MHR Restorations and Overhauls

Spindizzy old chap:

I am not making excuses for James and to be perfectly honest I have made the same mistakes in the past and will proberbly make a few more before I pop my clogs.

But the lad is only 16 and we sometimes forget what it was like at that age.

That said I have suggested that he posts no more E-Mails until he has sorted out his alleged computer problem and built up a decent firewall. I have also suggested that if the urge to post is too great, that he makes a copy of what he has sent and see if it co-incides with what he has written.

I am a novice on computers compared with some of you guys , so any help, advice and suggestions would be most appreciated.

Best regards
Chris:

 

I know everyone can get shall we say over excited and make a post but really without proper evidence it is best to say nothing at all, its all part of the learning curve. I have an apprentice who is very good at talking in fact he has a very smart mouth but not so good at producing. I have tried to help him and explain that sometimes it is best to stop and think but unfortunately it falls on deaf ears.

I am a member of other forums that are not not connected with steam and the same over enthusiasm from younger members appears there to. I'm all for encouraging new young members but sometimes they need to be pointed in the correct direction.

 

Agreed , but will they listen?

CW:

 

I think this a very genuine view of the case. Keep putting up the good information LN850 you have posted some interesting information as well as that which is contencious .

We all need to post to see what effect it has sometimes, and its not always what we expect , certainly got the fire going on this thread !!

Stick to information you know genuinly to be facts, like you have with which engines are worked on today or yesterday and maybe a bit about what's been done and those things you think might be true but are not absolutly sure of keep those in your pocket for another day, when you are sure things and views often change as you gather information .

The phrase "If in doubt leave out " is a good one especially in the early days of learning a trade.

 

Learn the difference between facts and opinions. Then stick with the former

Regards,

Dan

 

Looks like the MHR's latest aquisition doesnt want to leave!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan700/4691502313/

No damage done i hope.

Chris

 

Judging by its condition it's going to be a very long project. All the best to the MHR!

Regards

 

Let's hope there's no-one wielding a gas axe this time (cast your minds back to 6023's rear driving wheel) !

 

80150 some thought. There have been some comments about the validity / value of such an aquisition, and yes its the last of the few engines to leave Barry's long lines of damaged and robbed locomotives , but the bare bones are there, having done realy a short active life. Its not going to steam overa short rebuild but , the loco was the last design's to emerge from British Design Steam loco's and was specific in as much as it was intended for good access and service preperation.In terms of rebuild its no different to many other engines that have been taken on , some in much worse conditions.

The MHR management, like all preserved lines needs a fleet of machines that will deliver efficient operation, without attention and with good fuel & water consumption over the service period. I think you would be hard pressed from a design & operation point of view to better what BR provided for this purpose, hence the desire evident to have 73 back in service and to retain such an engine in the future. On short runs such as most preserved lines, the bunker engines have the advantage to not need a tender, another item which is a separate restoration in itself, and gives better visibility for reverse running especially in bad weather.

I think 80150 is despite its condition a very wise and strong indicator move on the managements part. It will cost money, yes but everything we do to loco's costs money usually more than intended .

Is it an efficent move,its a "Standard" with roller bearings Umm (NO Bearings), I recon it is a sound move. Its consolidation on the part of the organisation about as sure as you can get.

If your going to build a full rebuild you start with the bones, the bones are all that's there.It may be possible to find the rods maybe and some other usable parts, but its going to need the parts which need to be new ie all the linkages, grate, steam pipes ,valves, motion, brakes, controls all new.

The loco will be as new as a new engine would be, at the start of use, in say 10 years time.With 30 years ahead of it quite possibly without a major overhaul.

Because this one is the railways property no one is going to argue about who pays for what or how it gets worked on, or when , a blight I would suggest, which has been evident from a distance, by most people associated with preservation, over the years regarding the MHR motive power fleet.Its interesting we have almost returned to Nationalisation policy within preservation. About no individual actually owning asset's in the core operation.Yes some might hire in some locomotives, for some periods and to adjust their financisl posssition.

 

I wondered who would be first... with constructive ideas.... perhaps I should have written with "NO Bearings".

Maybe the rebuild team before they start, should seriously consider this redesign issue, as there is so little of the original motion and axle box overhaul will probably be desirable .

Major deterioration and wear points are at potential roller bearing locations. The study of smaller sized new build & run loco's and some bigger ones identifies that this is a major improvement in terms of long life expectancy without the constant need of an oil can and attention.

 

Sorry this gets a bit off topic but has relevance I believe.

I was not absolutly sure if it did or not have RB axle boxes without going an looking it up, but knew if there was any doubt it would soon jump out fair comment... It was not intended for very fast running. Some standard designs did and some did not it was a developing process at that time as I am sure we are all aware.Thanks for the clarification. Of course there may be known reasons why this cannot be done.But I suspect there are more reasons why we should not try.

It's a thought though, that should be considered to improve its future operational life, and I hope will be, in my oppinion, as an engineer trying to improve on what is there already is a sensible move.

What would we do now faced with a clean sheet of paper to design a loco ?and meet current legislation on emmissions and contamination, or a redesign with modern technology of an existing design to improve aspects of efficiency.

