Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

I absolutely agree with you Middle-c, on all points.

Back in the 80s, I was invited up to the KWVR, and John Adams and I took the Regulator out the Dome, because BR Drivers were complaining about the Regulator being stiff. It went on the workshop lathe, and within half-hour it was back in 34092s Dome. back in the days of Black and White, that would have been an Eastleigh Works job

A very knowledgeable chap, havent seen him for years though.

As I said some FMs, are going beyond their depth IMHO

 

Maybe they wanted to balance out all those wooden boilers that are supposedly sat in the NRM! \/

 

Never mind about the wisdom of youth....here is some ignorance in old age:

The outside cylinders of Bulleid Pacifics are at 1 in 40 to the horizontal, but the inside cylinder is at 1 in 7.75 (to clear the front axle). Doesn't this mean that the beat can never be exactly steady, because even assuming that the valve settings for each cylinder are perfectly correct, the inside cylinder is not operating at 120 degrees to the other two. Wouldn't a perfect beat be possible only if the three cylinders were in line? And just to confrm my ignorance/stupidity, are the cranks at exactly 120 degrees, or is there some compensation to adjust for the different inclination of the cylinders?[/quote:lnqql6us]

The outside cranks are 120 degrees to each other, but the middle crank is offset from 120 degrees from the other two to compensate for the different angle of the middle cylinder, as you speculated there might be. The main point as far as the working of the engine is concerned is that action of the three cylinders themselves is phased by 120 degrees.

As far as I know, Jock Adams was the person who took responsibility for setting the valves on 34092. Or at least to hear him talk about it, one would reasonably conclude that he did. He certainly didn't do any valve setting on BR, though perhaps someone did help him on 34092 who had done. As far as I know he also did quite a lot of work on 34067.

 

Maybe they wanted to balance out all those wooden boilers that are supposedly sat in the NRM! \/[/quote:3tq7hb98]

Regarding 34051, this Loco will never Steam again anyway.

I remember going specifically to York Museum with John Click (O.V Bulleids Draughtsman) in Mid 80s, A meeting with the then caretaker. With a view to leasing the loco for a preserved railway. Bodily she was sound, needed a new firebox, but would need £Thousands spent on her. John said forget it.

Sadly I had to leave, and put the idea out of my head.

 

Thanks for the details. So as I understand it the "chuffs" will be evenly spaced and the load transmitted will be in phase, leaving only the balancing to optimise.

 

i Suggested to the Nrm that whilst it s lovely to see An A4, and a Princess Coronation all streamlined up, arent they forgetting about the MNs and that they could cosmetically restore the un cut up side of Ellerman Lines, If they did that in wood it might even be affordable, rather than having the exact guage of sheet steel ... (Preservation is one thing but that was a lot of money for appearances sake...)

Also did any of the MNs ever run in Blue ?

 

Although it might sound like a good idea, it wouldn't really work because of the change to outside valve gear. In any case, there is already an example of 'an air smoothed' pacific in the National collection.

The answer to your question is yes. I don't have any details to hand but some, if not all, carried BR Blue and at least one was painted in an experimental blue livery.

Meic Batten

 

[/quote]


This Bulleid Society link shows you the dates of when MN's were in blue.

http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Bulle ... _ovsb.html

 

Thanks nick, will check that out
Sorry Mike i don't really count what was left on 34051 by BR as examplifying the radical styling of the MN'S , as the wheels are electrically driven via the wheels/axles on the Exhibit i dont see much problem with taking the Walshaerts gear off either.

 

The outside cranks are 120 degrees to each other, but the middle crank is offset from 120 degrees from the other two to compensate for the different angle of the middle cylinder, as you speculated there might be. The main point as far as the working of the engine is concerned is that action of the three cylinders themselves is phased by 120 degrees.

As far as I know, Jock Adams was the person who took responsibility for setting the valves on 34092. Or at least to hear him talk about it, one would reasonably conclude that he did. He certainly didn't do any valve setting on BR, though perhaps someone did help him on 34092 who had done. As far as I know he also did quite a lot of work on 34067.[/quote:vf4qnywf]

If you was to draw the movement then as they're set 120 degrees apart, if plotted on a graph would it effectively look like the output on a 3 phase AC Motor?

 

As Bongo points out, the cranks on a Bulleid pacific are not set at 120 deg apart. This quote from page 40 of 'Practical Hints for Footplate men', a British Railways (Motive Power Dept) publication from the 50s (this being part of a section describing Bulleid chain driven valve gear).

'The inside cylinder is at an angle to the outside cylinders, and the cranks are set at 120 degrees, 114 degrees and 126 degrees, the inside crank being set back 6 degrees.'

Hence the uneven beat until the things are pulled up.

 

Thanks Chessie for you're input!! I may have to get on you're crew when I next see you!!

Have you had alot on input and engineering as far as Bulleids go?

 

Does anybody happen to know, why 34105 Swanage is in the Shed Yard now at Ropley on MHR?

 

From the MHR site:

Std4 #76017 and West Country #34105 (still in 34102 disguise) have been drawn out of the headshunt to make room for shuttle trains and loco changes (and to let our visitors see them)

 

Twofnine are you a volunteer down at Ropley MPD? If so you would know why they are there... :-k

 

Thanks Kieranhardy, I wondered why they had been removed from the headshunt after being stuck up there for such a long time.

But I also wondered if there were plans to overhaul Swanage for future service, being that the problems may have been resolved.

 

I remember asking this not so long ago, however i'm unable to find that particular post i made. Although on page 21 of this thread:

I understand 76017 is far more simpler in that respect. And i think i remember reading somewhere that they were nearing the final stages of a possible new loco agreement for her.

 

Kieren

Damn it.. I went to a Drivers reunion yesterday. We were talking Steam throughout, and there were Influential personnel there from the Mid - Hants. If only I remembered I could have brought up 34105, and 76017 ](*,)

 

After seeing Tornado at Eastleigh me and my grandad poped into Ropley and drove up to the bridge that the headshunt runs through and saw the condition of 76017 and 34105. Hope the ownership argument concludes soon. And hope for a chance to see them in steam soon. How good would it be to have Swanage and Wadebridge going up the Alps together

 

i can't see these 2 barking up the alps together anytime soon! 34105 will require alot of extensive work done to her! You have to remember she has been up the headshunt for quite a few years now... Oiling off the motion on the odd occasion - Maybe things might be happening; but I think 34007 will surpass 34105 in light of 34105 being overhauled....