Brighton Atlantic: 32424 Beachy Head

I thought I read or heard somewhere that 80100 was going to be used to rebuild another class of locomotive, I might have my wires crossed somewhere.

 

Definitely got your wires crossed.

 

You're thinking of the standard 2 78059/84030

 

"Were"? Now if that had been an "are", I'd not have paused before hitting the 'like' button.

 

I have not seen that they are not, but it was many years ago they announced it.

 

Since this was getting ever further away from 32424, I've tried to answer that in the Bluebell Motive Power thread.

Tom

 

Back to the Atlantic: there’s an update on the Bluebell website showing the tender tank, which has been delivered to Sheffield Park:

https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/locos/atlantic/latest.html

Tom

 

Looking Good! Good idea to have skids under it too.

Richard.

 

Were you thinking of the BR standard 4 as a 4-6-0 tender engine, the Bluebells 75027 ?

Which I think was a good practical success when it ran. (Six survive and of the other five, four were recently in traffic and one under overhaul which corroborates this.) It had an overhaul in 1997 and then ran as one would plan for the next ten years but since then has been waiting another overhaul and boiler certificate.

I have always wondered how exactly similar it is to the tank engines: I assume the cylinders, fire box, wheels and running gear should be identical but the boiler barrel and tubes are longer, the bogie is the same as a class 5 ie Camelot. The longer tubes might make it possible - having inspected them - to shorten them and then reuse them for retubing in a class 4 tank engine.

 

This was answered on another thread about 80150 , there is very little in common between the two classes, what you might have heard is that the group might assess the condition of 75027 before starting 80100 because at least 75027 is complete, and as its got roller bearings may not need so much mechanical work, no new bits to be made, just remetaling bearings etc, and boiler work, don't know what state the tender tank will be in by now though, but overhauling 75027 may be a better quicker job than a barry rebuild .

 

I believe I got my wires crossed with the 78059/84030 project which was pointed out to me in a earlier reply, but thanks anyway.

 

Roller bearings on the tender only surely ?

 

Arnt the main Drivers roller bearings also ? or is it only the standard 5's and Britainias

 

99.9% certain not on any of the Class 4 Std's. Not too sure about the 5's either TBH. DoG and some Brits, but weren't these a mixed bag for comparison purposes?

Edit .... 70035–70039 were built with roller bearings on the leading and trailing coupled axles only and plain bearings on the remaining axles, whilst 70040–70049 were built with plain bearings throughout.[3] However throughout their service the roller bearings used in remaining cases showed no advantage in reliability or cost.

Edit ..... no roller bearings on the Std 5 loco either (tender only)

 

Is that right ? so why did the MHR have to renew a set of timkin roller bearings on one of 73096's driving axles? note to mods, perhaps these posts to do with the standard 2 be moved to another thread to do with standard locos?

 

Are you thinking of the return crank bearings?

 

The Standard 5s were fitted with roller bearing axleboxes. Indeed, 73090-99 were fitted with Skefco roller bearings on the driving wheelsets, rather than Timken.

 

'
Thanks, clearly I didn't know that, despite checking on line.
Apologies to @martin1656
Anyone know how to edit Wiki pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_5

 

its an easy mistake to make I only remembered because when she was first restored, I spent god knows how many hours scraping and painting the damn thing . and noticed those aren't the usual type of axle boxes .

 

Reading the Railway Magazine last night, it gave the impression that the BRPS trustees had not ratified the Atlantic Group's preference to build an E Class due to concerns over funding and the ability to provide the skills over the projected 10-year build period. I am always a bit wary of things I see and read in the railway press, I just wonder if anyone was aware what the definitive position is?