3801 Boiler Update

 
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
My opinion: If IRW had been commissioned to build a new boiler for 3801, 3801 would have been steaming happily for some time by now, probably at far less cost.

It would seem that it is time somebody was held accountable for this debacle.
Those who were ultimately responsible have long since departed to other positions, having made their 'coin' from rail heritage in NSW
Duffy
It is indeed unfortunate that the contract for the new boiler was not awarded to the Ipswich Railway Workshops which had the capability to carry out the work, had that been the case the skills to carry out the work of constructing would have been maintained in this country and as required major boiler works would be able to be carried out in this country.
Does Ipswich still have the capability to build loco boilers is a question  that should be asked and are there staff with the required skills available.
The best solution to the present 3801 boiler problems would seem to be to have a new boiler built in this country be it by a private contractor or Ipswich Railway Workshops, yes it will cost but it would be done right and the skills needed would be maintained.

Sponsored advertisement

  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
Does Ipswich still have the capability to build loco boilers is a question that should be asked and are there staff with the required skills available.
Mufreight

I believe so. Are they not building (or have already built) a new boiler for 1051?
  M636C Minister for Railways

My opinion: If IRW had been commissioned to build a new boiler for 3801, 3801 would have been steaming happily for some time by now, probably at far less cost.

It would seem that it is time somebody was held accountable for this debacle.
Those who were ultimately responsible have long since departed to other positions, having made their 'coin' from rail heritage in NSW
Duffy
It is indeed unfortunate that the contract for the new boiler was not awarded to the Ipswich Railway Workshops which had the capability to carry out the work, had that been the case the skills to carry out the work of constructing would have been maintained in this country and as required major boiler works would be able to be carried out in this country.
Does Ipswich still have the capability to build loco boilers is a question  that should be asked and are there staff with the required skills available.
The best solution to the present 3801 boiler problems would seem to be to have a new boiler built in this country be it by a private contractor or Ipswich Railway Workshops, yes it will cost but it would be done right and the skills needed would be maintained.
"Mufreight"


An alternative approach would be to fabricate a new smokebox for 3801 that matches the incorrectly dimensioned boiler and just run the locomotive...

The boiler passed its steam tests before it left Germany the first time.

Unless it has deteriorated in the few years it hasn't been worked on in Germany, it still should be good for 245psi so just fit it and use it, making any temporary adjustments to 3801 to accommodate it..

It seems clear that the new boiler should not have been sent back to Germany at all, since Meinigen seem to think that their product meets the requirements they were given (as it well may).

While it isn't circular where the buyers expected it to be and the interface with the smokebox wasn't as expected, it was a working boiler.

As I've said before, the Germans believe they built what was asked for. It might not be what RH NSW wanted but it might be what they ordered...

M636C
  TheFish Chief Train Controller

Location: Pyongyang
Duffy, if what I and others have said is "rubbish", then perhaps you could elaborate on why, on what knowledge you have that we don't?

What I know of 3830's boiler condition comes from a member of the Powerhouse steam team who described to firebox as having an effective thickness of 4mm in places.  From my recollection there has been an official statement from the museum confirming at least that they boiler is in very poor condition.  I have also seen pictures of the moon scape that is the inside of the boiler.

Please do enlighten us though! (And qualify your statements next time)
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
I do not dispute the thickness of the platework, but It is rubbish to suggest that the damage was caused by the chemicals. If this was the case, the tubes in the boiler would have also undergone the same effect. They have not and are coated in heavy scale.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
My opinion: If IRW had been commissioned to build a new boiler for 3801, 3801 would have been steaming happily for some time by now, probably at far less cost.

It would seem that it is time somebody was held accountable for this debacle.
Those who were ultimately responsible have long since departed to other positions, having made their 'coin' from rail heritage in NSW
Duffy
How does that fact absolve them from blame or make them less responsible for their actions? Example: I can't commit fraud while working for one company, change jobs and be exempt from prosecution!
  locojoe67 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Gen X purgatory/urban Joh-land
*Are they not building a new boiler for 1051?*

When she returns to service, there will be press releases. If they built it, they will claim it. Staffing and skills retention is a good question that people ive spoken to don't want to discuss, except to bemoan the number of people that left irw and weren't replaced.

It doesn't help transparency that aurizon closed the redbank site; Job losses have become politically sensitive across the Ipswich region.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Perhaps we can learn from this link on how things should be done.

http://www.fireup2100.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/reading-2100-report-web.pdf
  M636C Minister for Railways

I do not dispute the thickness of the platework, but It is rubbish to suggest that the damage was caused by the chemicals. If this was the case, the tubes in the boiler would have also undergone the same effect. They have not and are coated in heavy scale.
"Duffy"


To those of us without direct access to the boiler, this is a bit of a mystery.

All the information was that 3830 had had the defects (leaking stays) repaired and it ran trials in undercoat.

Then we were told that a problem had occurred and the boiler could no longer be steamed.

Your argument regarding scale on the tubes does not mean that the version that I heard, that chemicals had damaged the lapped riveted joints, could not have occurred. It is possible that corrosive chemicals damaged the lap joints without cleaning the tubes completely.

