Practical Issues in Preserving Steam Locomotives

So does the boiler....but not on those frames at the moment. And there's the tender. In the end, it's only a few hours work with a paint brush and 841 could magically re-appear.

 

I seem to recall back from my working days at Bluebell that 1178 was a spares donor when it first arrived as it had been withdrawn due to serious cylinder damage. It was toshed over with a coat of black and sat at SP for donkeys years. When Port Line arrived SLL purchased it on the proviso they could restore it but it would remain at the Bluebell. They dismantled it and got it back to a rolling chassis and then stopped work on it. This inlcuded some repair work on the now infamous block (which most people thought was dead anyway). it sat in the poly tunnel some wag called Hector's House for several more years and eventually Bluebell reacquired it and finished it off. I seem to recall that one of the stumbling blocks with SLL was that the boiler was dead and it required the use of one of the spares that was still a Bluebell asset and they were not permitted to use one. The block was never going to last long and always needed replacement as does the one for 27 and Stepney. The E4, C and H have all had major life extension work done on their cylinder blocks. All inside cylinder locos and all have suffered from extensive corrosion at the top of the block. Realistically in the long term provision will need to made to produce new ones as otherwise what has happened to 178 (i.e. the block can no longer be made useable) will happen and these locos will become static exhibits

 

That is becoming an increasing problem, and not just on the Bluebell. J27 65894 has just had a new block made, and one is underway for "Dunrobin" and Lambton 29 is in need of one. The good news seems to be that this isn't a technical problem, just a financial one!

 

Why is needing a new cylinder block considered the death knell for so many loco's?
It's just a machined casting, needing a new wheel never seems to be a problem.

 

As 61264 said in the previous post it's simply down to money and the desire to make it happen. The recent successful use of poly patterns on 45551 and 6880 has demonstrated that the cost of 'one -off' cylinder patterns is not as prohibitive as it once was. Ray.

 

As time goes by, more and more patterns will come into existence, especially for the newer and more numerous classes, so provide owners co-operate costs should come down for these classes at least.

 

It is also a massive job to cast a new inside cylinder block. To make the pattern you need to remove the old block to measure it. To do this boiler comes off as do wheels. Then you have a massive pile of bits. Another dismantled loco. It isn't Impossible bit it is massively expensive and very labour intensive

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

Take for instance Green Arrow then. It's been said it's unlikely to ever steam again because it needs a new cylinder. I know it's a monobloc but with modern engineering it doesn't seem like the impossible task it's made out to be.
Also, name one job on any full size loco that isn't expensive and labour intensive.

 

You have to take the block out anyway to replace it, so it isn't that big a deal, and Nowadays you would laser scan the old block to ensure that the mounting holes are in exactly the right places - this is what was done with 76084's new cylinder, and I believe that as a result it was a perfect fit and required no adjustment when offered up.

 

I think the point was in the 60's (and for industrials, into the 70's), there were plenty of locos available. Saving another loco in better condition could be more cost effective than repairing an existing loco.

 

The argument for not overhauling 4771 is not that it would be impossible to replace the cylinder block, but that doing so would compromise the historical integrity of the locomotive as an artefact.

 

Surely this applies to just about every loco in the collection, 34051 has just been compromised with a new whistle, using that yardstick.

 

It is not given to us mere mortals to understand the thought processes of the Science Museum. If it were, perhaps we'd have some idea of what the hell they thought they were doing when they marooned Columbine without her tender in the middle of the Wellcome Wing.

 

I don't agree. In service, bits were swapped all the time such as boilers, rods, tyres, brake shoes, cab fittings. Your own body replaces cells so after about 6 years, you literally are a different person but with the same teeth. Most vintage aircraft are the same builders plate bolted to a new airframe as parts are renewed over time.

A cylinder block is neither here nor there.

 

some of the Sarsens at Stonehenge are a bit dodgy looking, sure, it will be OK if we replace them with newly quarried stones wont it? Or...we could cut cost with fibreglass, they'd look exactly the same so long as we dont let anyone near enough to see or feel the difference..... that'd be OK wouldn't it peeps?

 

To my mind the difference is that Stonehenge is still a monument and therefore fulfilling its purpose, whereas steam locos are only so when locomotive and raising steam. There is no right answer but my vote goes for steaming anything they can and can raise funds to so do and if that means removing and storing time-expired parts or even scrapping some of the more prosaic bits then so be it