A new-build BR Standard Class 3 is planned.

The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999, brought into force to comply with the EU Pressure Equipment directive.

The Regulations apply to the: "design, manufacture and conformity assessment of pressure equipment and assemblies of pressure equipment with a maximum allowable pressure >0.5 bar" They do not apply to "pressure equipment and assemblies placed on the market before 29 November 1999" which is why organisations try to utilise at least some of an existing boiler, i.e. overhaul it. It is not correct to say that a new boiler built to existing drawings need not comply; it is a new boiler - Full stop.

The big problem is how you prove conformity. For riveted boilers there is the obsolete BS 931 and, for welded boilers, BS2790. However, it is unlikely that an existing boiler design would stand up to either of these standards so you are then left with doing a lot of design calculations to prove that you have a safe pressure vessel. Not impossible, but a significant amount of work. Boiler design for locomotives was essentially one of evolvement. In many cases, things were done the way they were because they worked and not by calculated design. If you go for a new, welded boiler, designed to comply with BS2790, it is a much simpler task. The design and build also has to be approved by what is known as a 'Conformity Assessment Body' approved to carry out such work and there aren't exactly many of those in the UK.

One possible get-out is that, if you build your own boiler, the regulations don't apply! However, if you buy it from a contractor, they do.

 

Thanks Steve.

 

but if you don't built it properly, it goes bang!

 

The Pressure Equipment Regulations are made under a procurement directive and are more concerned with putting equipment into the market; everything from a pressure cooker upwards. If you build it for yourself, you are not putting it on the market. Not having to comply with the PER doesn't mean it hasn't to be fit for purpose. The Pressure Systems Regulations still apply and these are made under the H&S@WA. Just less hoops to jump through. Try reading the PER.

 

The P.E.D. was and remains a typical piece of E.U. legislation overkill, it was introduced to address the problem of sub standard, domestic refrigeration (if I recall correctly) compressors that were being produced in Italy. The industry I was working in at the time was producing many assemblies working at up to 40 bar. With the impending legislation causing concern I contacted British Standards. The advice given was that, throughout the rest of Europe, if it was felt that the argument could be made that the legislation should not apply to an industry then that was the line that would be taken. However for the UK it was advised that the regulations should be applied given the nature of the legal system, compensation culture etc. If it could possibly be construed that the legislation might apply then we were best advised to apply it. In the rest of Europe quite the reverse.
Did the existing standards for locomotive boiler manufacture produce unsafe boilers? No. The UK locomotive manufactures had their act well together before the people who drafted the legislation were even born. There was never a serious boiler incident on a Gresley designed locomotive. Proof enough?

 

Presumably the said proving Calculations were done for the Meiningen boilers ? so formulae have already been done, so its just a question of presenting your values to the calculation and see what comes out... unlikely to be a problem surely.

 

A statement has been made that a no one in UK can produce a new riveted boiler. Dolgoch from the Talyllyn carries a brand new boiler constructed by Severn Valley Railway Engineering Services which was CE marked.

http://www.svr-engineering.co.uk/boilershop/new_build_contruction.html

 

Interestingly, in the latest "Atlantic News" (house magazine of the Brighton Atlantic project) it was noted that the boiler insurer had required a detailed set of calculations demonstrating the safety of the boiler. This was because the absolute provenance of the boiler as constructed could not be demonstrated (on account that its number had been lost when transferred to stationary service) though the team are confident it is one or the other of two specific boilers. So without the provenance, and even though it can be seen to have been constructed in accordance with the LNER drawings, a full set of calculations demonstrating the strength of each component part has had to be carried out, amounting to 20 pages of calculations and 8 drawings.

Tom

 

Tom - your post reinforces my opinion that we still have the skills in UK to make the calculations and do the design. There will be hoops to jump through, 20 pages of calculations and 8 drawings, but we still have the engineers to rise to the challenge. As Top Gear showed we can still make things here.

 

Tom put it better than I could.

