46235 City of Birmingham

That's interesting about 6233. Suggested by whom to whom?

 

You're welcome Andrew - I thoroughly enjoyed the book, finished it in days (which is very quick for me ) and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone with an interest, or respect for, the Duchesses, or indeed British steam locomotives more generally. I learned a lot and especially enjoyed the chapters on the restoration of 6233, The 2 Duchesses' time at Butlins, 46229 on the Mainline, and the Royal Train operations. Have you got any similar books in the pipeline? One on the Royal Scots would be just lovely...

 

I don't think it's appropriate to give specific names on here, especially without their knowledge. It's actually quite a complex subject, and in any case I don't think it's a good idea to stir the pot too much. Suffice to say though, that at least one leading member of the team who was responsible for the successful operation of 46229 was also hired to contribute to the overhaul of 6233, and some of the decisions taken by the owning group at the time spoilt what could have been a locomotive that might have stood serious comparision with 46229 when it was properly looked after. Still at least it's working, and most people are thankful for that. But it could have been a lot better.

 

Hi all.
The last time I visited the thinktank (a few years ago!) I spoke to the engineer there who tended to the other engines. (apparently they have a boiler which provides steam to the other engines)
He told me that the frames on CoB are actually from City of Liverpool!!!
Don't know if he was pulling my leg thou'

 

Purely out of interest, which parts of the restoration of 6233 could have been better as compared with 46229? I am not in the know as far as 6233 is concerned, but would be interested purely from an engineering point of view to find out what differences there are between the 2 locomotives and their performance.

Richard.

 

A desire to see 46235 in steam again has been expressed by many, even though there seems no likelihood of a change of heart in the foreseeable future. Still is it too much to hope that e one day the Think Tank will actually live up to its name and do some sensible thinking?
Particularly if 46235 is not the perfect 1960's time capsule we were led to believe, then the intelligent place to preserve this engine is not cooped up as it is, but at Tyseley, in working order where it would be a much better and more visible ambassador for the city it is named after working "Shakespeare Exprss " services alongside 5043 and 4836.

Particularly with 6229 now being converted into "Bathtub" mode, even if it were streamed, the only opportunity to see a working "Duchess" will now be in a condition that only someone over 65 would remember them in, which is a shame.

 

City of Birmingham is just one of many engines which many woudl love to see in steam especially back on the mainline. But perhaps if this were to happen it woudl spell the end for "Duchess of Sutherland"s mainline career.

City of Birmingham may be cooped up but she is well cared for and in the warm and dry which is lot more than can be said for some engines.

JS

 

There was a lot of attention paid to things like very accurate valve timing on 46229, at least in the 80's. Some experimentation was involved early on to get the optimum settings which were not as per the drawings. The fellow who did that work had previous experience under Bill Harvey at Norwich with the Britannias. As is quite well known now, Bill Harvey discovered that the Britannia valve settings as specified were rather poor, so he had them modified to the extent that they had to be put back to the drawing every time they went back to Crewe for repair, otherwise enquiries would be made! Unofficial/unapproved modifications were strictly prohibited, although Bill got away with it because he had a degree of autonomy at Norwich. 46229 also has more streamlined cylinders i.e. a later design than 6233. Which is of course not any fault of 6233's owners. It seems from investigations carried out around 1983/4 that both 6229 and 6234 had cylinders cast with better internal streamlining of the ports and passages etc than the earlier engines. Indeed at least five of them had bypass valves. There were also test points for indication etc put in those cylinders, which Hamilton still has. 6234 was used for extensive testing in the late 30's, but not as far as I know 6229, which of course was streamlined at the time. What I don't know is whether the later members of the class had the same cylinders or whether it was just those two. There was a desire at one point to go and take a close look at 46235 in Birmingham, but extensive stripping would have to occur, which they understandably wouldn't entertain. As a matter of interest also is that during the loco exchanges 46229 was the standby engine for 46236, and it was remarked at the time that 46229 should have done the work as it was the better engine of the two.

Anyway as far as 6233 is concerned, the main things I'm aware of apart from the previously mentioned grate, is that they opted for return loop superheater elements rather than the trifurcated ones that the Duchesses were fitted with. The class was considered to suffer somewhat from disappointing superheat temperature. So the trifucated design was used which increased the temperature. 46256/57 for a while had an even better design of element. When the friends were operating 46229 the trifurcated elements were modified in 1983 with streamlined spacers which increased the gas flow through the flues, and the steam temperature was increased by a surprising amount. The engine was fitted with a temperature gauge for about three years, and after the fairly simple modifications it was registering quite high temperatures on the S & C. High superheat doesn't of itself increase performance, but it improves water consumption and efficiency and allows the engine more scope for high end performance. On one occasion (before the elements were streamlined, and the valves and pistons re-ringed) 46229 consumed over 2,500 gallons of water in 25 mins between Appleby and Garsdale, with no visible wastage of water from the injectors. That equates to a very high steaming rate indeed, that hadn't been achieved before in the UK. I was told by an engineer that was at Rugby testing station at the time, that when 46225 was tested there they couldn't manage to get it to run satisfactorily at 50% cut off at 50 mph and maintain steam pressure - which not many classes of engines could do anyway. Whereas 46229 could maintain steam at 60% and well over 50 mph, and even 60.

