BR Standard class 6 No. 72010 'Hengist' and Clan Discussion Thread

The subject of the tender has been discussed by our engineering team at a recent meeting. No final decision was reached, though as Hengist is primarily intended to run on the mainline, visibility issues with a full width tender are not a primary consideration. On the other hand, we need to be able to find space for all the electrical equipment that she will need to be able to run on the mainline, such as TPWS, OTMR, GSM-R, etc, plus anything else added before completion date. Some of this might be added in some of the space in the tender where the water scoop equipment used to be, which will now never be required. It's a trade off, as always. So no final choice made, as yet, but once one is made, details will be forthcoming...

 

Tender Froth is one of the options when paint froth isn't !

 

If the cab is made as per drawing for 72000-9, then you are only able to fit a BR1 or a BR1A tender tank.

 

Mindful of yesterday's distraction announcement, what about fitting ETCS equipment?

 

Thanks Std; afaik the drawings being used anticipate the loco being mated with a BR1B/C. but the cab is by no means finished and im sure the floor/ doors/ handrails / roof profile will be checked and modified as required. So presumably the couple of Brits they gave high sided tenders to for the Holyhead runs had already ben altered to run with BR1 G/H tenders ?

 

Nothing to do with Holyhead runs. The later Brits (70045-54), Class 5s from 73050, Class 4 4-6-0s from 75050 and Class 4 2-6-0s from 76045 all had the rear of their cabs and tender fronts re-designed because of excessive draughts caused by the original designs.

 

Yes that ties in, im sure they were 7004x's but cant remember the exact numbers, so they would have had BR1 G/H inset tenders initially but then given high siders (BR1D's probably borrowed from 9f's) with more coal capacity for the boat train runs...

 

No, BR1Ds from new. 70045-49 were all at Holyhead for their first five years.

 

Guaranteed to learn something on here.

 

We're implementing a new web site which we hope you will find interesting. At the moment, when you access the web site you will get a security warning. For the technical, I can only apply for an SSL certificate once the transfer has taken place. So the web site has transferred and I can start the process of getting the certificate. In the meantime, you will get a security warning........

The new web site inevitably will have a few bugs. These only come out when you're actually running on the production server. (Some of you will have spotted that we have been testing for some time!) If you spot a bug, you can help by using the link in the fotter area at the bottom of the page. Thanks!

Now for something different. The next major design area is the front bogie which we reckon is going to be around £200k to build. Our main challenge is the 4 horizontal springs that are used for lateral control. These are just over 13" long and 6.25" diameter. The part that makes them different is that they are a rectangular cross section coil spring instead of the round cross section that you see on most coil springs. You can get rectangular section "die springs" commercially but these seem to have a maximum diameter of 2". We've tried lots of spring suppliers without any success. Anyone had any experience in this area?

 

std tank. As you can see from our logo, the intention for the lot 242 Clans, I believe, was to fit them with the flush sided BR1B/BR1C tender which meant changes to the cab. The original cab did get complaints about the draughts

 

due to the lack of fall plate. an additional baffle across the top/ front of the tender drawbar...( under the cabfloor) would also proof useful i feel...

 

Yes, agreed. There seems to have been a number of draught screen arrangements that they tried

 

1. Aren't BR Standard bogies basically the same as Black Five bogies (and with each other)? It would be surprising if no-one has had to replace a side control spring.
2. Does it have to be square section i.e. can you emulate the spring characteristics with circular section material within the same space constraints?
3. What do the side control springs on the rear truck look like i.e. does this give rise to the same problem?
4. I know model engineers have been known to machine the outside of the spring flat to make it look right - see attached 5" gauge Duchess bogie!

 

1. Similar but the springs on the Pacifics are slightly different to the Standard 5s. Yes, agreed, someone must have come across this problem before, I'm hoping this post may come up with something. The P2 project have a similar problem. The RCTS standard history on 9Fs says one of the prservation groups had to substitute a round wire spring
2. Not with a single spring in the space available. We are looking a 2 spring solution, one inside the other. Any change from the drawing will have to involve the certification bodies. We are guessing that a lot of experience went into the design as Cox was involved in the Indian Pacific Committee (see Locomotive Panorama Vol 2) where lateral springing changes were a key part of the solution. We also know (from the book) that this experience was applied to LMS and BR bogie designs
3. Interestingly, the trailing truck side control spring is a round coil spring (from the BR drawing)
4. Interesting, thanks!

 

Is this issue that the spring mfrs cannot get the spring steel stock in square section of the right size? Presumably they can wind any diameter reasonably required?

 

Do you have a breakdown of prices for the front bogie of £200,000??

What is the reason for this high price?

 

As an example of this 70014 Iron Duke was originally built witha a BR1 tender (early design without fall plate) but later received a later fall plate equipped BR1C tender (see photos of Iron Duke below replete with ex BR(S) lamp irons) this would have required modification the the engines cab.

Additionally 76017 would have had similar changed in preservation days as the original BR2 tender was changed with a BR2a (Ex 76077) after the original was sold as a ingot carrier and there was no BR2 tender at Barry.

70014 as built with BR1 tender.


Picture Source:https://www.google.com/search?q=BR+...=1.25#imgrc=yW6R4zWeQPYs5M:&spf=1527884463735


70014 towards the end of her service with BR1C tender. r

Picture Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=BR+...=1.25#imgrc=v0O_58cnTfGLcM:&spf=1527885629015

 

Gav106 - we're working on the quotations and that was an outline figure I saw on an e-mail. We're hoping to get a bogie parts fund raising section on the web site soon. There's an engineering committee meeting today so we should make progress

 

huochemi - I don't know. We're getting a lot of rejections saying they can't do it but not much else. I know that a lot of spring suppliers stock "die springs" which have a rectangular section but these only go up to around 50mm in diameter and we need 150mm. I should imagine that rolling rectangular section rod is quite tricky if you want to ensure that everything ends up parallel. I might find out some of the reasons today