Bulleid Pacific boiler pressure

But did the railway companies work in the same way as the heritage sector does today? The Armed Forces don't have insurance, the Government and ultimately the taxpayer bears the brunt of any claims so I'm wondering if BR was the same.

 

I've read alternative explanations. A1 was the highest classification given to a ship on the Lloyds register and of course the GWR operated ships. Another explanation was that a GWR director was a Lloyds name at the time the loco was build. A maritime explanation for 100A1 is given as this ""100" means the ship is suitable for seagoing service. "A" means the ship was constructed or accepted into LR class and is maintained in good and efficient condition. "1"means she has good and efficient anchoring and mooring equipment."

 

Ah you might be right on that one Tom - perhaps that is my memory playing tricks. But I still hold firm on the case of 34016 Thanks.

 

There's a section in Cook where he says that he believes that at one stage the GWR was self insured, but that later on they had comprehensive insurance. The example quoted, however, was for locomotives damaged in a shed fire. There's nothing to suggest whether the insurers did or didn't get involved in setting design requirements.
There are writers who claim that on the grouping GWR inspectors condemned many boilers that the absorbed Welsh lines had considered perfectly usable, which might shed a little light on the subject.

 

Steve, I accept that steam loco boilers were not built to design codes but I was really commenting on the materials and the fact that strength of steel reduces as temperature increases over over 200 deg C. I would have expected that the designers of locos in the 1940s and 1950s would have been aware of this. The standards I drew my knowledge from dated back to the 1950s at least. To allow these standards to be written the authors must have had a good understanding of the limits they set out in them, but I am sure a lot of this knowledge was derived from practical experience.. Mind you they did get it wrong at times as later revisions of the standards showed.

 

Netherwood must have wondered what was going on today with various people firing questions about 34016 at him (saw your post on facebook) . It seems we are both right, you from the very early days, I've only been volunteering up there for 30 years so I only knew Bodmin as a 250psi machine, same as all the other Bulleids I've fired and driven there.
It was definitely a 250psi machine when I was first acquainted with it, your acquaintance with it must have been pre 1983 when they started running to Medstead

 

Railways were (and are) outside the Factories Act so any such requirements imposed by the Act were not enforceable. That was a major concern of HMRI with heritage railways until the coming of the Pressure Systems & Transportable Gas Regulations 1989, which closed the loophole.

Most of the larger railway undertakings had their own boiler inspectors and didn't use the traditional insurance company inspector. This was certainly the case with the' big four' and BR. As an aside, when did compulsory insurance come into being for railway companies? As said in post 21, BR as a government funded public body, didn't have insurance.

As I have said several times on various discussions on the Forum, there is and was no recognised UK standard for steam locomotive boilers.

 

Considering how powerful Bulleid Pacifics are at 250 psi, they must have been complete animals at 280psi!

 

Yes, especially as the original MN's safety valves were slightly angled, a lot of station canopies and the glass therein went missing when they blew off!

 

Haha yes that was me! I had such a clear recall of watching the gauge on 34016! For anyone here who is interested Andy Netherwood (Keeper of the boilers at the Mid Hants) confirmed that they downrated Bodmin to 225 psi until the line was extended when it was returned to its BR pressure of 250 psi. I fired Bodmin a few times prior to 1983 - I passed my firemans exam on it in 1980. Now I really do feel old.

 

The only time i watched the gauge was at Alton, when i had nearly a full glass fire made up ready for an on time off and then you got told coach party been delayed watching the gauge rise knowing you was about to "upset" the SWT booking office clerk other than that it was only to conferm the pressure was under control and where i wanted it to be .

 

Not quite correct, Steve. There is a UK standard in the form of B.S. 931 of 1951, my photocopy of which incorporates amendments issued in February 1960 and April 1961, but a note inside states that it was first published in December 1936. Whether the main-line railway companies and others making boilers worked to it, or the British Standards Institute was merely following their by then well established boiler design and manufacturing practices, is another matter.

 

Not quite correct, Richard! BS 931 may be entitled 'Loco-Type Multitubular Boilers of riveted construction' but the last line of clause 1 (Scope) specifically states: "It does not apply to boilers of railway locomotives or to boilers having shells less than 24 in. in diameter." I know from experience that some insurance companies have used BS 931 as a basis for design assessment but you will find that most boilers won't comply with it when it gets down to the detail.

It runs in my mind that earlier versions of BS2790 (Shell boilers of welded construction) also carried a similar statement of exclusion but I don't think the current one does. I don't have it to hand to check, though.

 

If there is no definite guide lines to do with Railway locomotive boilers and BS2790 has exclusions as far as railway vehicle pressure vessels are concerned, against what standard to insurance boiler inspectors work when inspecting boilers and preparing their list of recommended repairs ?

 

That is a problem that some insurance companies now find it hard to deal with. Gone are the days of reliance on experience; they like to have something to work to. Plant Safety (remember them?) applied BS 931 to MSC 67 and came up with a SWP of 91 psi, not because of corrosion or any other fault but by using original design measurements. The fact that a significant number of these boilers had operated successfully for many years at 140 psi and even higher didn't count. Fortunately, their chief engineer left and the new one was more realistic about things.

 

One of them blew a brick out of the bridge at Ashford

 

That's nothing, one of them destroyed the entire canopy and quite a lot else at Crewkerne

Tom