Another thing that was done to 6233 was that the exhaust injector was converted to live steam only. That may not necessarily be the case now, but anyway at high outputs that makes a lot of difference. Not least because the exaust injector reduces the exhaust back pressure considerably. And of course it increases flow rate and water temperature. I understand also that the driving horn stays were never fitted properly on 6233. They have to be tight otherwise frame defects will develop, so that will obviously discourage working the engine at high outputs. This was the kind of thing that was given a lot of attention on 46229, in order to make it better able to stand up to high performances. One funny thing about all this was that the two people who instigated all this development were both from the Eastern Region originally. Heavily opposed it has to be said by one of the museum staff, also ex-LNER who absolutely hated the engine.

Hope the above provides a little insight.

 

You would have thought that a prominent working engine with the name "City of Birmingham" would increase the profile of the City quite appreciably, and in the grand scheme of things at not such great expense. Unfortunately that kind of thinking has fallen on deaf ears for a long time now.

I was quite amused at a meeting last year connected with 2012 and raising the profile of London etc, when someone said "isn't it a pity there isn't a railway locomotive called City of London".

 

What a load of nonsense.

I always think it's strange how it's perfectly okay to have three working A4's at one time, but horror of horrors, we couldn't possibly have more than one Duchess.

 

....or two working Castles, two working Kings fairly soon, three working Manors, six working Bulleid Pacifics and quite a few working Black Fives.

 

I think you can forgive the black fives. I'd rather see more B1's of course. But it's the boneheaded attitude towards the duchesses I can't stomach.

 

I'm not sure I can cope with the farenheit scale. As it was, 46229 was barely reaching 600°F on a good day - just over 300°C, and that's with the triples. But after modifications it was reaching 700°F, and I heard on at least one occasion it was over 400°C, which is around the target temperature. A lot depended on the weather. The steam temperature was remarkably consistent once the engine had settled down to a stable output. Ten degrees higher ambient temperature would produce exactly ten degrees higher steam temperature under the same working conditions. There was a plan to modify the superheater elements further after 1990 to get the steam temp up a bit further, but the NRM took it over then and no-one there had any interest in that sort of thing at all. I would guess that 6233 struggles to reach 300°C even on a good day, and possibly a fair bit lower. But of course no one knows until it is measured.

I should also mention that 46229's water consumption became very good. In 1985 it could reach Bicester from Marylebone with a good load on less than half a tank of water. Whereas I remember on one occasion 4498 was very tight reaching Banbury with a larger tender tank.

Yes, but there wasn't a problem evident in practice. In fact it was discovered that oil designed for saturated steam was better for the engine than superheat oil. The saturated steam oil has a fatty additive - tallow - which burns off when the steam is really hot. But the benefit came when the engine is static. The tallow coats the internals with a protective layer which reduces corrosion when the engine is idle. Whenever oil without tallow was used, the engine would emit brown crud everywhere when it was next used. Out of the piston glands etc, and there was loads of it. There were marked differences in the quality of oil from different manufacturers. The Texaco cylinder oil, which had 5% tallow was the best, but alas it is not available now.

 

What is a Duchess?

As far as I know, the LMS had two types of Pacific, the 'Princess Royal' class (6200-6212) and the 'Princess Coronation' class (6220-6256, 46257). ](*,)

Are you all talking about Princess Coronations, like, for instance, (4)6229, (4)6233 and /or 46235? [-X

 

A Duchess is the name given to the Princess Coronation class because a fair few were named after Duchesses for example Duchess of Hamilton. I hope that has cleared it up a bit.

