Flying Scotsman

Add fake material certificates into the mix as well Fred and there are genuine grounds for concern. The batch of copper stays a couple of years back being a case in point.

 

Agreed ! In my days at the local steelworks customers were able to inspect the steel being produced and obtain copies of analysts' reports but now you can only inspect the finished product - after you've bought it. I have been mocked by many for even suggesting the problem but I stand by the problem being both of concern and expense to the heritage movement.

 

Finished Steel can be tested for quality on site where ever it is to be used ,its well documented if anyone cares to find out.

 

The point is that material certificates ought to be able to be relied upon without the user having to carry out destructive testing as the final quality assurance measure. Otherwise what is the point of standards and specifications?

 

Off course ,but that is the way of the world at the moment, you could say that about food. Food manufactures test everything that they buy in ,they daren't do no other.

 

In the case of the heritage movement has it got (a) the equipment (b) the expertise and (c) the time to test all products that it consumes in the maintenance of traction; in addition can it afford the cost of testing when that undoubtedly includes the cost of meeting such "extras" as H&S requirements, insurance liabilities etc. As 26D notes one should be able to rely on materials certificates and if they are found to be false this is surely a case for trading standards to deal with if not also other regulatory bodies.

What or who, for example, would occur if faulty materials leads to an incident on a steam locomotive resulting in injury to / the death of a crew member; I ask out of interest rather than malice but it is the sort of question that needs to be asked before, rather than after, an incident.

 

Presumably most of the materials used by the heritage movement come from wholesalers and steel stockists who probably are big enough to carry out all of the tests required to satisfy their customers. They should be on the ball regarding certificates.

 

I refer you to my previous response. I presume that when you buy your next new car / washing machine / fridge / TV you will expect the wholesaler / retailer to have completed the full testing to confirm that the product is "fit for service" and meets current standards especially when you expect the product to be completely new and fully wrapped in the appropriate package.

And to repeat 26D's point about certification; how can the customer be expected to know the quality of the product when his main concern is its performance within the specific environment that it is supposedly fit for. That is why the certificate is issued; why the final customer trusts it and why it needs to be actionned by the legal authorities if it proves to be false.

 

Wasn't it the A1 Trust who, when working on the material specification for Tornado, came across a 'spec' on an original drawing which simply stated "Best Yorkshire iron"?

 

That is true. It's on the trusts website somewhere. Many furrowed brows at that one I heard!

 

No, you presume wrong ,but I check the Which mag who regularly test these products you mention. TVs etc are made by the million ,loco frames ,boiler tubes to individual customer requirements.

 

I think you'll find that locomotive parts are NOT made to individual customer requirements but to the original builder's specification. You may be unaware that in the post WWII period the Locomotive Manufacturers Association of Great Britain produced a 464 page handbook specifying every locomotive part for which it identified the specific metal quality and testing. I am presuming that every current locomotive owner has a copy of this "bible" of locomotive engineering from which they are able to specify the quality of each component that is fitted to their individual locomotive(s) rather than simply generate their own specification from unknown sources whose reliability is questionable.

I note your reliance on the Which testing regime but that - surely - only checks fitness for purpose and not quality of fittings. In testing of cars for example it has failed to identify the ability of models to withstand rust; the poor quality of FIAT gearboxes on 1970s models for example and - more recently - the fire hazard of Vauxhall's Zafira model and many other vehicle faults due to the poor quality of components.

You may disagree with my analysis but I believe that the customer (i.e. locomotive owner) is entitled to expect that any components bought for their locomotive(s) should meet the required specifications used by the original builder hence my concern as noted above that the equivalent specifications of current suppliers are not necessarily identical to the same specifications of the original builders thus resulting in (expensive) locomotive failures.

 

Whilst you can undoubtedly take retrospective action if materials are not up to spec., the problem is that you are then left with a time consuming and expensive 'repair' to rectify the problem.

I seem to recall that IR invested in some sort of X-ray inspection kit to ensure he doesn't have such a problem again in future - much less grief to spot it before you've fitted to a locomotive...

 

Yes you are correct in stating that I am unaware of the 464 page book by the Loco Manufactures Ass',doubt whether I would have read it if I had . I never said I was reliant on the Which mag ,I just use it as a guide .Regarding the cars I'm glad you mentioned the Zafira because my next door neighbour had one and suffered the fire you mention. This was cause by garages fitting the blower motor wrongly back into the car ,it had to be taken out to get at another job, and on replacement it was coupled up to the fuse box wrongly. A fire resulted.Not poor quality components. Fiat gearboxes , that's a new one what models. Rusty cars ,yes but a long time ago. Could the current spec' not be better than the original.

 

With regard to material specifications for steam locomotive parts, I use the BTC document "Materials for Locomotives and Tenders, London Midland Region" dated 1957.
Each B.R. Standard Locomotive Class and the two re-built Bulleid Classes had its own build schedule, where every individual component was listed and the material specification given.
Some of these still exist at the NRM.
Of course, some steels are no longer available and a suitable alternative has to be used.
With regard to castings, a certificate of conformity should be obtained from the foundry for each casting, whether it be made from steel, cast iron, or non-ferrous material.

 

I am not sure where you got this information, bur phenomena like "intercrystalline corrosion" and "fatigue" do exist and have to do with age.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Whilst I agree that the LMA handbook is a bible well worth having, you would have difficulty in specifying materials given in that book as they largely specify BS24 in its various parts and that standard has been obsolete for a good number of years. You have to look for modern equivalents and they are not always the same as those specified in BS 24. A good supplier will generally guide you in this respect, though, but it helps if you have a friendly metallurgist to give words of wisdom and advice. You would also be naive if you thought that the various loco builders adhered to the materials specifications given in the handbook; they often didn't as, generally being good engineering establishments, they took advantage of modern advances in materials technology. There are also commercial implications in not doing this. If you know the materials and have a sample, you can go anywhere to get your spares. That' not good for the loco builders spares business. Hunslet was very good at this, often using non-standard threads and modifying commercially available items so you couldn't source from other than them.

 

They most certainly do - try restoring a 1980s Volvo and you'll know what fatigue is...!

 

As we are talking about steam loco's ,and what posters have been saying about metal loosing strength over the years, what would be the life time of, say a G W R 2-8-0 heavy freight loco built before World 0ne connecting rod ? .They lasted into the 1960s and like most steam loco's kept the same side rods as built all their lives ,except of course ones that what were in accidents Quite a few exchanged parts with similar loco's when in works ,but the original part carried on.

 

Not necessarily. For example the GWR changed their small end design in the 30s, and I would think that most if not all have the revised parts. The first photo I found, of 2807's r/h rod. to me shows the later design.
But basically AIUI it will depend on the individual component and its design and use whether it has the potential to be significantly affected by age. I don't doubt that owning organisations keep a good eye on any potentially problematic components.