6023

DISCLAIMER: I have no actual insight into what is really wrong or not with 6023, and the following comments should not be construed as a criticism of anyone involved with the engine.

There have been a few suggestions that 6023 may be rather in need of a piston and valve exam. Leaks from piston and valve rod glands are much more visually obvious, easier to fix, but less significant in terms of losses. Badly leaking valves in particular are a curse because you lose steam in losses all the time the regulator is open, not even just during power strokes.

To double the pain, the theoretical route to efficiency of wide regulator openings and short cutoff makes things worse, not better, because losses past the valves scale with steam chest pressure, not power output. They won't necessarily result in shortage of steam, provided the boiler isn't being overloaded, because the lost steam goes through the exhaust system and therefore you still get draught, but you'll still be using a lot more water than required for the work done, so up goes the coal consumption. It limits the maximum power output too, but since 6023 is a big, powerful engine she can cope with this at preserved line speeds, although the fireman may not feel quite so relaxed about it.

Piston valves were notorious for this in their early development, even into the grouping era with some classes. The GWR were among the first to get in right in the UK, well before grouping, but that doesn't mean their semi-plug valves won't leak if left in too long.

 

Out of curiosity, what mileage has 6023 run on its current overhaul?

Tom

 

Yeah, I should have checked before making such a wrong statement.
Apart from that I have dug up the BR test reports I have and compared them with the test data I have on evaporation. This is a quick check, so coal quality is not yet taken into account.
Using 3000 lbs of coal the Hall, B1 and BR5 evaporate around 20000 lbs of water. The smaller locomotives, BR4, drop to around 19000 lbs. Larger locomotives, BR7, MN but also the King evaporate 22 to 24000 lbs.
The single chimney BR9 evaporates only 20000 lbs which does appear not to have been improved with the double chimney.
These data vary probably quite linear with the calorific value of the specific coal used.

 

Talyllyn underwent some trial trips in August 1962 when the original valve gear was examined and tested. It was confirmed that the locomotive would only run in full gear which at the time was 88%. The eccentrics had a somewhat negligible angle of advance (6 degrees) but work was carried out to increase this to 12 degrees increasing the valve lap at the same time. These changes provided a modest improvement but the valve gear was redesigned during the overhaul that followed withdrawal from service at the end of 1982. The original valve gear was fitted with locomotive links which brought about frequent fractures of the valve spindle guides. The design was modified to use launch links which reduced the high lateral forces at long cut-offs. This in turn allowed for the use of a shorter eccentric throw though the valve travel had been increased. Maximum cut-off was set at 80% with negative lead in order to assist in starting and the new gear was capable of being linked up far better than the 1960s arrangement.
The lack of understanding of mid C19 locomotive construction techniques plagued both No. 1 and No. 2 in the years following their original restoration. That is a story for another place.

 

Good and dependable steaming helps to compensate for deterioration in some other areas of the engine. You can simply use more evaporation to compensate for reduced and decreasing specific steam consumption. You had better trust that a maximum output is not expected, but they seldom are.

 

Thank you. I have dug out Chronicles of Pendre Sidings, and it mentions the new valve gear on p.204. I also note that the rear truck was given some radial movement (rather than being replaced by a Bissel as I incorrectly put above).

 

What about anyone who donated to 6023 on the premise it was going mainline?
I know that's why I gave them money.
Seems like a lot of work was done to it for no reason.
When the mainline could have used a Class 8 loco.
Better use for it then thrashing it up and down the demo line.

 

I'd have thought 'trundling' would be more appropriate than 'thrashing'?

 

I wouldn't be so sure. When they did the three blue engines at Didcot with 6023, 60007 and 60163, the former was being driven very, very enthusiastically. From what I remember, the excuse was the regulator was a bit stiff so they were trying to free it up. Not sure whacking it into second valve would really help that much.

 

That being so, it's still hardly hurtling along Brunel's Billiard Table with 13 behind at 75mph, which I believe was Dan Taylor's point.
How insistent were the GWS that they were returning 6023 to the mainline? Obviously circumstances change and they could never guarantee that they would be putting the Blue King back on the network, but I know it was their stated intention.

 

While Jos's modifications might have been good to do anyway, the specific reason for doing them (if I have understood the story correctly) was because the cut-down chimney had seriously impaired the draughting; and the only reason for fitting the cut-down chimney was to allow main line operation. That was a considerable amount of trouble and expense to go to, to no end as it now seems.

