82045 The way ahead?

The idea being that they were burnt, rather than half burnt. Cant imagine a double chimney on a std 4 (or 3 Tank) looking at all nice. but the most effective mods are at and before the blast pipe in anycase. Hopefully 82045 wont need any such mods, but athe potential is there...

 

BR Western Region Engine Loads for Passenger, Parcels and Milk trains 1963 show a limit of 310 tons for a Class 3 loco between Hartlebury and Shrewsbury. Between Kidderminster and Bewdley the limit is 400 tons and 320 tons going the other way. These loads are, of course, the calculated loads in order to maintain timings. Perhaps someone could convert the weights given into number of coaches.

 

Much more than 8!

Work on about 40 tons per coach for a Pullman; about 35 - 37 for a Mark 1 (depends on bogies); about 30 - 34 for a grouping era wooden coach. Someone will have a exact weights for the SVR coaches, but I'd reckon on an 8 coach rake of Mark 1s being a bit under 300; the LMS and teak rakes less than that and the vintage GWR rake even less.

As you say, those loadings are also to maintain the timings, but they will be the 1950s timings as well, which would be rather sharper than current timings. So I can't see too much problem pulling an 8 coach rake on the SVR.

Tom

 

Thank you all for your valued contributions. The overall concensus would suggest 8 coaches on the SVR for 82045 would be no problem. Unless there is someone who does not agree !

 

Irrespective of what the engine can physically do, and load limits in BR days, I'd imagine a load limit of eight bogies will be imposed in order to keep down wear and tear and so reduce maintenance and overhaul costs.

 

It will be interesting to find out at the 82045 AGM ( KDR Railway Museum, April 6th, 2pm--all welcome, members or not...) if there has been any interest from any other group who might wish to embark on building the tender version of the 82xxx, ie a 77xxx.

46118

 

This has been mentioned at BRSLOG meetings, but nothing definite has transpired.

 

Makes good sense. Within its capabilities and answers the vast majority of the SVR's needs.

 

I wasn't particularly thinking of the SVR as a home for a 77xxx, but rather that along with other groups via BSLOG there are now many patterns and plans available, as witness the recent co-operation between the 82045 Trust and the group converting a 78xxx into an 84xxx at the Bluebell.

46118

 

This a question that has been raised in several different places. Whilst I can not speak for the 82045 Trust, nor the Monday and Wednesday gangs at Bridgnorth. One important aspect of the loco construction has become very apparant to all concerned. Whilst we have drawings, a small UK manufacturing base available, patterns and even an ex Swindon draughtsman who worked on 82XXXs, what we do not have access too is the experience based knowledge of order and detail of construction. We have to consider several stages ahead, to ensure that no component is permanently fixed in place, that some time in the future will inhibit another components installation weeks, months or year down the line. This knowledge base has been aquired by considerable thought from our engineers, and will be lost once again when 82045 makes her first move.

If there are groups considering 82046 or 77XXX then they would be well advised not to contemplate for too long. 82045 is making rapid progress and once she is steaming there is a fair chance that time and completion will see the new knowledge base that has been aquired lost once again.

 

Point taken, and planning the construction of 82045 is complicated by the fact that it has the added ingredient of the funds flow and when a given component can actually be manufactured.
In Swindon days, or any other workshop for that matter, the components would generally be available, so as you say, a question of in what order you bolt them all together.

I suupose that once a decision was taken to build, say for argument, fifty "Hall" class locos, then the works would order production of sufficient components, large and small, which would be available off the shelf when erection of the locomotives started.

I dont share your concern about the loss of the knowledge base though, because I am sure that every detail and plan is being set down on paper ( or the modern equivalent), and would be available if another (or the same) group built a further unit.

I hope the museum is not double-booked on the 6th, as it was two or three years ago. Should be a good attendance.


46118

 

It is true that one of our senior engineers intends to compile a report on the suggested method of assembly. This will be rather a difficult and demanding report to compile, and I would imagine it will be somewhat detailed and lengthy. I take the point about component availability in BR days and although we do not have a stores full of components - if only, we don't even have a stores ! We have been rather fortunate that due to excellent planning and fundraising by the dedicated 'office squad' that component availability has never been a major problem. At the working end we have always had the materials and components required at any given time - other than rather annoying late deliveries of the few larger components that we are unable to manufacture ourselves.

