60019 Bittern

I'm pretty certain the MHR team had to renew significant sections of the main frames in the last overhaul? No easy task that.

Many modifications were made including changing the tender type to a corridor one I seem to recall, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that the last overhaul wasn't comprehensive given the one previous to that.

 

AFAIK the reason why 60019 didn't see much use post BR was in fact down to a major frame crack but replacing sections of frame isn't the same as a major overhaul. Nowadays replacement bits of frame are almost commonplace jobs.

 

Fair enough Steve. My apologies if my earlier message sounded a bit off, was not intended but reading it back I can see it could be seen that way.

 

I suspect that a lot of work was done on both boiler and mechanicals last winter to get her ready for the 90-mph derrogation. IIRC, she was out of service for quite a few months. Hopefully, she just needs an "intermediate" (using the word very loosely ) to get perhaps another 2-3 years running. This has happened to several mainline locos in recent years, including the Duchess and Lizzie, I think.

 

I didn't take any offence. I was concerned that my post might seem to belittle the work done by the Mid Hants guys but I do feel that these days there are a lot of loco overhauls far, far heavier than afforded either Bittern or Cheltenham and they are being undertaken almost as a routine. Locos that have less than 50,000 miles on the clock since the last BR overhaul aren't usually that bad overall. As a matter of interest, does anyone know how many miles 60019 has clocked up since withdrawal or even its last BR overhaul?

 

I'm not sure either of your statements regarding 60019 are entirely correct.

I was involved with 60019 then, as I am now, so seeing what was done at the MHR and the condition the thing is in now I'm afraid I don't agree with you.

 

Why ?

 

Happy to be corrected. From that, I am assuming that Bittern was absolutely shot from its BR days, and didn't have a cracked frame?

 

Agreed. A garter blue A4 with valances really is one of the design classics of railway history; Bittern's appearance makes one wonder why (apart from Mallard's brief spell of running in the 1980s) no-one had done it before!

That said, I'd also quite like to see her turned out in apple green at some point. I know that may not be to everyone's taste but it's a scheme never yet seen in preservation; surely, if nothing else, we should at least take the opportunity to get some decent colour photographs to record it for psoterity?

 

It seemed like a big job at the time, everything at the front end out, chop 12 feet off both frames, new buts cut out and welded in as well as all the other stuff to get it up to mainline standard- the front end of these things aren't for the faint hearted, just getting the middle cylinder out was a pain.

I've been on the MHR loco side for 25 plus years, seen them come and go, this was about the biggest job we've done. In my (perhaps biased) opinion the way the thing has performed since then owes a lot to that meticulous job carried out at Ropley.

I'm also close to the thing now at another place - given its present condition and the way it's looked after I am of the opinion that it won't be too hard a job next time.

That's the reasoning behind my previous post.

 

..or even 'new bits cut out'...

 

I was involved with 60019 then, as I am now, so seeing what was done at the MHR and the condition the thing is in now I'm afraid I don't agree with you.


HI chessie i cant remember you when we painted it blue at Southall. FISH 7373 81C

 

There used to be a rather detailed and a very good record of the MHR Overhaul of 60019 by Tony Woods on the web but it seems to have vanished. The MHR did a lot of work on the A4 during her six year overhaul with the frames receiving extensive work with cracked sections being replaced.

 

HI chessie i cant remember you when we painted it blue at Southall. FISH 7373 81C[/quote]

I've only been going to Southall since I retired in November, so that's why I know it now . Prior to that at the MHR.

 

Quote Steve: This is not to decry the efforts of the MHR team who have done a great job but Bittern hadn't really done many miles since its withdrawal from BR in 1967 so it is to a large extent running on work done on its last BR overhaul. Cheltenham similarly had that benefit. Next time round it will be a much harder task.

It is correct that it hadn't done many miles, the frame crack prevented that. However, at the last overhaul the loco was stripped to its components, a large section of the frames replaced, converted from vac to air brake and all bearings repaired and re-machined, etc etc. I don't think there is much left from the last BR overhaul, and certainly nothing material to its performance since 2007. I would be very surprised indeed if the next overhaul was harder than the last.

Cheltenham was in very good condition having been undercover since BR last overhauled her, and the boiler was in lovely condition as it had hardly been used. That loco does owe something to the last BR overhaul, but why fix what isn't broken? I wouldn't like to predict the condition in 10 years time, but my guess would be that the boiler will still be very good (benefits of an RO plant), but mechanically there will be more wear then was the case at the recent overhaul. I don't see any reason why the overhaul should be in anyway difficult though.

