MHR Restorations and Overhauls

Yes 506 has taken up the space in the road previously occupied by the tender now in the yard.

 

Is there any news on how 506 and 499 are getting on? The Urie Society hasnt update there website since Jan 2013. Got to admit I thinking about joining the society next month was very impressed with a couple of guys I spoke to at the gala.

 

The Urie Society has updated its "news" section first time since January 2013.

http://www.urieloco.co.uk/latestnews.html

 

About bleedin time too!

 

Has 34016 Bodmin left the Mid Hants Railway yet or is she still stood there

 

The other week 34016 had returned back to Ropley.

 

Returned back to Ropley from Alresford? Very strange.... Maybe there is hope yet?!

 

The reason she returned is due to them wanting to put her over the pit, apparently there is thought of sending her uuuup north by rail… (I believe this was even discussed on here).

 

i wonder, if thats the case, will 73096 move in the same movement , it would make sence 1 movement one set of costs, both engines should only need UA testing,as they have been on NR'S register, the other U class does not have tender thats finished so i assume cant go by rail .

 

Chalked up a little and with the rods off, they would make an interesting mini re-enactment of the end of steam.

 

Is the std 5 bound for the same destination as Bodmin?

 

Only around five months to go and then every think will come to light. I've been to Ladbrokes and put my bet on. Have you!

 

As things stand at the moment the std5 is not down to make the same move as Bodmin. There is no indication that the destination will be the same, but even if it were there are some technical reasons (like being counter balanced) that might make a rail move of the std less attractive.

 

My advance apologies for my lack of knowledge, and hence the need to ask this question, but can you please explain that a bit? Thanks!

Noel

 

Guessing this is due to hammer blow?

 

I thought that hammer blow was more to do with the effect on the connecting rods to the driving axle with each rotation? but as the loco would if moved by rail have to move with rods removed, i dont see how it can be that , counter balanced is the set up of the driving wheels i would think,and as the Std 5's had roller bearings on the engine, then i assume its something to do with possible over rolling,if thats the word, W/C's have plain bearings that are not so free rolling as roller bearings, the only problem i could see is that if the locos are un braked, then the increased rolling resistance of the Std might cause braking problems as it even dead could push what ever is in front of it into the buffers of the leading loco. in effect pushing the deisel hauling them against the braking effort.

 

On the assumption that a loco is balanced to minimise the hammer blow in working order, i.e. with the rods on, isn't it likely to be more out of balance with them off? It isn't just the rods that provide out of balance mass, there's crank webs (mostly the inside webs of the crank axle) but also the balance weights themselves to take into account.

 

35005 had its connecting rods taken off for Eastleigh 100, but retained its coupling rods. I would imagine the rebuilts are 'balanced' the same way as the Stds. as they both basically feature Walschaerts valve gear. The centre driving wheel of a rebuilt Bulleid has a visible balance weight which was not present on the unrebuilts.

 

Wouldn't the hammer blow be less on a three cylinder loco anyway?

 

I don't know the exact balancing schemes on each engine, but in general I'd expect to leave the coupling rods on to match the rotary balancing allocated to them. With 34016 it almost doesn't matter what percentage of the mass of the connecting rods and pistons is balanced (note, the connecting rod is reciprocating at one end and rotating at the other), if the mass for each cylinder is similar then they'll come pretty close to balancing across the driving axle, but not necessarily at each wheel, even with the connecting rods removed. Since 73096 is two cylinder, so fairly savage to begin with, as soon as you take connecting rods off the rotating balance is ruined across the driving axle, let alone at each wheel, and this just adds to the vertical component (hammer blow) caused by the reciprocating balance.

21B can put me right if I've just spouted a load of rubbish.