35018 British India Line

Is it a middle cylinder pictured?

 

It doesn't say, just says it's for 46115.

 

I think this will be the picture... no need to login to Facebook to view. See the comments for confirmation by the company on it being for 46115.
https://www.facebook.com/premier.patterns/posts/904027929800823?pnref=story

 

That's the one.

 

Are people getting confused between 46115 and 35018? i only ask because it does say on the post about 46115 that the original centre cylinder was cracked beyond repair, and that it had have a welded repair in BR days , its easy to assume that because BIL is less than steam tight that its the cylinder ?
plus i'm sure that if a replacement cylinder was being cast word would have got out

 

Well maybe I got the wrong end of the stick ........... apologies for setting any hares running if so, lightning does not strike twice.

 

You may be right, who knows? one thing is clear and that is that 35018 clearly had problems with its steam circuit on the right hand side, so its easy to see a cylinder being cast and think 35018 , and it would indeed tie in what was observed , does anyone have a picture of a MN cylinder casting ?

 

Agreed, all will be revealed in the fullness of time but it will probably have to be derived from circumstantial evidence ........

 

Seems to me that combining the best bits of 35010 and 35011 would produce one 'good' loco and release a replacement RHS cylinder for 35018.... but they're not my locos.
Ray.

 

Or 35018 and 35009?

 

A lot of NDT experts on here, it seems. Why would you resort to ultrasonic testing of a casting unless you already knew of a crack and were looking at its extent? Cracks in castings are generally going to be visible to the naked eye or, at worst, brought up by mag particle testing. Here's a cracked cylinder being repaired and nobody has complained about this loco running around after repairs. Some repairs are successful, others aren't.

 

Releasing cylinder from a classmate would effectively render the loco scrap unless there was an undertaking to replace the donated unit. In all probability a whole loco would need to be acquired to effect a donation and that would obviously yield a source of other spares too.

 

An eloquent assessment and I think it is fair to say both ends of the spectrum sometimes get lost in the hinterland between.
Its very obvious that one business is never going to be utterly self sufficient because there are tasks so specialised it would be impractical to incorporate as a core facility, manufacture of large castings being an example. In that way even the big players will be reliant on third parties to some extent although if resources permit some vertical integration through acquisition might occur if that was thought to be necessary for sustainability and resiliance purposes.

 

Enough!! There is no cylinder issue with BIL.

36 hours and two pages of baseless debate, principally involving the usual suspects, none of whom have any involvement at Cfth.

And you really wonder why we get fed up with the rubbish spouted on NatPres?

JS

 

Indeed.

WCR investing in the long term reliability of 46115 by “just” fitting a new middle cylinder block; is used by some to suggest problems with a different loco!

And, the engineers at Carnforth are in regular contact with colleagues at many mainline and heritage railways.
Just because it isn’t plastered all over forums and Facebook doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.....

 

thank you James for clearing it up, and giving the facts

 

Well observed Steve. Back in the 70's I was a U.T. operator and spent many a day in various power stations examining specific welds in high pressure piping for their annual survey; by their very nature, some alloys crack, but the crack seldom propagates, the survey of each weld measured individual cracks, if any out of spec cracking was detected, then that line was closed, cleared and the crack dealt with. I would imagine what we are seeing here is a similar situation, once a crack is beyond repair then replacement of the component must be considered.

Cheers,

Alan