I have one correction though; AFAIK the G5 is being built independently but it's being done with cooperation from the Wensleydale Railway. I'm not privy to the details but I assume there's some kind of financial arrangement whereby the American owners of the WR are funding the G5 project and will receive contractual benefits in due course.

Another good example is the Holden F4 project for the Epping Ongar Railway.

Another good example is how the Clan project finally seem to be getting their act together after 20 years of very little progress after deciding that they had to be based somewhere.

Right now, you're a solution in search of a problem. The problem, being that a heritage railway needs more motive power. It's quite a good solution (right size, right technology), so it would potentially fit many potential problems. But you still need a potential problem.

With regards to the heritage, it would make some sense to see this based at a Scottish/North Eastern railway, which limits you somewhat. Ignore this restriction as the Clan team have done and you might be able to build and run it elsewhere.

But even if this restriction is stretched you still need (1) somewhere to build it (2) somewhere to run it and overhaul it (3) support while you build it. If we assume (2) is taken by adequate demand in the heritage railway sector as a whole, then you partly solved that problem, but it isn't as good as having a proper home. By basing at a heritage railway you inherently receive support with (1) and (3). If you reject being based/supported at a particular heritage railway, you need to find other solutions to (1) and (3).

More importantly, if you haven't thought this through it's not a good sign as regards business strategy. I can see that you might have to negotiate and don't want to put all of your cards on the table, but in that case, "we recognise the benefits of partnering with a heritage railway. We are currently at the planning stage but hope to open negotiations with potential partners shortly" would be better than "it's not an issue we've considered", which is very worrying.

Meanwhile, if you don't get the basics right, you needn't worry about how you can build the boiler because you won't ever get to that stage.

 

Are you getting your railways mixed up? Wensleydale and Weardale?

 

I don't think that there is a problem in producing a new riveted boiler. The Middleton Railway has had two, there have been several for Terriers and the GWS railmotor, to name but a few. The difficulty can be with building new to existing designs. As I've said before, they were not built to a standard and people look to a standard as a basis. That is much easier than doing a full design analysis. As an example, Middleton has an MSC Long tank built by Hudswell Clarke. When this was overhauled, the Insurance Co came back with a max working pressure of only 103 psi and not the 140 psi it was originally pressed to. This reduction in pressure was not due to any deterioration in the boiler but because they used BS931 as a basis for doing their calculations and that pressure was the safe working pressure arrived at. The fact that many boilers to this design had been built and operated in the past without problem and that there were at that time three other boilers of the same design operating at 160 psi initially fell on deaf ears. It wasn't until I discovered that one of those boilers operating at 160 psi was inspected by the same company that they gave in and agreed to 140 psi! Just in case anyone wonders, these boilers were all originally rated at 140 psi but the others have seemingly been uprated at some time in the past.

 

I must admit I very interested in this project, especially because of my strong interest in one of the originals...

But why you gone for the number 77021? The last original 3MT tender engine was 77019...

 

I think it is hinted on here that the number 77020 is reserved for the possible new 3MT tender loco build by the 82045 group.

 

I am afraid that is not correct. The number 77020 was taken up by another member of BRSLOG, but nothing has happened.

 

"I think it is hinted on here that the number 77020 is reserved for the possible new 3MT tender loco build by the 82045 group."


Can only draw attention to my own quote earlier in this thread...........

`It is perhaps worth noting that the team building 82045 are a group of highly skilled but nevertheless retired engineers/draughtsmen/machinistsetc.etc. and it is being built to a very high standard.
When 82045 takes to the rails we will all be ready for a very well earned `real` retirement! `

We have absolutely no plan to build another! Not even an OO gauge.................. If in doubt just check our June update at www.82045.org.uk for an image of the team.

 

That's why I said "I think".

Just seen where I got the impression about this.
Kieranhardy's last paragraph in post #12 & possibly Reading General's response in post #13.

 

Probably, but I am just trying to keep the record straight.

 

good luck with the project guys keep up the progress

from
stuart reeder

https://www.facebook.com/TheDeanGoods