North Norfolk Railway buys Black Prince

What was louder? 2 cylinders or 6 Merlins?

 

At the Glos Warks i'm sure that question doesn't need to be asked!!

 

Glad the NNR now has a standard class loco as a permanent member of the home fleet. The B12 and Y14 are two of my favourites, but they must be getting on a bit

 

Not sure that applies when even the Standards are heading towards 60 years now, the standards will forever be youngest, but at what stage do they stop being young.

 

Well, compare it with 76084, for example - it will be doing the same work, neither of them particularly taxed because trains are relatively light and gradients not exceptional but the 2-10-0 will be wearing out two extra sets of driving wheels, axleboxes and rods every time it moves. Just because it is lightly load doesn't mean these items don't wear!

 

For the boiler work that was needed on 80072, i wouldn't think age of loco comes into it. It needed a complete new barrel, which for a loco that had only done less than 20 years service probably isn't too good! I'd guess the standards were built to a budget based on a relatively short service life.

 

A lot of the damage was caused when the boiler was open to the elements at Barry for many years.

Bob.

 

That's true, but ours isn't the only standard to require complete new barrel and there aren't many other types of loco requiring the similar treatment.

 

45428 has had a partial renewal of its boiler barrel, I think, and it hasn't been exposed to Barry conditions. On the other hand it is an older engine and is probably one of the highest mileage standard gauge locos around..

 

75029 has had the front half of the barrel removed and a slice at the bottom of the back half replaced, and also wasn't in Barry. "Bad water" was said to be the reason by the experts, but I am not one, so don't quite know exactly how - left a a period of time with mineral rich water just in the bottom of the barrel perhaps?

80135's barrel has been passed for another 10 years despite major firebox repairs being required. Number of heating and cooling cycles affects boilers (especially fireboxes), as well as the passage of time. There can be mechanical wearing from hard work, but it is mainly age and history that seems to affect the extent - and cost - of work.

A 9F is a wide firebox loco, so I hope the NNR pays a good coal price!

Steven

 

Also older locos probably had more work to keep them in BR service. I seem to recall that a lot of ex-GW locos had a lot of work in the late 50s and as Western steam went first, they were withdrawn in good condition internally if not externally.

 

75069 is also having the vast majority of its barrel sections replaced during its current overhaul. How much of the damage to the boiler was done at Barry or whilst stored outside on the SVR in the pre engine house years is open to discussion though.

 

A complete set of 34 new King boilers were constructed from 1951 - 1955 for instance, and a hundred new Castle boilers were built between 1946 and 1960. Boilers were consumables, albeit long lived ones, and a good number of the surviving ones, certainly on GWR locomotives, will be no older than those on BR standards.

 

With regards to boiler barrel replacement on Standard locos, complete replacement of both the parallel and taper sections is only happening on the Class 4 4-6-0s and Class 4 2-6-4 tanks. For some reason the other Classes do not seem to be affected, although 73082 has recently had a new parallel section fitted. Why this is, I do not know. The locos done so far are 75014, 75029 (partial), 75078 (I think), 80072, 80097 and 80136, with 75069 to be done. Having seen 75069's boiler, the serious corrosion on the lower part of the boiler indicates that open storage at Bridgnorth was the major cause of this, with water getting into the lagging and staying there. There is a lesson to be learned here, but is it being learned by all? I think not.

 

Is this a class based trend or more simply that the standard 4's are the most ubiquitous and probably most intensively used of the standard classes in preservation? Outside of the 4's there are only the 2mt mogul, three (?) standard 5's, pair of brits and handful of 9f's which have ran in preservation for any length of time

 

Nothing to do with running in preservation. 80072 and 80097 were ex-Barry, 80136 had done 10 years. As bean counter has stated above, 80135's boiler barrel is OK for another 10 years. Now that loco has done a lot of miles.
It will be interesting to see what condition the boiler barrels of 75027, 80002, 80079, 80105, 80150 and 80151 are in when serious overhaul/restoration starts.

 

Looking forward to seeing Black Prince double head with the WD

 

Maybe running in preservation was a poor way to phrase what I meant. The point I was trying to make is more that standard 4's are the classification which we have the biggest sample of. It would be difficult to assess whether it is a standard class wide symptom or just prevalent in the 4's.

 

Not a vast majority. Only parts of the firebox will remain. 2 new barrel sections and smokebox with I gather both inside and outside firebox half sides being replaced. The damage caused to 75069 doesn't stem from Barry. It stems from being left uncovered for so long around the railway with the cladding/ lagging left on which water then collected and has rotted the bottom of both barrels.

 

The Britannia and Standard 5 boiler barrels were made from high tensile steel. The various Class 4s and Class 2s used normal boiler plate. Now, there have been no major problems with the barrel sections on the Class 4 2-6-0s or the Class 2s. 76079 has been restored and had two overhauls. It has done a lot of miles. 76084 was stored outside for a number of years, first at Barry, then at South Leverton. Both are OK with regard to the barrel sections. The problems appear to be with the Class 4 4-6-0s and the Class 4 2-6-4 tanks.