WHR 138

Seeing as this loco has arrived at the Lyd thread, I must say that I find it a tad confusing that the boiler of this loco was serviced and a lovely paint job completed only to learn that the bogies are worn out and is now a 'lurker'. If Blodge is chasing NG16 maintenance, why is a Welsh Pony rebuild being contemplated?

Is it possible to clarify the loco policy a little?

 

Not sure I get your drift? The boiler on the Garratt is interchangeable with those on the other NGG16's and others have already been swapped on the WHR, so a refurbed boiler is handy to have, no matter waht the state of the power bogies, I'd have thought?

 

138's boiler was overhauled, completed earlier this year, and placed on running gear that had had minimal maintenance done to get them going and that had previously been used under 143 last year. This was essentially done so as to have a second high capacity steam locomotive available during very high fire risk and peak season. Common-sense would now follow that the mechanicals now get looked at. Since then a long awaited replacement part was finally fitted to K1 and so it has been used in tandem with a diesel on the second train instead, the management having worked out that this combination (as a coal burner) cost about half the amount to run that 138 on oil. That being said 138 still needs some adjustment to its boiler and burner to have it steam more freely and more economically. This combined with the machinery returning to better order should bring the cost of running her down.....the question I can not answer is weather it will get this attention or just merely be ignored in the shed until everything else is bust. I will also add that from my experience of operating 138, although her steaming ability needs improving, she doesn't use an apreciable more quantity of fuel oil than 143 did and that some of the vocal anti Garratt people who only work on the FR may be hyping up that propensity of these machines to drink......they do, BUT they are bigger than FR engines and ran twice the milage and face double the prevaling gradients with just as heavy if not heavier trains.

The policy as to what will happen from now is not something I am party to however, or expect to have any influence over

 

There's a big difference between 'worn out' and 'tired'. 138 is perfectly serviceable but will be kept in reserve when we have two (or three) functional coal fired NG/G16s. 143's rebuild (and conversion to coal firing) could have been completed by around now, but it made little sense to throw resources at outshopping it just before the end of the season. It will be ready for next year when it's needed.

 

I dont see the problem - as an oil burner she's only going to see irregular use anyway. No doubt she'll be seen to at some point but Blodge is busy on 143/140 at the moment.

Chris

 

138 does not burn excessive amounts of fuel, it is the cost of that fuel, the fact that the 're-refined' market that the FR used to buy on has now become mainstream, due to the change to allow 2500l of untaxed personal diesel being permitted that has changed the entire landscape regarding oil fuel costs. This has only happened in the last 18 months, ie during the time 138 was being returned to service, and even then if there had been time and more rain this year it might have been a coal burner.

There is never a right answer to coal vs oil at the moment, the best we can aim for is to have the luxury of some oil and enough coal burners to run a main service on both railways.

As to worn out bogies, garratts can run 10 years between overhauls, but they then take two years to fix. I wonder when 87's bogies will get some attention !

Regards

Peter