The knowledge based problem covers all scales. Do the workshop lads start the machining of one particular component, say fitted bolts before another. Do you rivet a component into place because you require that as a fixed datum before you can calculate exactly where an adjacent component fits. If you do, what happens down the line when assembly of yet another, seperate component, could inhibit access for the 'jammer or reamer'. This may appear a rather elementary problem, but in practice it requires a three dimensional appreciation of space and time - I guess that only week by week work experience can convey the true magnitute of the problems we have to overcome. It might be a steam Loco, but it is still a rather complex piece of engineering kit !

I too am looking forward to the AGM on the 6th April, when I am sure the committee will have plenty of good news to give.

 

The issue of accessibility and assembly order is certainly not unique to 82045 - for example, the Bluebell Atlantic people are considering the same issues and, for example, are holding off putting the driving wheels in place for as long as possible because access is better for equipment attached to the frames without the wheels in place. They also considered very carefully the final position of all sorts of bits of ancilliary equipment so that the frames could have the correct drillings right from the start.

However - even if 82045 turned out to be a one off for now and someone decided to build a second one in 20 years or so, I don't think there is a big danger of knowledge being lost, because one would hope that the assembly is being documented in much more depth than would have been common in the 1950s. I suspect back in those days, there would have been an innate knowledge within the workforce, borne of long experience (both personal and within the wider organisational history), about the best order of assembly, and so relatively little would have needed to be written down. By contrast, that knowledge is now much rarer or gone, and so the people doing new builds now have got to learn it afresh; but on the positive side, the opportunity to document - even if only because digital photography and online mechanisms of communication are essentially free - coupled with the much wider interest in such projects, means that far more is being recorded about assembly now than back in the 1950s.

Tom

 

Certainley, the last items to go on any new build in the major loco works were the wheels and motion.
Your comment about the experience of the workers employed in loco works is interesting. Quite a few drawings of parts assume that the persons producing the components know what is required. Swindon drawings office certainly did with their drawings of parts for the Standard 3s. The classic example is the drawing for the driving wheel axles. Half the drawing shows the finished axle dimensios and the other half shows the forging sizes. There is no mention of the keyways being at 90 degrees to each other, with the RH leading.

 

I can only speak from experience with 5164 this period of service, but there is no way it is under - boilered. It steams like a kettle: you would have to be very inexperienced, have bad coal, a clinkered fire, or some other problem to struggle with it. It is fine with 8 coaches, (Mk1s, around 279 tons) and I have taken 10 with it, (355 tons) It had no trouble wit the load, and neither I nor my fireman, had any problems keeping it on the mark. The only problem I had, as I mentioned on another thread, was adhesion, and that was down to lousy weather and inoperative sanders, not the engine's power, or steaming ability.

I doubt 82045 will have a problem with 8 Mk1s, although it might cough a bit with 10 on the banks, it is a Class 3 compared to the Prairie's Class 4. I'm looking forward to finding out!

 

The boiler on the 82xxx was based on the standard No2 boiler (as on 51xx). I'm guessing that the 82xxx could get away with smaller cylinders by virtue of having a higher boiler pressure. Ray.

 

According to Wikipedia (that publication of record!) the boiler pressure of both an 82xxx and a 51xx is the same - 200psi. The cylinders on a 51xx are considerably bigger (though the drivers are a bit bigger), hence the considerably bigger TE in the 51xx. Which was why I was pondering about the relative proportions of boiler to cylinders in the two designs. General consensus in this thread seems to be settling on the steaming rate of the boiler being enough to cope with the big cylinders on the 51xx, so probably overboilered for the 82xxx, which means it would be able to easily keep up with demand from the cylinders without the boiler being pushed especially hard.

Is that a fair summary?

Tom

 

It should be remembered that the No 2 boiler was also fitted to the 56XX Class locos. The cylinders were 18" x 26", almost the same as the Standard Class 3s and same boiler pressure. No problem with the 56XXs, steam wise.

 

Quite correct Tom both are 200 psi. - my mistake,shouldn't post when I'm tired. Could it also be that the 82xxx being 'overboilered' for the size of cylinders it could better cope with poorer coal?
Std tank - didn't the the 56xx have a no 10 which was a shorter barreled version of a No 2 or am I mistaken? Ray.

 

On the subject of assembly. Being a pretty much a Swindon design. It will have everything put on AFTER the wheels have gone in.