73096

Re: MHR 5MT 73096

Hello Ralph,

Perhaps it's because the MHR normally do that on their website too?

Very Best Wishes,
Bob.

 

Yeah i'm definately sticking with 73096, I don't know why CCT man suggested I go and put my devotions to another 5 (45379)?

Also I've been told that a few pattern makers have already been in contact with Ropley so its looking more likely that a new cylinder will in fact be cast, it obviously can be done it's just going to take time and money, I can see boiler work been done on it as well as tyres now its out for a while and I wouldnt write her off to be back better than ever for 2010, hopefully with a boiler extension!

 

I'm currently reading 'The Standard Steam Locomotives Of British Railways' by Roger. P. Bradley and in it Roger says that the cast iron box piston heads used generally by the BR Standards were replaced on the Britannias by cast steel piston heads because the iron box heads couldn't cope with the piston thrusts. Later the 9F locos had the same modification. I wonder if it would be a good idea to get the pattern makers to make a pattern of a solid cast steel piston head at the same time as a pattern for for the cylinders proper.

Regards

Ps In an earlier post someone hinted that Ian Riley had modified his engines so they no longer use the cast iron box design of piston head. Perhaps this is the modification refered to.

 

Drawing SL/DE 21514 is the drawing for steel piston heads. It is applicable to 70, 71, 72, 73 and 92 classes. Note that core plugs are still inserted in this piston, but they are shown as welded at each end.

 

Where can we get this drawing?

 

Have you seen the state of the cylinder??

 

I think with the new standard about to go into the workshop and the other Std, that you should concentrate on these for now...
Whatever happens 73096 will get a new cylinder, but as you say I can't see it being anytime before 2010?
Does anyone know the state of the rods??? I saw the video and something looked a bit bent to me?

 

Repairing is not an option. I'll have a look on Saturday but I doubt theve got all the pieces back yet anyway - just the big ones.

 

Re: MHR 5MT 73096

You are quite right. I am afraid it's a bit of a habit I have picked up from sending my pictures to the MHR site. I never used to do it but I noticed that Tony Wood who does the site started adding them so I just do it automatically now!

 

I thank you for pointing out the differences in materials and bore sizes etc. however with such a small fleet to support I consider it worth investigating the proposition of a compromise sized/adaptable pattern. Readers here may recall DoG was originally built with steel cylinders but now carries replacements cast in SG iron. Its tensile properties are not too dissimilar to steel, casting is that bit easier being more fluid when molten and having a final contraction closer to regular grey iron. Budding metallurgists might enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile_iron.

I concur; there appears to be no evidence of a liner in the photographs of the damaged cylinder.

The difference in material for Doncaster and Swindon 76XXXs is most interesting. Will we ever know if they used different patterns sized for the different materials' contraction? Or; did they use a compromise size?

 

What exactly looks bent? The Rods are fine from what I've seen and thats with my eyes, the piston rods obviously gone.
I can see 73096 getting done before the other standards as soon as 92212 and 31806 are out, as this way we'll get more use before its ticket is out and they're probably going to be having the cylinder pattern made and cast and all the rest machined up ready for when the work is carried out, as well as if the tyres are been done then they'll be sent off as well! As has been mentioned a lot in this thread you dont leave your loco when its in its hour of need as it were!

 

Absolutely! The very thought of 'transfering your alliegeance' just because a loco has had a little accident, is downright cowardly!

 

It's interesting that this piston head is hollow. Thanks for the info.

Regards

 

its a shame about 73096, she has been probally the most reliable engine the mhr has, and on the mainline made a lot of people sit up and take note so will the mhr have to pay for the new cylinder or will the insurance cover it, and because it is not owned by the mhr does there have to be an independant inspection before the engine can be repaired ,or does the running agreement give the railway permision to go ahead with the repair , given that the loco has only a few years left on her ticket, is it worth going for a new ticket now whilst the engine is going to be out , and maybe putting it back on the main line? as long as a new loan agreement can be agreed , but i for one would be happier to see the engine sold to the mhr that way keeping it a mhr based engine

 

Really? Surely the railway would be more interested in cracking on with the 4-6-0 as is belongs to them? With only 5 years left of 73069s user agreement it would seem quite likely that she will not be a priority. We'll see though.

 

It's got to be done and it was going to get work on it anyway, so yes it will be done! I think martins idea of buying and restoring it to mainline condition is an awesome idea however wasnt it withdrawn due to a welded con rod? I cant see the MHR buying it though... we can always hope [-o<

 

According to E. S. Cox in his book 'The BR Standard Steam Locomotives' all three Pacifics, the 2-10-0s,the Cass 5 4-6-0, Class 3 and 4 2-6-0sand the Class 3 2-6-2 tank all had steel cylinder castings. If indeed 73096 has iron ones, was Derby cutting costs and the naughty works responsible?

 

not knowing any details of the agreement you would have thought that the railway would have to return the loco in a similar condition to when the agreement was signed. Surely a new cylinder would have to be made to satisfy this?