1014 County of Glamorgan

I don't recall seeing anything in the books I have about stays at all. I think just about all of them talk about high tensile nickel steel for the barrel. I haven't checked tho and could be wrong.

[Later] RCTS says

 

Not, shall we say, the most reliable of sources.

 

yup 6106 had Monel stays....seem to remember very hard to turn and thread....

 

The latest Great Western Echo has a "County Report" mentioning that "our firebox is almost complete" and that "We have also done a lot of work to confirm the probable cost of a new boiler barrel and smokebox, which is in the order of £132,000". This suggests that they have stuck to their plan of re-using a few bits of the 8f boiler. Presumably at least those bits were in reasonable condition, but have the questions about working pressure ever been answered? And has anyone ever explained why they want a new barrel, tapered all the way, rather than disguising the part-tapered and part-parallel 8f boiler by suitable cladding? There has been nothing on this thread between September 2012 and now, nor can I find anything about the boiler on the GWS website since the 2012 announcement.

 

I think that it will be a pity if the rebuilt boiler has to operate at less than 250psi. To my knowledge, no-one has stated that the loco will operate at 225psi, but I seem to recall reading that the staying of County fireboxes was uprated over the 8F arrangement in order to cope with the higher pressure.
A County operating at 225psi might be considered a "de-tuned" version of the original.
Just my views.

 

Indeed at 225 PSI its a Leggy hall (or other 5mt), not that thats a bad thing if it gets any here near the mainline...

 

Going by the dimensions quoted on Wikipedia, if the new 1014 were to have an unmodified 8f boiler it would seem to be slightly less powerful than even a Hall. So a lot depends on the actual dimensions and working pressure of the rebuilt boiler.

 

Depends how you rate ' Power' . The TE figure would be lower by virtue of the wheel diameter but as you have a larger grate area and uprated draughting to match the available steam production should potentially be higher.

 

Now if they'd gone for a new box as well as a new barrel, they could have had a full blown County, 280psi et al.

 

Has anyone in the project actually said that this is what their doing? It's never really been clarified. And if it's true, considering all the money and commitment being thrown at it, why isn't it done to allow the full capability?

Does seem to spoil their aim of creating an exact replica of the design...

 

IIRC the 1014 project's website (and reports elsewhere) stated that the 8F's outer wrapper and inner 'box are being repaired and other mods being undertaken but the stay pitch cannot be altered so I cannot see it being anything other than 225psi. Unusually for a GWS project I feel that this is a bit of a 'dog's breakfast' (IMHO). Having spent a great deal of time and money on the correct 6'3" drivers they have now had to lower the cab and boiler fittings to fit the NR loading gauge. Wouldn't it have been simpler and much more cost effective to use the 6' Hall drivers? I doubt anyone would notice as you were allowed 1 1/2" for tyre turning and it would offset some of the T.E. lost by having a boiler limited to 225psi. Maybe the cash saved could have been better spent on a complete new 250psi boiler and you'd still have the 8F (better not re-open that 'can of worms'!). At the end of the day, however, it's their engine and their money. Ray.

 

No, because the running height of the loco would be altered. Springing, relationship with the bogie etc, would be compromised and, probably, the loading gauge for the chassis.

 

Sorry but I don't follow that argument. The frames, cylinders, bogie etc are all from 7927 Willingdon Hall. All I was saying was use 7927's own wheels which would leave the loading gauge for the "chassis" as originally built. Fitting 6'3" drivers, as they have done, will indeed alter the height of the cylinders above the rail and thus the loading gauge - or have we misunderstood each other's posts? Cheers, Ray.

 

Theres precious litle difference to me ( no doubt to sheep other sheep are different) beteen GWR 4-6-0' s as it is , what you are advocating seems to be restoring a hall and putting a different name plate and splasher on it and calling it a county ? (and worryingly i might have a problem spotting the difference)
Due to the Bizarre NR speed limit banding, wheels a few inches bigger do have some added value though.
I did suggest that The Clan, P2 and County could share a 6ft 2 wheel pattern (with interchangeable bosses for the different crank pin positions) once, but due such minor considerations as appearance ( no of spokes, shape of wheel rim etc) this didnt go down well
Expect some minor surgery has been needed to the original frames to accomodate the changes between the two designs, but quite likely that the greater differences between the two are manifest in the stretchers, mounts and bolsters between the frames as hinted at by Mr Tank...

 

Not being an avid GWR loco follower, I was not aware that 7927's frame set etc had been used. Fitting 6'-3" dia wheels would alter the running height of the Hall chassis, so the problems would be the reverse of what I previously said. Interesting. I assume that modifications have been made to accommodate the differences.

 

The mods were carried out at Llangollen immediately after 7927 was dismantled.

Bob.

 

On the other hand, if the Wikipedia figures are correct, the 8f boiler has less heating surface. But then (with the same proviso) the County boiler also had a slightly bigger grate than a Modified Hall but slightly less heating surface. All in all, apart from the working pressure, all the other differences between any of these boilers seem to be small, and easily outweighed by better or worse draughting, and by day to day variations in the quality of the coal and the skill of the fireman. So it is the pressure that seems the really significant difference, and we still don't know for certain whether the rebuilt 8f boiler will be able to work at more than 225 psi.

 

The working pressure is determined by plate material, plate thickness, stay diameter and, most importantly stay pitch. Using the existing 8F inner firebox and outer wrapper the stay pitch is already set and can't be altered so unless Stanier over stayed the original design it will be limited to 225psi. Ray.

 

Could comment that the heating surfaces quoted might not include superheat... but that's splitting hairs really, it really does boil down to ( see what I did there) working pressure, it might be that the boiler is slightly over engineered and a small increase would be ok'd, but 10% a bit hopefull though....

 

This is the only new build project that has me scratching my head and asking "why?"

A perfectly good, if unrestored, 8F boiler was cut up to provide not a lot of material for what will practically be a new boiler overall. So why not build a new boiler as per Tornado/Prince of Wales/The Unknown Warrior and make it a fully fledged new build County?

The new Saint, Lady of Legend, hasn't in any way destroyed items which could be potentially reused as is, so why this was felt necessary with the last Doncaster built 8F is beyond me. I'd be saying much the same thing mind purely on the basis that the 8F boiler could have been reused on another 8F, like for like.

The more I hear about what they need to do to the boiler to make it all work, the more I feel skeptical about the end result. Perhaps I am being unfair in some respects, and I respect any difference of opinion to mine of course. I just don't understand in this specific instance why a brand new boiler would not have been less hassle than cutting up the 8F's one.