BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

Give me a break its Monday.
Tangled Rods... get down shep.

 

I'm steadily plodding through all of our drawings at present working out which are the latest and which have been superseded. I'm also finding out which one we're missing.

Drawing SL/DN/S/465 says "For all new rods work to SL/DN/S-605 (leading) and SL/DN/S-607 (trailing). Both of these drawings show plain section rods slightly thicker in the centre (side elevation). The RCTS book says that these were fitted as during the wheel failure (wheels slipping on axles) some rods had buckled. The new rods gave a reduction in lateral deflection of 50% but an increase in weight of 60 lbs

Anyway, progress today! A number of frame components should be fitted in the bext couple of weeks. Have a look at the News section

https://www.theclanproject.org/Clan_News.php

Also Tony is now starting turning the valve cylinder pattern

https://www.theclanproject.org/build/Clan_BuildTopic.php?topic=CYL&description=Main Cylinders&page=6

 

As always, it is good to have answers from the Project team and to see the steady progress which is being maintained on this build. Small items and large items all come together to give a perfect working locomotive, eventually, with great care.

 

Standing over the old frames with much sad shaking of heads seems a long time ago...

 

More progress to feast your eyes on.

https://www.theclanproject.org/Clan_News.php

3 components to fit before alignment can start. Smokebox saddle, horizontal stretcher behind saddle and 2 off feet for the trailing frame keep. We might have a slight issue with the latter - a trial fit is scheduled which will show if we have an excess of metal in one spot.

 

Coming together really nicely. Standard of work looks first class.

 

As this project is where some of the work of the Advanced Steam Traction Group is being continued, it seems worth directing attention to an article by E S Cox just posted elsewhere on this forum at https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/british-rail-standard-steam-locomotives.1411243/ , particularly the section on the first page where he explicitly states that thermal efficiency was of lower priority for the BR Standards than operating and maintenance efficiency.

 

Just to clarify that (and I'm sure you didn't mean it to be read this way) any modifications recommended by ASTG would be to improve thermal and/or mechanical performance/reliability. One would not be at the expense of the other.

 

Yes, that seems like a good objective. As an example, the ASTG have recommended that we fit a Lempor exhaust and they say "The Lempor has fewer components than the Kylchap and Kylpor exhausts and is easier to align and instal."

 

https://www.theclanproject.org/Clan_News.php

Getting closer. Slight problem with the LH trailing foot and the temporary spacer plates in lieu of the frame extensions are a tad too thick. Alignment checking will be the next stage and it should be interesting as we've had the offer of a brand new laser measurement system for the job.

 

Would this be one of the innumerable joys of converting pre-CAD drawings into metal, or an apect of keeping abreast of BR era design mods?

Progress on 72010 has been very impressive over recent months. Seeing just how the finished product performs is something I anticipate with relish.

 

Personally I think that we are trying to use extremely accurate design tools on 1950s drawings. Also, there's lots of evidence in railway books that the design office and the works had different views.

Geoff has a lot more confidence in the application of 1950 drawings to CAD models than I do! This part was manufactured quite some time ago and we have had to do a bit of work on it

 

A geometrically accurate as drawn assembly model (CAD) of the Loco would highlight any "mis-drawn" components pre-manufacture.

 

Cheers for that. No criticism was intended btw, just curiosity. Dragging what were no more than archived (and I'm guessing, none too well organised) drawings back into a fit state to be a critical component of a complex engineering project is a gargantuan feat in itself, before considering translating the whole shooting match into a usable digitised form. From what I've gleaned about inter-departmental relationships on the railways (and in the case of BR's complex setup, you can add layers of inherited inter-regional rivalries), I suspect your comment concerning 'different views' might be putting it mildly!

 

W. Williams - Yes we've got one of those - however ........

 

30854 - No criticism taken! It's a good point and one which Geoff and I debate on.

 

Ah OK, looks good.

Was the non-fitting component made pre-model creation?

 

I suspect the layers are even deeper than just Inter-Regional rivalry, given that the big 4 only lasted 25 years after grouping and the Standards started appearing barely 3 years after nationalisation, there must have been a fair element of inter-company rivalry involved as well as some of the staff involved would have started their careers before 1923.

 

Langridges books are a fascinating insight into just this kind of thing...

 

All the recent above posts just go to show what a good job the team are doing so far, remember that some parts and patterns were made before CAD was used in the project. My confidence in the work continues to grow as each week passes.
I hope the missing item is not a nasty casting like the other frame stretchers were.