35018 British India Line

I was not refering to you personally just drawing everyone's attention to the post by @Big Al

 

very true, factual , or even historical evidence is one thing , idle speculation, even when well meant is another, The publishing of those photographs of 35018 in 1964, I assume only months from withdrawal with a steam leak, clearly in the same area is to me worth discussing as it does open up the question was 35018 withdrawn because of at the time defects that were proving troublesome to overcome, but the writing on the wall was already there for steam what was her final shed? if it was Exmouth Junction or Salisbury the Western region was already well into dieselisation

 

withdrawn from 70A. Not that that means anything either way because most of the MNs at Exmouth Jct were transferred over to Bournemouth and Nine Elms.

 

Post #2357 quoted above perhaps has relevance at this juncture.

 

If you look at the evidence from the engine's history as published in Irwell Press Book of the MNs and other sources it is clear that it was coming up for a HG overhaul which at that stage they were probably reluctant to do. The fact that is was stored for 6 months at Nine Elms following withdrawal suggests that it was used as a source of spares. To suggest that after a complete rebuild from Barry condition it would still show signs of a fault from over 50 years ago is nonsense.

 

Not really, every loco that went to Woodhams came out with any flaws they arrived with, plus a great many more due to deterioration and robbery!
Obviously any restoration is inteded to fix all the faults but in general terms its perfectly possible an inherent defect might only manifest itself upon completion.
Not saying that is the case with 35018 at all, just countering your argument in broad terms.

 

So you think Carnforth would not do a survey of the loco and look at its mechanical history in BR service before they started an overhaul?

 

Firstly, my previous post was unequivocally a generalised response to yours. I clearly caveated it thus to be clear I was not referring to 35018 specifically.
Secondly, I do not know whether any research is carried out into loco history and you seem to imply it would be irrelevant anyway. Obviously in order for a restoration to be undertaken an assessment of condition takes place but I would suggest this can never reveal 100% of the condition unless every component undergoes NDT. This may routinely be done, not sure.

 

To a degree, but the speculation then followed a rumour about a new cylinder possibly being needed, which (insofar as it had any basis at all) concerned a different locomotive belonging to a different organisation.. The discussion this time concerns a fault that is clearly evident from multiple videos. It is reasonable to wonder exactly where the problem lies and why WC haven't fixed it sooner. However I am with others in being confident that they will fix it sooner or later.

 

I did say "Area", which was intended to encompass more than just the cover itself.

 

I would not expect objectivity from you, but I have not speculated at all on the cause of 35018s apparent leak since the quoted post was made. I thought it useful to remind others that the avenue of debate had been definitively resolved.

 

Sorry, but the recent debate about an old fault present at withdrawal is exactly the speculated cause which led to the definitive statement in #2357. It was answered therein by someone who is best placed to comment.

 

I'm pretty sure that the (middle cylinder?) steam leak that 71000 has run with throughout its preserved mainline career was thought to be present in its BR days. I believe it was thought that the source had been traced and fixed at the last overhaul, but it still had the same problem, i.e. the leak was obvious and significant in cold conditions, particularly on the leeward side.

Hopefully, BIL's leak can be traced and fixed relatively easily, but the above example does suggest that these things can occasionally be long standing and difficult to trace / fix, yet clearly in The Duke's case still enabled it to perform "satisfactorily".

 

It's an interesting thread, apart from the odd spat here and there (being generous). Posts can be removed to keep it civil I guess...which would be my favoured path, but I've not been a mod for a long time!

 

The general basis for objectivity is to be impartial or without bias so you confirmation is duly noted.
As to my bias, I have neither association nor historical dispute with WC. Quite why you feel the need to "represent" them I have no idea but it seems especially odd in this instance because I asked posters to be mindful of a definitive statement made by an actual rather than self appointed spokesman.
Very much hope you will permit that to be the last word

 

I am not overly concerned about conflicting opinions being expressed in a debate but I would like it better if the heat was confined to subject matter rather than petty personalised remarks or insults.