34073 moved?

The most likely loco to take over the VSOE when Clan Line is overhauled is surely 35027 Port Line, assuming it is finished in 2 years.

 

True James, but at the time Tangmere was also on EWS's books, the point i was making is that CRS's own engines dont normally get fitted with air brakes, so i would expect that any work would go to 34046,and 34067, not a bad substitute ,assuming that 34046 isnt out of ticket by then, but by then, 35027 may well be availible , so plenty of options, 2 MN's could be on the mainline with in the next 2-3 years, wouldnt it be great to see a pair standing side by side at waterloo on 6 july 2016, heading to weymouth,and exeter.

 

Back to 34073 chaps?

 

Only 2… have we forgotten one already ?

35018, 35027 and 35028.

assuming 35027 is coming along at all.. that story seems to have been rolling for nearly a decade… does anyone know the status of it ?

 

Probably waiting for one of the current fleet to come out of service. Either that or the upheaval of the future move of the Riley business from Baron Street. That might well be the reason why 34073 has already moved. Anyone's guess really.

 

Are MNs 22 and 27 still at Bury? Thought it had been reported they'd moved on.

 

First I've heard of it if they have.

 

Regarding boilers on the originals and the rebuilds, I have the answer and it confirms what others have said/surmised - they are interchangeable and it's only the smokebox and ashpans that differ between the two. Superheating arrangements are the same whichever variant the boiler was affixed to.

 

That's not quite what is stated in Bradley, which says that the design of superheater header was modified when the locos were rebuilt. Bradley says that was done to improve access (see post 69), but it isn't clear from that source whether it was a change forced on the design team because of the different design of smokebox, or whether it was a change made for incidental reasons and the boiler with new design superheater header would be backwardly compatible with unrebuilt engines. There is also the point that the superheater area on the rebuilds was reduced, but that would be achieved simply by shortening the elements, and wouldn't in itself affect whether a "rebuilt" boiler could fit an "original" loco.

Does anyone know the specifics? For example, any photos from preserved engines of the different designs, or indeed, did the two designs ultimately get mixed around as locos underwent boiler swaps?

Tom

 

Aye Tom, a very different design. It is clearly done to accommodate the curvature of the smokebox on the rebuilds. More like the headers on the LMS and Standard 5s, with an extra flange on the front for steam to the middle cylinder.

 

The info comes from someone who "owns" both an original and a rebuild and has worked/is working on both. If you care to believe a book then so be it but I'll go with the engineer rather than the author until someone can provide concrete proof to the contrary.

 

Well I believe two drawings, W5858 and W11628.

 

So I assume that a boiler fitted with a revised pattern superheater header would fit into an original loco, but a boiler with an original pattern superheater header would not fit into a rebuilt loco on account of not fitting in the smokebox?

Tom

 

No need to be aggressive! I was querying it because there is an obvious anomaly that is worthy of exploration. Worth remembering that Bradley was writing (or at least researching) in the mid to late 1960s at a time when there were still Bulleids on the mainline; he had access to the works records and drawings and was able to talk to many workshop and running staff involved, as well as inspect actual locos. So while it is conceivable there could be errors, it seems very hard to imagine how he could invent the fact that the superheaters of the rebuilds were changed if that didn't in fact happen.

Pure supposition, but if you have evidence that a preserved original and rebuild have identical superheater headers, is it possible that as a result of boiler swaps, both locos have the revised pattern - because if I understand Std Tank correctly, a revised pattern header would fit either type of loco, whereas an orginal patten header would only fit an original loco?

Tom

 

I have not got quote, so Tom, in theory, yes a boiler and header from a rebuild would fit into an original, but new steam pipes would have to be made and fitted.

 

Some photos (not mine):

92 squadron (original): http://www.flickr.com/photos/38214920@N05/4980548208/
Sir Archibald Sinclair (rebuild): http://www.bulleidsociety.org/34059/Pictures/Restoration/08_Sept_Superheater_Header_.jpg (via http://www.bulleidsociety.org/34059/34059_Restoration_3.html, which has other pictures).

Look somewhat different to me - the one on 92 Squadron is wider, with two flanges outboard of the elements, rather than a central flange.

Tom

 

one appears to have 4 steam outlets and the one on Archie only 3?

 

The two images do show different types of header. I'll go back to my source and ask further questions.

 

Here are five photos of 34073, two at Carnforth today and three in the Barry scrapyard in 1972.


Please can anybody tell me when 34073 left Barry (I know it was one of the last), and what its subsequent movements were?



http://andrewstransport.smugmug.com/Northwesttrains/North-West-Trains-2014/35756943_GKDgnm#!i=3050299463&k=dFnvbLZ



Cheers



Andrew N