - "ensure brain is fully engaged before putting typing fingers into motion".

The RCTS books on the B.R. Standards are well worth the money and a mine of information. Unfortunately mine are 5000 miles away at the moment.
Cheers, Ray.

 

Err, yes & yes!

The question being the %age, which is why I asked & Std Tank was kind enough to answer....... jeez, you really do need new glasses!

 

On a number of components, yes.

 

On another subject the Ropley Platform 1 shelter is really coming together nicely should be almost finished by Gala time! https://www.flickr.com/photos/colin...Yp-oW5cmu-oW5Q4e-oY35Tj-oX2qSh-oW8CzX-pbx8Gy/

 

I forgot to say that it was mentioned that the former owner of 34058 is working on the tender for the loco.

 

I was always under the impression that standardisation was a term rather loosely used by british railway companies! For example, virtually no two Black 5s seem to be the same. If you look at the standard classes closely there are variations within a class, an example being the 2-6-4 tanks - some had the return crank fixed by four bolts, others had a a pinch fit onto the squared end of the crankpin, I seem to recall from my Barry days. Whether different practices where they were built - (but why not follow the drawings) or a revision to the drawings I don't know, but in the days when groups were allowed to collect spares from unreserved engines it was a trap for the unwary! I'm sure there must be other examples.

 

Yes, you are quite right. Various modifications were carried out during the time the Classes were being built and afterwards. Some of these modifications were not carried out on all members of the Classes.