GWR Lubrication: 6695 etc.

That will be handy for oiling up at Galas. I know that I manage to oil the motion of 6695 without a pit but you need it for the axle boxes.

 

Doesn't the engine have some form of mechanical lubricator?

Regards

 

You're obviously not that familiar with GWR engines Orion; Swindon didn't go in for such new fangled things as mechanical lubricators, not when you have enginemen who can crawl around underneath with oil feeders! BR(W) did fit them to many of the Collett and Hawksworth 4-6-0's but I think (though someone will doubtless prove me wrong) these were only replacements for the hydrostatic feeds to the cylinders and steam chests.

 

Thank you Nigel. It is true that I'm not too familiar with GW engines and I did look at photos of 6695 before making my post, but I couldn't see any. I was pretty sure that I had seen lubricators on (at least) some GW designs and I had assumed that the divine GJC had ordained it so and that they might have been hidden away in the cab or between the frames as there isn't a lot of room on the platform of 6695.

When you read through, as I have done, the Proceedings of the Institute of Locomotive Engineers, it is astonishing just how much opposition there was was amongst practicing loco engineers to mechanical lubrication even for superheated engines. Clearly the GW was amongst the doubters. Gormless Western Railway.

:behindsofa:

Regards

 

The GWR didn't hide any mechanical lubricators away between the frames but they did their best to hide most of the oiling points there and in the most awkward of places, especially on the 66XX's!

 

One drawback with mechanical lubricators is the driver isn't always aware if the lubricator stops feeding; The ratchet handle isn't easy to watch from the cab, and worn components can cause it to stop working. Similarly if water is getting into the lubricator (that's on the lubricator for the steam chests/cylinders) due to faulty non return valves this will also stop it feeding even though the ratchet is working. A hydrostatic lubricator in the cab is easy to keep an eye on although I know drivers who really hate them (or don't understand them!). I guess it's personal preference, both have their pro's and con's.

With regard Swindon's attitude, I presume it was the usual thing of why bother replacing a system that is proved to work? Most GW inside motion 'swims' in oil and the sight feed lubricators generally work very well.

Steve, you're right the 56xx/66xx class are a pain to prepare, but nothing in this world is perfect! Mind you have you tried getting to the oil boxes behind the splashers on a T9? When you've crawled across the top of the motion and lifted the lid, you can't tip the oil feeder high enough to feed because there's a boiler in the way. I have doubted Mr. Drummond's parentage! Bodmin driver's have that pleasure to come, other than that 120 is a splendid machine.

 

We run the risk of re-rehearsing the arguments the arguments played out in the Proceedings of the I.Loco.Eng in the 1920s. Suffice it to say that an engineer has to be satisfied that the equipment he is using is sufficiently reliable before he would decide to use it. The only argument then is the equipment is more reliable than its competitors and is more effective and uses fewer maintenance hours in its use. The mechanical lubricator, particularly the Wakefield, has proved itself to be better on all counts for 80 years or so now.

I have looked at one of my DVDs this afternoon and I noted that 5643 has been equipped with oil pots on its forward frames. These pots appear to be feeding the axleboxes and pistons. Would anybody who is involved in the maintenance of his machine care to comment? I'd be grateful if they could.

Regards

 

I might be entirely at cross purposes here but, if by 'forward frames' you mean the bit between the end of the tank and the smokebox, the 66XX do have oil boxes there for feeding the front coupled axleboxes (and the piston & valve glands on one side). There are also oilboxes for feeding the driving axleboxes on top of the tanks and the trailing coupled boxes inside the cab.

 

Thanks for the prompt reply. Yes I do mean ' the bit between the end of the tank and the smokebox'. Why if these oil boxes exist on 5643 don't they appear on 6695? I would have thought that if they were present on 6695 it would save a lot of effort in preparing the loco for traffic. Were they present when Collett signed off the drawings I wonder.

Regards

 

Erm..... I've just looked at some photos of 6695 and the oilboxes that I was referring to, on the front frames and on the top of the tank, appear on 6695. (Can't say about the those in the cab!) See: http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/6695/wsr08gala/nclark09.jpg
Now I am confused......