 

A few people in this thread have expressed a desire to see 46235 back on the Mainline. I too would love to see this happen, but I'm sorry to say in my opinion it will never happen.
The main reason for my saying this is that the Loco is owned by the City Council and by extension the city's council tax payers. Therefor the cost of restoration to main line standards would fall on them.
I can imagine the outcry there would be if the council were to announce that they were going to spend x amount on this project when people have far more pressing needs for their council tax to be spent on.
I have no idea of the costs of a restoration on this scale. Some people on here seem to think that she could be put back into steam in pretty short order, but I doubt this very much. Although she isn't in scrap condition I would think that any insurer would treat her as such and therefor anyone undertaking the restoration would find their costs rising considerably.
Maybe some one with experience in large restoration projects (Mr.Riley or Mr.Meanley?) could give us a very rough guesstimate.
The only way I could see 46235 getting back on the mainline would if someone were to buy her from Birmingham City Council and then put their hands in their pockets to pay the restoration costs.
Even this idea is full of ifs and buts.
Would the Council be prepared to sell?
Is there anyone out there with the deep pockets and the will to do this?
Okay someone will say 'we' could launch an appeal but there are a number of appeals running at the moment and people would soon get appeal fatigue.
Another sticking point would be where would she live?
I should think that if the council did sell they would insist that she stays in Birmingham for a reasonable length of time.
Would Tyseley have the room to accommodate her given the number of Loco's already there?
Last but not least would she get enough work to enable any private owner to get some sort of return on his money to at least be able to pay the running and maintenance costs?
Sorry this post is so negative but I think I'm being fairly realistic.
Then again when I win the lottery tonight.......... [-o<

 

I don't think there is any possibility that 46235 could change ownership. However if some sort of suitable agreement could be reached, then I'm sure the necessary finance could be found. It would be an attractive prospect and would definitely benefit the City if it were done. The problem is that the museum management have no concept of what is involved and the benefits. You might as well go to the Natural History Museum and propose to bring one of their Dinosaurs back to life. It's just a static exhibit to them. The other problem is achieving a suitable agreement that satisfies everyone. When the NRM took 46229 over and broke all their promises to the friends overnight that was a very hard lesson learnt. Five years of hard work and fundraising went down the plughole in one go. All the museum said was that they were only thinking about what was in their interest, nothing else mattered as far as they were concerned. I can imagine something similar could easily happen again, and it could be worse with a museum that is even less railway oriented. There are still the people around who could turn 46235 into an excellent machine. For a start most of the ex-Hamilton people would be interested. Sadly without John Peck, who was a key figure. And that brings me to the point that such people won't be around forever. I think if it doesn't happen in the next 5 or 10 years then if 46235 is ever got working then it would be just another steam engine. So the prospects for it don't look too good right now. The best chance is if Tyseley were to use their local influence and get it stationed there and brought in some of the people who had experience with Hamilton in the 80's. When you think about that you can see how remote the possibility is. I think with so much else going on, do Tyseley really need it. Though it would be a fantastic achievement if they made it happen. The trouble is that it's been tried many times before and so far there's never been the remotest chance of success. To see another Duchess working, there's more chance of building a new engine from scratch.

 

Obviously the City Council hasn't learned the vital lesson from Gordon Brown - it's how you package the announcement that matters not what's in it !

If the Council said that work on the loco would be undertaken at Tyseley ( keeps it local ) and the work would be undertaken by unemployed young persons ( shows an attempt to do something ) supervised by engineers ( utilises the knowledge of the retired ) in a form of apprenticeship ( the Government's new buzz-theme ) so that the engineering skills can be transferred to a younger generation ( the power of local history ) to ensure that Birmingham's traditional reputation for skilled engineering can be be seen to be continuing to maintain Birmingham's position as a "centre of Engineering Excellence".

So now the council can allocate the necessary funding package, Tyseley can get on with the work and the citizens of Birmingham can warm themselves in the glow of self-satidfaction that - yet again - they have been shafted by their local councillors.

Won't work ?

Howzabout the Government persuading us - the loyal taxpayers of GB Ltd - that it has to provide funds to keep the Banks in action to support the British Industry and provide the confidence to fund mortgages so that the liquidity of money becomes more free rather more sticky. No consideration that those who caused the problem by ignoring the first rules of banking ( i.e. ensure that assets used as loan collateral actually have the value(s) you presume ) then gave themselves extra bonuses on the strength of profits that didn't exist should be MADE to refund those profits to the bank to help fund the rescue from the mess they created.

But the loyal taxpayer is once again asked to come to the aid of the country with a patriotic fervour that serves the Government well to hide the fact that - the money is coming from the taxpayer ( who has least to give after the punising taxes extorted over the last decade ) to support those with the most money and the least inclination to surrender it !

So I'm sure that if the Government can write the message to make taxpayers feel that paying money to the bankers is a patriotic act then Birmingham City Council should have no difficulty in persuading Brummies that the use of funds to restore 6235 to main-line condition will be a wonderful advert for the City and all those who live within it !

Simply a matter of packaging - shurely ?