4472 wheelsets

as far as I am aware, the regulations for network rail concerning this subject area is that if the wheel does not touch the frame whilst rotating then it is ok, as long as the wheel and axle are structurally sound

 

That doesn't seem to tally with this earlier posting!

 

does the group standards that are quoted apply from when the engine was last overhauled, or is this a more recent thing, after all i would expect that standards have been improved over the last 12 years or how ever long it was , if it was a known faught then if the standards in force at the time were that as long as passed an ultrasonic and did not rub the frames it shows just how lapse inspections could be and how much more bad news it would be for the NRM

 

There is a back to back dimension and tolerance from the inside face of one tyre to the other. This tolerance of +0.015"/ -0.000" has been in existance for many, many years and I don't think it has ever changed.

 

many thanks so in that case should the engine should never had beeen passed for main line operation then with a defective wheel set

 

So, a NER loco, where the frameplates are closer together than most, can have a larger tolerance? Or any other type where the frames aren't pushed as far apart as possible? Not a very convincing statement, I'm afraid.

 

I'm right...YOUR ALLLLLL WRONG!!

 

Better just dream on, then.

 

.... and start taking your tablets again!

 

Yikes!!! Some people on here seem to have some very strange ideas about engineering.

What do you think the ride would be like with a wobbly wheelset?

More seriously, the wheels would be out of gauge by various amounts for almost all the entire revolution of the wheels. Potential derailments etc, especially on switches and crossings.

It seems to me that judging by the contents of the lengthy thread on 6100, the management at Southall has an amazing level of ignorance and incompetence when it comes to serious issues like this. Clearly they knew the wheelset had been compromised because it had been retrieved from being dropped down a pit. There is obviously no proper inspection regime in force that would pick up on things like this, which in the day and age is unbelievable. Endangering public safety on this scale is a serious matter. I can't understand why some people (albeit a vocal minority) support what has been going on. Also I wonder how much the people at Crewe knew about the condition of 6100 before they sent it to the WSR, and whether that was the reason they were reluctant to let it operate passenger trains. In the case of 4472, it did quite a lot of mileage in that condition. Almost reason in itself to severely curtail steam operations. It shouldn't have been running on 25 mph lines, let alone the main line. Obviously quite a few people know what's going on, as evidenced by the 6100 thread. They should really do more than drip feed snippets on a forum.

 

9F's are famous for this - Which is why I don't think a 9F has gone mainline (Yet given permission) to go mainline. Length of the wheelsets is the issue I think?

 

no the problem with 9f's is the flangeless driveing axle riding over check rails and derailing, whilst it was not a problem in steam days modern checkrails are not the same and net work rail will not allow flange less wheels on the network

4472 does seem to be cursed doesnt it, so far every owner has been bancrupted and forced to sell the loco, and yet no one will say why, different owners, same chief engineer each time , i wonder because someone else is now in charge of the restoration and maintanance is the increasing bill due to mistakes made in the past , or because its being done properly after all welding up mudhole doors ,an unrepaired crack in a cyclinder, tend to make me think that there was no sound maintenance on 4472 at any time and everything was done adhoc

 

One 9F has been mainline in the preservation era. 92220 did a fair few trips in the 70s and 80s.

 

Here is a link from You Tube of 92220 on the S&C back in 1988.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXvF1F-3nTU

 

It isn't true to say that every owner of 4472 has been bankrupted by it - Bill McAlpine wasn't and neither was Pete Waterman, and that's 50% of the owners it had before being acquired by the NRM.

And where the owners were bankrupted, as far as I can tell it was because they tried to develop it into a business brand that they coukld hang other activities on. It's a main line locomotive with roughly similar running costs to other main line locomotive - all of them are marginal in terms of earning enough to pay for an engineer caretaker plus running and overhaul costs, none of them can sustain salaried publicity staff, chief executives etc - but that hasn't stopped some of the Flying Scotsman owners from trrying.

 

well pete waterman did have his head screwed on and didnt fall into the well its flying scotsman and can make me loads of money pit that others did, didnt he say at the time of sale to the NRM that the engine was in a mess , and where did the millions go for the sale, the plc didnt give the shareholders anything , strange, very strange

 

as i seem to recall, from a book i read somewhere, one of the reasons pete waterman bought 50% of scotsman was it was straining the resources of bill mcapline, the fact that she has bankrupted two owners seems to indicate something, "To bankrupt one owner may be considered unfortunate, two bankrupt two smacks of carelesness" to paraphrase wilde.

 

It's only a loco and intrinsically no more likely to bankrupt its owner than any other.

 

As did 92203, of course...

I was on the famous "Evening Star"/"Hardwicke" hauled trip in 1976 - what an unusual combination, but a good day out, nevertheless!