 

The oilboxes which Steve refers to are very definitely present on 6695. However, during the axlebox overhaul at Williton we modified the lubrication arrangement by removing the crown feeds; This is somewhat controversial but other companies gradually did away with crown feeds (the LMS moved these feeds to the horizontal centreline) as they were of doubtful benefit and centrifugal force can actually eject oil back up these feeds. We considered that 6695 was getting water contamination via these feeds from the wells atop the axleboxes so removal was deemed beneficial; new crown brasses were fitted with additional counter-bores to aid oil flow around the journal (a Caerphilly works modification which Swindon refused to acknowledge!). The journals are now fed solely from the underkeep pads, which became common practice in the latter days of British steam and which Swindon were actually beginning conversion to (in fact 6697 at Didcot was a BR conversion in this respect). In this conversion Swindon usually replaced the worsted pads with felts but we've kept the worsted type as conversion to felts was considered unneccessary additional expense. With 12 months of operation under her belt the removal of crown feeds doesn't appear (so far) to have been detrimental. The remaining feeds from the oilboxes supply the horn faces. Piston and valve glands are fed as per original design from independent oil pots on the slidebars.

I agree with 'Saggin Dragon's' comments regarding hand oiling helping to ensure daily inspection of motion and boxes takes place. It also helps to gauge how much oil is being used and even if oil is being taken at all.

We had also had problems with the thrust face feeds to the radial wheelset and these are now fed from the cab using some of the redundant coupled wheel crown feeds.

 

So am I. I couldn't see them on the photos I looked at or on my video. If they are indeed on 6695 then why are the people at Swanage having to go down into a pit to oil the axleboxes?

This post has been answered by Nigel Clarke's

Regards

 

Thanks for your info. Nigel. the second pit road at BL will make things a lot better.
Anything else going on?

 

I think that it was realised quite a long time ago that feeding oil to the crowns of a bearing was not the best idea but most plain bearings continue to have this feature and this isn't just confined to locos. For an oil lubricated bearing to work, the oil film between the bearing and the journal must be at a pressure equal to the load on the bearing. To have an oilway at the crown of the bearing is to put it at the point of highest pressure and to potentially break up the film of oil.

I'm intrigued at how you fill the underkeeps of the driving axleboxes because, unlike the coupled axleboxes, there is no room for a conventional filler on the 66XX with crank webs. Well, that is the case with 6619, which is the one I'm familiar with.

 

More activity at Norton with sleepers laid today from Orchard Junction eastwards along the Barnstaple formation...see "Latest Pictures" on www.wsr.org.uk

Steve

 

I thought that one of the innovations GJC introduced to the GW and, eventually, to the rest of British railways was that lubricating oil was introduced to the bearing via a pad of woollen cloth which was on the underside of the bearing. Other British railways of the Edwardian period oiled their bearings from a hole in the top of the bearing as did the GW in the Dean era. I've got a drawing somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

Regards

 

Steve,

The driving 'box keeps are feed from fillers attached to the underkeeps; these are similar to those on 57xx panniers and are actually on the drawings for modification to 56/66xx class felt pad underkeeps (driving axleboxes). These fillers require part of the axlebox horns to be milled out and they protrude towards the rear (in hindsight we should have made them face forwards to allow more room to access them!) and are flush with the edge of the axlebox thereby giving clearance for the crank web. The fillers also have a drain plug on the underside as you do get water ingress to the keeps, in fact I would think it beneficial to fit these fillers/drains to driving 'boxes which still have crown feeds. Whilst we are on this subject, and the topic is supposed to be about WSR and not loco lubrication (!), I would like to state again how much we appreciate the work, help and advice rendered to us by West Somerset Restoration at Williton during the course of the axlebox overhaul and, similarly, the friendliness and willingness to help by all at both Williton and the WSR in general.

Orion, I'm not sure who intruduced the underkeep pad to british loco practice but Swindon generally had both underkeep pads (usually worsted) and crown feeds. The introduction of felt pads usually went hand-in-hand with the removal of the crown feeds. Swindon obviously considered felt pads more reliable than worsted but people these days have their own opinions on this, a lot of course depends upon the quality of the worsted and what use the journals are subjected to.

 

Interesting, to say the least! It's obvious that the 56XX /66XX are the same as Black 5's. Exactly the same but each one is unique.

 

Nigel, Thank you for that. I think the introduction of the underkeep pad to the GWR is usually attributed to GJC. I had always assumed that all GW designs had this feature. Obviously I'm wrong. Do you know which designs retained the crown feed?

As an aside it is interesting that the 56xx/66xx kept the crown feed. I wonder if it was always the case or if this feature has been re-introduced in preservation?

Regards