Tangmere

It is only human nature to look for an easier way of doing things. Locomotives and the facilities for making best use of them should be designed so that the best way is the easiest way. And the only way. As far as a locomotive goes you make sure that full regulator is the easiest way of working. If you want to use part regulator you are going to have to hold on for a long time. If the locomotive will not withstand full regulator working then someone got something very wrong at the design stage. For those maintaining locomotives, all too frequently there were weak links in the chain of design of both prime mover and also facilities provided. And nothing is stronger than the weakest link. Welcome to the downside to the "good enough" school of design.
Bulleid tried something new. Brave man. But it didn't quite work out. So it was back to a slightly more refined version of what had been traditional practice at the time of the original build when reconstruction was carried out under Jarvis. Tangmere is simply being faithful to the shortcomings of the original design.

 

Perhaps "knocked back into shape"

 

What happened to Tangmere had nothing to do with the big end cap securing clip failing so suggesting replacing the wheelsets is just ludicrous!

Time to stop taking stabs in the dark as to what happened to Tangmere I think, as coming up with theories about the cause of its failure will do little to help its reputation. Just wait for it to be repaired as I doubt the real cause will become general knowledge, especially on a forum like this anytime soon

 

I don't doubt that if there is anything worthwhile to be shared then all the other Bulleid owners and other people actively working in the industry will get to hear. That's an entirely different matter from making things generally public. Besides I'd be very surprised if there weren't an RAIB report: looking at their website they have investigated incidents that to these uneducated eyes seem considerably less significant. Keep an eye on their current investigations register.

 

Depends what you mean by "general knowledge". How many owners /operators are there of Bulleid pacifics? 10? 15 max. If there is a genuine mechanical issue more widely applicable than just to Tangmere (and we still don't know that's the case) then it is a fairly simple matter to inform all those who operate the locos, without going so far as to publish some general, and possibly open to widespread mid-interpretation, advice in more public fora or media such as this or the monthly magazines. Though I don't suppose that will stop the sleuthing!

Tom

 

Is there anything wrong with "making things generally public."?

 

[on second thoughts I had better remove this post!]

 

Information on failures has been shared in the past between members of the Bulleid Pacific Owners Assoc. as have requests for info regarding problems with locos.

 

Fingers Crossed City of Wells will grace the rails in the not too distant future, dont recall that particular machine having a problematic reputation... and i think any problems with tangmere must be set against the amount of use that locomotive has had in recent years...

 

Precisely coincides with my belief. Taking all things into consideration, 34067 has performed admirably in the stop-start (for mainline steam) railway of today, particularly when considering the number of times she's propped up the tour market. This story might very well mean that intensive use of particular steam locomotives on today's railway network is not quite the neatest thing after all. The concept of the geographically-based pool thus provides a workable solution to spread the mechanical wear and tear. However, dealing with the wear and tear on boilers due to constant heating and cooling in such a situation is anyone's guess. Just my opinion, for what its worth.

 

Well if that pool of locos is fairly constant for ' a season ' apart from the owners rep , the support crew could be prety interchangeable. Most support crew people turn up to help out with 'a steam locomotives' and whilst im sure they pick their favourites or go with people they know, im sure that they wouldnt be averse to helping a variety of Locos and would quickly get to know the requirements of several. Again fixed geographical location would actually help here.
Merchandising/sales teams on the other hand...

 

There are already three geographically based groups (Carnforth, Tyseley & Southall), but steam locos interchangeability can't be achieved (with the exception of the West Highland set up) as a regular thing because the locomotives / FTR / gauging / tour operator / support crew all need to be able to accommodate the changes.

It would be difficult to see interchangeability working unless the tour market is willing to migrate to a limited number of steam corridors, and that is a commercial question rather than an engineering one.

There is an implicit suggestion that Tangmere has been worked too often, but we cannot know at present if this is relevant to the failure. I would suggest that as the locomotive was recently "ex-works" from a mechanical work that this is perhaps not relevant. The RAIB will no doubt determine whether work carried out was to the standard required and if the defect (if any) was the result of workmanship and how it was missed during the FTR. Let me stress I am NOT speculating on the incident merely commenting on the things relevant to the investigation.

The amount of use that a locomotive receives is of little consequence providing the maintenance stays on top of any issues that develop. In some ways the more use the loco gets the better, because the boiler is kept warm, though providing the loco is warmed and cooled gently even that isn't a big problem. Tangmere has been unfortunate enough to have a couple of high profile mechanical failures in many miles of running. Without a comparison of information that I don't have, I can't judge how it compares with anything else, but it may just be unlucky to have had its faults in a more spectacular way.

 

It is my understanding that valve and piston exams ocur regularly and the connecting rods are removed to access the pistons.. Do we have an expert who can inform us how often this happens. I assume it might happen at least annually and is probably based on mileage. Should this be the case examination of the con rods would occur on a mileage basis and how often a loco is used is thus irellivant.

 

Thanks 21b, my comment regarding tangmere was merely to contextualise, the so called more frequent problems within the more extensive use.
The migration to a limited number of steam corridors is perhaps inevitable... ?

 

Migration to steam corridors? Possibly. NR might like it, but it might be the thin end of the wedge driven by the anti-steam lobby in NR and the TOCs and I think ought to be resisted strongly.


Piston and valve exams usually done annually. Involves disconnecting the piston rods from the crosshead and valve rods from the motion, removing the cylinder/valve covers and sliding the rods out through the front to examine. Nothing to it....except a lot of effort.

 

There's every possibility that the RAIB will not investigate this incident. Whilst they are statutorily bound to investigate some accidents, others are considered on a cost/benefit basis. An accident investigator may possibly have been appointed and will make some preliminary enquiries and report back but that doesn't mean that a formal investigation and report will be made. Nothing has appeared on their website, as yet, so it is quite possible that the cost of an investigation is not considered to be worthwhile.