"Suppose" If there was an HSE policy issued this week, that said you cannot use this design after 2010 because it has "X" bearings with total loss oiling and all future rebuilds must be adapted, what would we do to get it back in service, would we fit sealed for life linear bearings with wipers on the cross head slides all sealed bearings on the motion.? Would we cover it all over to keep the muck out ?What would we do? Is the Un Rebuilt design of the West Country more superior from this point of view (Leaks ommited)

We are moving in this direction sorry boy's, but it will come to the loco Dept soon to identify and make changes to designs and work methods waste procedures etc. Machine tool manufacturers are being forced down this design route now to meet pending legislation, the loss of oil onto the ground is being controled and under the Environment Agency monitoring we will need to clean up the act, I feel sure many readers are not aware of these policy requirements on the operating companies of railways,Look at BP, but the current requirement to identify these issues is comming on fast.Any Oil is too much oil spilt on the ground.

Faced with a contamination clean up could the MHR operating company survive? No none of the operating companies of Private lines could, they just do not have the funds, so it would be the insurers, and local authorities that will be vigilant , they will soon be on the case, if they are not already , and the contamination will show up on their surveys of these sites and the operating methods Oil entering the sites in Barrels will need to be accounted for so 6 barrels a year are spilt on the ground from dripping from loco's.Is that how it looks ? Costs will go up on the insurance premiums, for not having your house in order to their standards and being aware and accountable. So is looking at redesign to overcome some of these issues such a bad idea?

Ok we are rebuilding an old design , but should we not try to lead the field to acheive a recognition of trying to meet these new requirements , with its attatched publicity, I feel sure there will be an amount of interest in these sort of moves from significant quarters and other new build designs the information and people are out there that could make this change fairly easily.

I feel sure those with engineering and steam design ideas such as improvements to Boiler & tube and smoke box, would take advantage of the situation to make what we have more servicable and economical in the future.At least to develop the debate and maybe trial some drawings and calc's

After all, this one is going to be a kit of bits on the floor. The costs to make such alterations might not be much greater than a straight repair of the original. At this stage to make this detail change might be the right time.All the bearing designs exist as do the axlebox designs, Developing the right parts to adapt the chasis and axles would not be over complex.


If new motion is needed, and I suspect it is, then the parts can be altered to suit. End product very desirable.I suspect all cost would be recovered in a couple of years use.

Anyone any thoughts please. I face these issues daily, how to stay within the law and all the legislation , they are not in my imagination. Rationalisation at sites is cleaning up sites creating new waste policies and handling policies. Driven by the various agency's and the employers insurance company audits.

 

If oil loss to ground becomes an issue could not vegetable oils be used for lubrication rather than mineral oils? Bearings on locos on Heritage railways are probably a lot more lightly loaded than they were on BR

 

Yes possibly but they are generally not so heavy as loco olis , it would need to be demonstrated in the users policy as to what's being used and why, certainly outboard motor two stroke oil is veg based to stop contamination. I was trying to demonstrate how the use of oil / grease could be contained in sealed for life units whilst reducing friction and wear losses. aleiviating the need for continuously oiling loco's not all loco's obviously.

 

The Engineer states that designs exist for roller bearings and axleboxes for an 80XXX conversion. This is not correct. The 73XXXs were fitted with roller bearings on the driving axles, but the basic design is bigger than the present axlebox sizes on a 80XXX. For a start new axles would be needed to suit roller bearings and new axleboxand roller bearing designs would have to be done to suit the horn guide dimensions on a 80XXX. In my view the idea is a non-starter.

 

Sdt tank is correct the 80xxx or the 76xxx are not fitted with roller bearings it was only the larger classes , is there much difference as regards maintaince on engines that have plain bearings as oppossed to roller bearings? its probally cheeper to re metal a bearing than to have a timkin bearing pulled off and then have timkin re build it for you as you need presses that you might not have on site in my view the standards were an updated version of tried and tested thinking that had taken many years to perfect, so why change that , if it works leave well alone i can understand updating engines with rocking grates if they didnt have them in service and making preperation easier and fitting better blast pipes and systems where theres a fuel saving and the engine benifits from it, but where a design is basically right whats the point?

 

It might (only might) be possible to adapt the existing axles to take split roller bearings with inner races clamped to the existing re-machined journals but it would increase the size of the boxes considerably and this would effectively mean much alteration to the frameplates and hornguides, always assuming that ashpans and other minor bits don't get in the way. One possibility with some of the other bearings is substituting grease lubrication for oil and possibly the use of non-metallic bushes, although the likely need for increased bearing areas would probably preclude this idea.

I can't see that this will become a necessity with steam locos, though. The EA had a policy of non-enforcement relating to heritage vehicles/equipment and i don't think that this has changed. It might be a different matter with the non-heritage aspects of our business, though.

 

Personally I think the MHR would be crackers to redesign the chassis to accommodate roller bearings on such a small engine which will be limited to 25mph and a load of seven carriages for the rest of its natural life. I'm by no means sure that it would be possible anyway, particularly the hind coupled axle. Best to leave well enough alone, there's enough work to do on this machine already.

Incidently, there is no measurable difference in the friction of a white metal bearing compared to a roller. It's best to machine the white metal rather than hand-scrape, but you won't find any difference in friction between the two. There is a massive difference, though, in their life-spans with the roller being far, far better.

I'm pretty sure that all the BR Standards had rocking grates fitted new as a range-standard design feature.

Regards