Your post can be read as saying you think that the MHR doesn't do a proper job (despite the disclaimer at the start) or is living off previous efforts. I don't think that either is true or fair. Our work stands comparison with most. We are not infallible, but most of what we do is robust and gives little trouble in service.

 

I don't think I ever implied that the MHR doesn't do a proper job or is living off previous efforts but, if that's how you have interpreted, I apologise. I was simply saying that both locos have not done any real mileage since their BR days and, as such, almost certainly didn't need the kind of overhaul necessary on the likes of 45428, 34027, 60009, etc. Most wear and tear on a steam loco is related to mileage/days in steam.

 

Apology accepted.

I still disagree with the premise about the "size" of the overhaul unless you look at the boilers alone, in which case there is no doubt that the repairs required there have been heavier on the locos you just mentioned than on Bittern or Cheltenham.

It's variable where the majority of wear comes from. If you take 76017 for example there is "wear" in the boiler which is as a result of a lengthy period stored near the sea. That overhaul though isn't as expensive as the one which 60019 received, though and involves only moderate attention to the mechanicals, and no frame repair. So which is the bigger overhaul?

34027 and 60009 both did much mileage, mostly mainline. I do wonder, without absolute proof, if this introduces wear at a greater rate. Clearly it is mechanically more demanding to run at 75mph, so I think that 10,000 miles on the mainline is possibly more demanding than say 50,000 miles at 25mph. But also the boiler cycles on the mainline, are they less kind than those on a heritage line? I think that they might be, and so it isn't just the absolute mileage, or the days in steam that matter in creating the amount of wear, as much as the usage regime and the duties. I still think that the year that 73096 alternately ran on the MHR and the mainline, and so was basically in steam the whole time between washouts, was better for the loco than years when the use was intermittent.

 

I'd take a guess that a single boiler cycle on the mainline (from lighting up to fire going out) is less publishing than the equivalent on many heritage lines, on account of being able to work for long periods at reasonably constant outputs. Whereas think of a typical heritage line (and we'll take the MHR as typical). Light up and bring into steam - drift down to Alresford - work hard for about twenty minutes up to M4M, then shut right down and cool down for probably the next half hour of descent to Alton, run round and waiting time; then get really hot again for about ten minutes back up to M4M; then probably nearly another hour of cooling down. Repeat * 3… That's a lot of heating and cooling cycles in one day of operation. Other lines with significant sustained gradients (Bluebell, NYMR …) will impose similar issues, though the timings and repetition might vary. For example, the Bluebell is 35 minutes of pretty hard work followed by about an 1hr 3/4 of very little, then repeat...

Mechanically, it would be an interesting comparison: on the mainline, the speeds are higher so - for an equivalent loco - presumably the stresses are higher. On the other hand, on a preserved line, you get half your running in backwards; often relatively sharp curves to affect flange wear; lots of stopping and starting so relatively lots of brake wear and operating at long cut offs; lots of rail joints to introduce millions of cycles of fatigue wear rather than long lengths of CWR; etc etc. Despite the lower speeds, day for day, I suspect preserved line use is relatively hard on a loco in comparison to mainline running.

Tom

 

Mainline cycle is warm through day 1. FTR (so full steam pressure by end of) day 2. Run on mainline (with ups and downs of heating, but having to produce probably more steam for longer than on heritage railway). Drop fire and cool. repeat cycle once or possibly twice per week.

Heritage railway cycle. Warm through day 1. Into light steam day 2. Steam for use day 3, 4, 5......etc as required. Drop fire after x days ready for boiler wash out. Now ok that cycle changes a bit if the loco is only needed weekends. The heating cycle (if the crew do their job well) during the day is also mitigated by the fact that the fire is never dropped, and there is no need to cycle the pressure very significantly either (50 psi max variation on a Bulleid on the MHR for example), so I suspect that the stress is not that great during a running day. I feel it is probably the cold to working pressure cycle that has the potential for the most "wear" to be introduced.

As an aside I was talking to a mechanic (their name) at the Cumbres and Toltec once. They lit their engines at Easter, carried out boiler wash outs using very hot water having dropped the fire and then driven the loco into the shed and dropped the water. The loco was boxed up, filled with hot water and re-lit the same evening. The engines weren't allowed to go cool until the end of the season. They had some amazing flue life as a result.

Why would long cut offs wear the mechanical parts more quickly? Surely the reciprocating speed is more important? More cycles = more wear? Just my thought...