Top Gear and The power of Clarkson

A pure assumption. That said, if im talking rubbish i gracefully bow down to those with a greater knowledge of boiler insurance

Chris

 

Middleton has an all welded boiler amongst its riveted ones. Insurance and inspection don't come one penny cheaper for the welded one. In fact, if anything, there is more concern over the welded boiler because there is little history of all welded locomotive boilers and how they will react to the stresses and strains created by being constanmtly shaken around. The Inspector wouldn't entertain any sort of extension over the ten years laid down in the written scheme, even though it had a full re-tube part way through. He is concerned about the welded seams, rather than its internal and external condition, which appears to be good.

As for riveted boilers, there are over one thousand steam loco boilers in the UK. There are at least a couple of thousand traction engine (and similar) boilers, as well. That number of boilers is not insignificant. The Inspection companies are generally aware of the size of the market and are now training up younger inspectors in these types. The big problem is not just with inspectors with experience of riveted boilers, it is finding sufficient young people with experience of steam plant to become inspectors in the first place.

 

Thanks for that Steve, very interesting reading.

(Btw, could the mods consider splitting this thread, its gone a little off topic!)

Chris

 

The power of Clarkson.

In December 2007 "Top Gear" visited us in Afghanistan on a morale/welfare ticket although, as a journalist, Jeremy could not resist writing a fairly "sharp" but amusing piece on " Helmandshire" when he got back, much to the chagrin of my then masters in the MOD Press Office as it wasn't a media visit as such. Well, he is a journalist after all!

As for Tornado, I can hear him now:

"This locomotive, with its modern technology crafted on a traditional style, is probably one of the finest production locomotives.......



..............


....in the World."

 

On a different note....

I took a vid of 60163 passing through Newark Northgate. She was in fine fettle and for once, I didn't have to contend with lots of photters/spotters getting in my way and standing over the yellow line on the platform edge!

Video available here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku_s5DwFr2c

 

I seem to remember being told by the late Colin Goldsmith about 10+ years ago or so when the Isle of Man Railway was considering buying a new, all welded boiler for No. 1 'Sutherland' that the life-expectancy for a welded boiler was considerably shorter than that of a riveted one (something like 17 years compared to 25 although the cost of an all welded boiler was considerably cheaper). I have a feeling he also said the length of time between boiler lifts was shorter too (possibly 7 compared to 10?). Is this true or did I miss hear/ is my memory playing tricks on me (it was quite a while ago..!). I suppose it may vary from insurer to insurer as well?

 

It will be interesting to know what has been imposed on Tornado's boiler with regard to weld inspections, etc. I think that my Boiler inspector now has responsibility for its inspections. I might just enquire when I see him on friday......Although he shouldn't tell me!

 

Doesn't it depend on the type of weld used on the boiler?

 

I suspect it is more to do with the design of the all welded boiler.

By this I mean will it be a boiler with flanged plates, nicely welded together, like the one fitted to Tornado, or some god awfull thing made of flat plates welded together, like say a big minature. A nice but pricey job, or a horrid, but cheap option.

The former is in my opinion likely to outlast a comparible rivetted boiler, wheras the latter will likely be life expired within 20years.

Like all things you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

You're not wrong with what you are saying. Ours is one of those 'flat plate' jobs made by Winson Engineering with a 1" thick foundation ring. However the prime concern is the longitudinal weld on the barrel and this will also exist on Tornado. It will depend on how well it has been rolled and whether there is any peaking along the seam. Our loco boilers are vastly different from the majority of large industrial boilers which spend most of their lives at a constant pressure with little in the way of stress fluctuation and consequent fatigue. To some extent, welded boiler barrels exhibit the same characteristics as a simple riveted lap joint if the welded joint is not perfectly formed and grooving along the weld line is a real possibility.

I've often wondered about the possibility of spiral rolling a barrel as this would eliminate the problem. It's a common practise on steel chimneys.

 

Tornado's boiler hasn't been built by some industrial pressure vessel company pricing up the job on the side, it's been built by a company that has been building all welded loco boilers since the 1980s. Any consideration of weld integrity resulting from heritage operation has of course been accounted for, and the specific changes required to build an A1 pattern of boiler by welding have also been more than accounted for. The cab/firebox etc has also been redesigned such that the intermediate inspection does not require a lift at all. It is a near certainty that the boiler will be able to be certified for the full 10 years, and will only come off at the end of those ten years when back at Darlo for a full overhaul.

 

Er, O.V.S. Bulleid did all that in 1940...

 

I was shocked to read about this in my Steam Railway.

 

Now we're discussing boilders now the locomotive and its trip to Scotland, could I jump in and pose a little question?

I assume 60163 made some water stops enroute? Peterborough / Doncaster / York / Newcastle ? Would it be possiable for 60163 to use a water carrier like KEI ? Covered up in some kind of 'passenger' vehicle?

Also has 6023 used its water carrier to avoid using water stops before?

37422.

 

Water carriers are all well and good but charters still need to stop here and there to allow faster trains to pass. On Tornado's run, they managed to do the water stops more quickly that on many charters and were able - wist National Express East Coast assistance, were able to secure a decent path using these short stops for pathing. One problem with the water carrier is that if full, it would add the weight of 3 coaches, so load 10 becomes load 13. That would impact on performance and may not allow for such a good path in the first place.

It was an original objective of the A1 trust to build a second tender a la 4472, now 60019. I guess it is a financial drain that at this point is not required.

 

If I recall correctly, 60019's 2nd tender was finished sometime ago and has been out on a test run with the loco (but not used in anger, I think - can someone confirm this?). Pity it couldn't be used a bit more widely (particularly by the A1) to cut down the number of water stops.

 

I understand it's the height rather than the width that is the limiting factor...

I also heard some time ago that a handbrake on this vehicle was considered excess to requirements by those rebuilding it. Apparently there is a loophole which if interpreted in a certain way could allow it on the main line without a parking brake. However the mind boggles when one thinks of a fully loaded vehicle of that size and weight being parked anywhere, let alone next to a main line, with only scotches preventing it from rolling off on it's own.

So maybe it's a good thing it's not being used, until some common sense is brought into play.

 

So the idea/comtruction of a water carrier is abit of a white elephant then?

Just say 60163 used 6023 carrier and was allowed to run non stop from Kings X to Waverley would the engine make it without stopping? Could the crew cope? I assume it would have enough coal, as in steam days on toughs were needed for water.

Has 6023 used it carrier on the mainline and when not in use like now where is it stored? Surely renting it out would bring in some useful income to fund the repair to the king?

I understand the issue of loading with the carrier fully loaded it add's 3 MK1s weight to the train which could otherwise be used to carry fare paying passengers, if this is the case and has limited use why did the 6023 group do the job in the first place?

37422.