Wasn't the GWS also working on having a set of the requisite electronic gubbins for main line operation that could be fairly easily moved from one loco to another? Again now to no end. Personally I am especially disappointed that the Saint is unlikely to go main line.

Having a few locos that can potter up and down the Didcot demonstration line is better than having them all only as static exhibits, but only a very limited kind of demonstration, especially for express passenger kinds. And getting them out of Didcot to visit heritage lines is non-trivial, though they have managed that with 6023.

Edit: typo corrected.

 

Will the King still be in operation next year?

 

Either way,

Its now destined to pretty much being confined to Didcot.
Now its going back to full size.

I'm sure , I'm not the only one who feels a little misled, by the withdrawl of the saint,pendennis and 6023 from the mainline,

6023 most of all which we was told needed mods doing to make it fit,needed blast pipe alterations, Was going to Dartmouth for running in before going onto the mainline.

Makes you a tad wary about giving money to a cause at Didcot again, Cause there seems to be a new one every month.

Wish they would actually finish something , before going we're gonna build a new great bear etc,

Thats not a dig at those who put the work in on the ground level, painting locos,cleaning parts,restoring stuff , Nor is it a reason to say why don't you go help.

More an annoyance that they ask for your cash for 6023 to go mainline spend the money then change their minds an at the same time go can we have some more for this new build etc.

 

Instead of moaning about the mainline problem, why don't you solve it for them! I know that GWS people spent hundreds of hours to get mainline access. Apart from the
loading gauge problems they could not get drivers with experience of vacuum braking. Adding Westinghouse pumps would solve the problem except it does not
match the heritage status. In this day and age it is not really a solvable problem anymore.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Some steam locos are now fitted with air pumps for main line operation, and that seems to me to change their heritage status no worse than fitting a cut-down chimney, and less if the pump can be fitted somewhere inconspicuous. I realise that gauging now presents a serious obstacle for GW 2-cylinder locos, but if 6024 can be made to fit so could 6023. Gauging should not be a problem at all for a Castle, but the case for main line there is weaker when there are other Castles either currently running or only awaiting overhaul.

 

Like what? It doesn't seem to me that they've kicked anything new off for some time.Indeed they offloaded the County 4-4-0.
AIUI there's been a significant change of guard at Didcot, and it seems the new management is trimming ambitions a bit, which is surely what your criticism seems directed at.

GWS has fairly recently finished Railmotor, King and Saint. The most recent new project they seem to have kicked off is getting 1466 running, which is scarcely controversial. Seems they've decided main line running is a nice to have, not an essential, which seems perfectly reasonable response in this times where its taking more and more effort and money.

 

Good grief! They have achieved almost literally the impossible in restoring 6023. A mainline King was always going to be a gamble given the restrictions 6000 and 6024 faced even after the latter was 'reprofiled'. The current overhaul of 6024 and the second 'reprofiling' need both a healthy ability to be prepared to compromise on originality and VERY deep pockets. Despite lacking deep pockets (and hence the appeal for funds) and maybe compromising further than they (and many of us) were comfortable with they have done everything they reasonably can to get 6023 on the mainline.

Better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all.

I personally dont begrudge them a penny of what I have contributed and look forward to seeing a full size single chimney King running on the preserved network along with 2999 and 4079.

It strikes me in writing this that I have already been able to savour more in steam experiences of a King with 6023 than I ever would if it had been mainline only.

 

If the information in the latest Steam Railway is correct, the intention is to revert 6023 to full height and to reinstate the Sam Ell sleeved single chimney draughting. Whilst this is understandable, I hope that Jos Koopmans brilliant four nozzle arrangement isn't simply forgotten. It would be great if another loco owning group would fit a Jos Koopmans blastpipe to their loco, preferably a main line approved one.
There is nothing wrong in furthering the development and efficiency of working steam locomotives. Obviously, not all of them, but to enhance one or two would not be a bad (or irreversible) thing to do.

 

I begrudge them. I stuck my hand in my pocket because I was told I would see another King mainline. I'm not much interested in seeing locos designed for high speed just trundling at 25 mph. I'm the same with classic bikes. I see no point in an over-restored show bike that is trailered around and has never run. Places such as Chimay and Gedinne are where to go for me. Each to his own!

 

Maybe locomotive restoration funds require a "health warning", it should be pretty obvious that this sort of risk is involved.