WCME/CME 2024

TBF its not just WCR, there is another video doing the rounds of an event over the weekend where the crew on a locomotive have had a bit of a shocker and its getting quite a bit of excitement up regarding crew competences (although I would suggest again it could be filed under human error, but luckily for most of us when we make mistakes there is not someone with a camera there watching us).

 

No problem - all I would say is that surely you don't need to get down onto the track to change a lamp on a buffer beam from the adjacent platform? I've seen it done countless times. Anyway, my initial observation was; a) based on the wrong incident anyway, and b) based fundamentally on a desire to see steam operate properly on the main line and so not incur any penalties for what I perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be a basic procedure failure. In my railway career I was always taught to report a wrong light set-up, if I witnessed it, as soon as possible. I don't claim to know everything about such operations by a long chalk, but was alarmed to see a white light and no tail light on a receding train, not knowing at that time what distance it was set to cover (which I now have to assume was less than 440 yards?).

If such a move was permitted as it ran, then all concerned have my apologies.

 

I could be wrong but I suspect that, although the shunt started in a platform, the reversal did not. It was also a shunt; are you expecting crews to change lamps every time a shunt changes direction?

 

You were also told it was a permitted move on another forum where you asked the same question. There was no “if” about it.

 

IIRC wasn't it a problem with the piston rod-cross head interface that also caused a problem with her when she dropped the rod on the 3rd rail years back and that was traced back to a design change during her restoration so pre WCR.

I note on WNXX we have now moved on to debates as to whether the problem is that Tangmere is poorly maintained by WCR....

 

The Winchfield incident was not so much poor maintenance as inadequately informed maintenance, someone not being aware of the importance of the orientation of the pin. As for the recent incident, while WCRC sometimes make decisions that, from the outside, look unwise, I can't see them being less than very careful with a loco that they are currently relying on so heavily.

 

After seeking further opinions, I have already apologised, but you seem to want to prolong the issue. I wonder why...

Anyway, moving on to perhaps a much more important issue, i.e. the failure of 'Tangmere' - does it bear any similarity to the 'Britannia' failure at Chilworth a while back?

 

Not really. Rather more complicated! It's well explained in the link @Sidmouth provided.

 

The damage to the cylinder casting looks quite bad. There is a fair old chunk of the casting missing if you compare the position of the front drain cock which remains in situ due to its associated pipework and linkage. Do WCRC still have the ex-Barry condition Bulleid that they can borrow a cylinder from?

 

As far as I know, 34073 is still there, but if the cylinder and crosshead etc can be used will depend on ultrasonic tests etc, the slightest crack, and they can't be used, I might think, that with the cost of patterns being quite reasonable, it might make better sense to go down the new casting route. of course, that means that Tangmere will be unavailable for quite some time. so, Carnforth has to now decide, does it start fitting air braking to at least 1, possibly 2 of its fleet, or rely on another engine becoming available at short notice,

 

Fair comment. Paragraph 50 of the report points out that some other locos have the pin horizontal. However I seem to recall at the time some emphasis on the orientation of the pin as a significant contributor; also paragraph 62 et seq confirm "deficiencies in the design and manufacture of the cotter".

 

Thanks for illustrating this so clearly.

Two questions spring to mind …..

How many preserved originals still have to one piece arrangement? I know Wells has the modified unit. Should those with the original be NDT tested?

Secondly, what’s interesting, the slide bars are centrally supported only. As ASTT have modelled, this leads to the cross head etc describing a slight figure of eight path. Hence why the new Clan is having an extra support on the rear piston cover to stop this. You can imagine that that flexing could lead to fatigue in the rod over time. (Of course the originals ran many thousands of miles without failure, I assume, but age takes its toll).

 

The greatest force on the slide bars is applied to the top bar about the centre of the bar so is logically the best place to support it to reduce deflection However, this effectively makes the ends a cantilever beam so there will be some flexing, albeit less than a bar supported solely at the ends. Adding end supports would reduce the deflection but is it really worth it, especially as I think it is not being done at the rear end.

 

I believe DoG have done this after experiencing significant extra wear on the outer cylinders, in terms of glands, rings and maybe liner wear, compared to the inner cylinder with end supported bars.