Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

And if I'm not mistaken is what has affected 34059 quite a lot since her return to steam.

 

And, if I recall correctly, 34023 was similarly afflicted on and off for quite a while before finally being withdrawn. I don't recall hearing any reports of the Southern Locomotives fleet having such a problem - is there perhaps a difference of repair method that other Bulleid owners should be made aware of?


Keith

 

As someone who is partly responsible for the maintenance of locos at Swanage all I can say is: -

There but for the grace of God go I

 

Might it also have something to do with the state of the track?

Regards
Chris

 

No.
And for your next swipe at the Bluebell........?

 

Call me an armchair engineer or what have you, but I can't see how the state of the track has any bearing on the condition of the firebox, as it is designed with hard-working in mind. Next thing, we won't use Bulleids on gradients for fear of placing undue stress on the thermic syphons.

 

I seem to remember that in the early days of the Ropley-Alton extension the rails used were corrugated and they had to stop using steam over that section until the corrugated rails were replaced, becase the corrugations were said to be shaking boiler tubes loose. Perhaps Coalwagon is suggesting the the Bluebell may have some corrugated rails in place?

 

Ah, if that's the case, then "I stand corrected", said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.

 

You are indeed correct, the corrugated rails were on the new extension to Alton at the time, the rail was worn apparently from braking forces of 3rd rail electric units from the location it was recovered from.

I have experienced the same type of worn rail in the past on the Dartmoor railway.

It does little damage to modern stock but it can put severe strain on a steam locomotive boiler, shaking up tubes and stays.

 

The MHR got over this issue by buying a class 25 and class 27 to work over the Alton section. If I remember correctly the other issue was with loco springs breaking.

I can't think of one Bulleid that hasn't had an issue with here boiler. It seems to be a Bulleid weak point in preservation? It's just one of those things we have to put up with being bulleid fans.

 

This was not a swipe, merely a question.

One can only assume that you got your refund from the charm school then?

Have a nice day.

Chris

 

Does anyone know if a steel fire box is more prone to cracking or general fire box issue than a copper fire box?


Thanks

 

I believe so - copper is more ductile (e.g. flexible) than steel, so stands up rather better to repeated heating / cooling cycles.

When the MNs were built, there was a plan to have them connected to a stationary steam supply (from an old engine) whilst on shed, so that they didn't need to cool down at all between washout cycles. In the end it didn't happen, but shows Bulleid and / or the shed staff were well aware of the need to treat the boilers carefully.

Tom

 

34092?

 

Surely there are others too?

34016, 34027, 34039, 34072, 34070, 34101, 34105?

35028?

Surely not all of those have had major boiler problems? At least not as noticeable as some other Bulleids troubles.

 

All those Bullieds may well have had "boiler trouble". But its relatively recently that news of such trouble has been so instantly broadcast via enthusiasts internet forums.

 

I don't think 34101 reached the end of a 10 year cycle before being withdrawn and it is currently being fitted with what seems to be an all-new firebox (including new thermic siphons), so it must have been pretty well life expired!

 

Firebox issues seem to have been a fact of life with the Bulleids. I seem to recall reading that the first batch of MNs had trouble in that respect surprisingly soon after introduction to traffic, although fatigue was probably accelerated by the 280psi boiler pressure. When the pressure was re-set to 250psi, less was heard of cracking incidents, but in the recent, shall we say 'spate' of events, we are probably beginning to see that the fireboxes of the ex-Barry locomotives (and those bought straight from BR in the case of 34023) are getting increasingly life-expired and will require replacing. However, this is only my inexpert take on the subject, and I would be happy to be put right on it.

 

I think part of the problem is our expectations - people are so used to copper fireboxes lasting for several 10 year overhauls before needing replacement (44767, for example, is into its third period without having had all that much done to it) that we expect locos with steel fireboxes to last the same way - and they don't. Thus, most locos that came out of NBarry with copper 'boxes had plenty of life left in them, the ones with steel 'boxes have a lot less.

 

Does this mean that steel fireboxes are actually a false economy in the long term?
What is the life expectancy of a steel firebox compared to a copper firebox and the difference in costs (not only of manufacturing, but also repair and replacement labour costs)?