Tangmere

Individual locomotives may have experienced poor steaming. Apparently 34105"Swanage" was supposed to be a poor steamer at some stage in its BR career, later on it apparently steamed well. But was this more to do with the locomotive not being set up properly, blastpipe alignment, poor valve setting, worn valve gear etc, rather than anything else?

Don't ever remember anyone at the MHR complaining of poor steaming during it preservation career, but like 34081 it was a little worn at the front end come the end of its last ticket.
Sent from my IdeaTabA2109A using Tapatalk

 

If I'm reading this correctly, the slow and poor steaming sobriquet was being applied to The Big Tent and not to Bulleids, flat topped or otherwise.

(TGM = The Great Marquess)

 

Every class had a poor steamer or two in its ranks as you point out but it was the inference in 242's post that the class as a whole were sluggish and poor steamers that puzzled me.

 

Merely speculating, but if it was the big-end that went as mentioned in the RTC letter quoted in 'what's going on' section, then it might say something about the circlip method of fixing the connecting rod to the crank. I've had a quick run through photos of all unrebuilts that have run in preservation as well as 34051, and it seems only 34067 and 34105 have retained this arrangement. The rest have LMS-style four-stud fittings, as does 34073.

 

I see. I thought TGM were the initials of some eminent steam expert.

 

Swanage was not as free steaming as 34016, but in no way was she a bad steamer, maintaining unrebuilts, most of the problems are lack of accesability , removing hundreds of bolts or screws to remove parts of the casing before you can even get to the bit you need to see, the valve gear can be a pain chain driven valve gear in a very enclosed area etc, i wonder if now Tangmere will have the big end locking arrangement changed to that of the rebuilds and most of the other unrebuilds in preservation,

 

Which part are we on about?

 

While hidden components are a nightmare for fitters, when you consider the ease of oiling up an original Bulleid design with that of a Jarvis rebuild, I know which ones the drivers prefer! That was part of the reasoning behind the overall design- to make the locomotive easier to prepare and dispose for crews. In most cases (with the exception of them not fitting under some coaling towers and there being no platforms being available to fill the sanders) Bulleid succeeded in this goal. While there were issues with the steam powered firebox door, this also (in theory) made the job easier for the crew.

 

That would require six new crankpins to be made and fitted.

 

I suspect its more to do with the word than the design... If you tell me something has been unrebuilt then I assume that its something in which a rebuilding process was reversed - for instance if you took the Bluebell's Dukedog and put a Standard 2 boiler on her and turned back into 3427 that would be unrebuilt. Never rebuilt, like Tangmere, is something different in my eyes!

Or a different set of wheels and axles. But its surely difficult to justify speculation that there's a significant problem with that design. After all had there been a significant problem with such a safety critical component Southern Region would surely have put a wholesale replacement programme in place.

 

I quite agree.

 

No, that would be "un-rebuilt", which is completely different again. "Unrebuilt" (note no hyphen) should be interpreted as something whereby a rebuilding process was started but not completed, which used in the context of Bulleids, implies that the process of rebuilding all 110 locomotives was not completed. That is before we go down the road of "modified" and "un-modified". Its all semantics and subjectivity, and I'll leave sociologists to work that one out when they've finished with defining the term "consumer society".

 

I still prefer the terms 'original' and 'de-tuned'...

 

Well said that man.

 

I think that should be "disrebuilt".

 

Which seems to say that drivers and firemen's views are the only ones to be considered. If you are the poor sod who has to maintain it, would you still prefer a non-rebuild?

 

As much as it might be hard to accept, its not a question of preference; maintenance was what they were paid to do at the time, regardless of the complexity of the locomotive. It appears that the low-maintenance brief was mainly intended to reduce time-consuming on-the-road tasks like oiling-up.