1014 County of Glamorgan

One thing is for sure. They have to spend it wisely and not let it get to their heads and pour it down the drain as so often happens.

 

Reading the website and posts on this forum, I find myself wondering exactly what parts of the 8F boiler will be used on the County recreation. As far as I can make out, a boiler, basically, consists of:

1) Barrel
2) Tubeplate
3) Throatplate
4) Doorplate
5) Foundation Ring
6) Outer firebox wrapper - top, middle, sides
7) Inner firebox doorplate
8) Inner firebox - top, middle, sides
9) Stays

Of these, which will be used and which will be replaced?

 

Good to hear this news.

Just need a few more bequests to help speed up the other new builds / projects.

 

Well, from what I read about it in Heritage Railway, pretty much nearly everything beyond the firebox to the smokebox, will be replaced.

Add that to the fact that the firebox is pretty old now and not in the best shape, you can't help but wonder why they don't just avoid any future issues and build a new one from scratch.

I can understand why they wanted to use the boiler initially, large scale new build boilers were unheard of then, but things have changed and building entirely new boilers is no longer considered impossible. They've accepted this with 4709, so why not with 1014?

Retaining that old firebox, if you ask me, will be more of a hindrance then a benefit in the long run.

In fact I can guarantee that someday their going to have to build a all new firbox anyway, so really its the case of whether they want to do it now, or later...

 

Just to compare, Tornado's boiler was bought on the back of a £500,000 bond scheme to finance it. This is, agreeably, a bigger boiler for a larger locomotive - but this was done within two years (2004-2006). Now take into account the changes in material prices, and perhaps a smaller boiler may cost a similar amount to the A1's now, that the 118a did in 2004-2006.

£250,000 is a fantastic amount of money, no doubt - but it won't cover wholly a new County boiler. I'm not arguing for rebuilding the 8F boiler, however - I think they should go for an all new boiler, but perhaps set up a scheme as that done with Tornado in order to finance the construction of a new boiler, perhaps matching the wonderful donation which has come through the sad circumstances of death.

Of course, with no engineering experience to speak of, and reading it as an observer, take my view with a pinch of salt.

 

It's debatable whether it's enough to repair/restore/modify the 8F boiler either as that would need considerably more work than a standard restoration to operational 8F spec.

I woulden't like to say whether the 8F boiler or a new build one is the best option, the biggest concern for me is whichever is used is fit for purpose and we don't end up with a "compromised County" which is down on power and performance due to a boiler not up to the originals capabilities.

 

The original County boilers were pressed to 280 psi but for most of their lives were de-rated to 250psi. For me, the qestion would be whether the plate thickness and stay spacing are different on the 225psi 8F fiebox. Clearly stay thickness is less of an issue as oversize stays could be fitted but plate thickness coulds only be overcome by replacing.

 

Unfortunately you're overlooking the problems caused by oversize stays. There are limits, which have to adhered to. In any case it is the stay pitch which is important.

 

This discussion has gone quiet, so bringing it back to the top of the pile. My thoughts were essentialy the same as the sentiment expressed in the above posts, ie is the stay spacing on the 8F firebox, pressed to 225 lbs, likely to be any use for a "County" firebox pressed to 250 lbs? Can anyone with the technical knowledge help out? Clearly you have to run with the stay spacing as it is in the 8F box, because I assume that restaying an existing firebox to a different pitch is just not on. 61624 also mentions plate thickness. Will/could that be an issue as well, even assuming that the 8F box turns out to be in decent order?

The question then is: will the County really be that effective--at least on the mainline--if the boiler pressure is 225 lbs max. ?

Surely putting the 250k bequest in the piggybank and saving up for a new firebox starts to look attractive?..or not, as the case may be...

 

Do you know that work has already started on the boiler at Crewe? The barrel and firebox have been separated I believe. Don't know what else has been done. I have heard the county plans to be in steam in 2014

 

Sounds a bit hopeful to me (an ill-informed bystander)...? Has there been a massive onrush in work and funding that hasn't been widely publicised?

 

I'm sure it was mentioned in another thread but I'm blowed if I can find it but just how much of the 8F boiler is being used as I know the County boiler was not identical by any means?

 

There is a detailed acccount of the planned boiler conversion in the June update of County project's webpage. IIRC it involves a new barrell, front tubeplate,smokebox plus modifications to the backhead and outer wrapper. Once the 8F boiler is opened up there are bound to be other repairs needed to what is, after all, a very tired boiler. Bearing all this in mind and the stay pitch issue mentioned earlier would it still not be better in the long run to build a completely new boiler and return the old one to where it belongs? Ray.

 

Thanks. So we lose an interesting member of the 8F class just for a bit of its firebox to create a faux County boiler. Can't say I'm impressed. I agree they should have gone the A1 route and built one from scratch.

 

Isn't all this whinging rather tired and pointless now? Get over it guys. Boilers are basically consumables and the boiler in question wasn't constructed by the LNER, so if one of you billionaires wants to restore the 8F in question you can do it any time you like. If making a new boiler isn't a big deal then what on earth are you so worried about.

 

Hi All,

I will attempt to answer a few of the questions raised here on behalf of my colleagues on the 1014 project.

Firstly, the 2014 finish date - most amusing! Jamie is correct in his assumptions. They are making absolutely cracking progress but they do have to build a fair bit yet including the unique 10XX tender. The boiler modifications aren't going to be that fast either.

The old 'new build versus modified boiler' debate will no doubt rumble on but just from an engineering and certification point of view it is far easier to start with an existing unit than to try to get something from scratch to meet all of the requirements for both the pressure vessel and railway regulations, hence going down this route.

Finally, don't worry about the modifications from a technical standpoint. The guy in charge of masterminding its rebuild (and indeed the 1014 CME) is an engineer with literally a lifetimes experience and his speciality was designing boilers... Lots of them...

For any more gen, have a look at the 1014 website and that will give you all the up to date news. The webmaster is very good at putting the latest info up ASAP.

All the best,

Team 4079

 

If making a new boiler isn't such a big deal then why aren't the County guys doing it? Seems it's quite the fashion in GWR territory to destroy locos just to build another lost class.

 

As it would be in the other camps if they had the backing and opportunity to do it. GWR standardisation made this possible (yes I know the 8F isn't GWR, but the flanging plates built for the 8F effectively became a GW standard when they were used for the County.

 

Using the flanging plates for what will be a bastardised firebox is hardly a good advert for GWR standardisation now is it? IMO all this "cut and shut" work is nothing short of vandalism.

 

So the inner firebox is the only bit being used without modification?