What needs to be explained is why the boiler went from ready for service to requiring a major overhaul more or less overnight. The only other explanation is that the boiler was never suitable for service but this problem had somehow been overlooked until the final inspection.

I cannot avoid misquoting Lady Bracknell from Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of being Earnest" regarding Earnest's status as an orphan...

"To lose one 38 class boiler is unfortunate, to lose both 38 class boilers suggests carelessness...."

M636C
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
I do not dispute the thickness of the platework, but It is rubbish to suggest that the damage was caused by the chemicals. If this was the case, the tubes in the boiler would have also undergone the same effect. They have not and are coated in heavy scale.


To those of us without direct access to the boiler, this is a bit of a mystery.

All the information was that 3830 had had the defects (leaking stays) repaired and it ran trials in undercoat.

Then we were told that a problem had occurred and the boiler could no longer be steamed.

Your argument regarding scale on the tubes does not mean that the version that I heard, that chemicals had damaged the lapped riveted joints, could not have occurred. It is possible that corrosive chemicals damaged the lap joints without cleaning the tubes completely.

What needs to be explained is why the boiler went from ready for service to requiring a major overhaul more or less overnight. The only other explanation is that the boiler was never suitable for service but this problem had somehow been overlooked until the final inspection.

I cannot avoid misquoting Lady Bracknell from Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of being Earnest" regarding Earnest's status as an orphan...

"To lose one 38 class boiler is unfortunate, to lose both 38 class boilers suggests carelessness...."

M636C
M636C
Perhaps, but it certainly doesnt account for the severe loss of thickness in the platework.  

Regarding the design of 3801s new boiler, some subtle hints can be found on the 3801 website (3801.com.au):

18th May 2008-
"In September 2007, we commissioned our Boiler Inspectors, and pressure vessel engineers Greg Shipton and Peter Napier to provide design and project management for a new all-welded boiler. Greg and Peter have completed the design work, and we now have a complete set of CAD drawings for an all-welded boiler. "

Yet when the tender for the new boiler was started by Railcorp it was specifically for "....the design and supply of a new boiler for the heritage listed 3801 steam locomotive"
https://tenders.nsw.gov.au/railcorp/?event=public.rft.showArchived&RFTUUID=9A3D857F-AF11-6000-FD8A555C30998C5E
  M636C Minister for Railways


Perhaps, but it certainly doesnt account for the severe loss of thickness in the platework.  

Regarding the design of 3801s new boiler, some subtle hints can be found on the 3801 website (3801.com.au):

18th May 2008-
"In September 2007, we commissioned our Boiler Inspectors, and pressure vessel engineers Greg Shipton and Peter Napier to provide design and project management for a new all-welded boiler. Greg and Peter have completed the design work, and we now have a complete set of CAD drawings for an all-welded boiler. "

Yet when the tender for the new boiler was started by Railcorp it was specifically for "....the design and supply of a new boiler for the heritage listed 3801 steam locomotive"
https://tenders.nsw.gov.au/railcorp/?event=public.rft.showArchived&RFTUUID=9A3D857F-AF11-6000-FD8A555C30998C5E
"Duffy"


I agree completely that the loss of plate thickness is not explained by any of the stories so far advanced.

My only explantation is that the plate wastage was already there but not detected in earlier examinations.

The 3801 Boiler tender does appear to ask for a design and build.
This would appear to be a way of transferring responsibility for any failure to the contractor.
That didn't work well did it...?

While this might be an irrelevant detail in the tender request:

"The boiler is originally from locomotive 3819 and dates from 1943-44."

A boiler from 1943-44 could only belong to 3802 or 3803, unless it was built as a spare and first used on 3819 in 1947-48...

It suggests a less than complete knowledge of the subject.
I'd have liked to see a standard or two quoted, although that might have been in the detailed documentation.

We aren't much further advanced seven years later.

M636C
  backpressure Station Staff

There seems to be a huge vail of secrecy drawn over the present up to date condition of 3801. This loco belongs to the people of NSW but the people aren't to be told as to what's going on.
I've just read the latest Roundhouse and what of the 3801 pages?, bios of people working on it but little to no information as to the locos progress as a whole.
I don't care about the background of the people working on 3801. What I want to know is what is being done to further the reconstruction and what is the state of the returned boiler.
Many on here have theories as to what's happening but they are just that.........theories.
In this age of information at our finger tips there is a distinct lack of information, which only contributes to the theories, hear-say and total inventions.....passed off as truth.

I guess this is the problem we have with locos like 3801 being government owned. The people don't have a right to know they have a right to be ignorant. Ignorance has a sort of dignity about it. Besides if people know what you've done, they know what you've done wrong.
So the loco seems to have become part of the official secrets act. The official secrets act isn't to protect secrets, it's to protect officials, the ones who cocked it up in the first place.
It would have been far cheaper to have given it a new coat of paint and put it back in the exhibition hall at the RTM and left it there.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
All that I can say is that I feel relatively safe here in Victoria so long as any NSW certified/maintained/inspected pressure vessel stays north of the Murray.Sad
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
There seems to be a huge vail of secrecy drawn over the present up to date condition of 3801. This loco belongs to the people of NSW but the people aren't to be told as to what's going on.
I've just read the latest Roundhouse and what of the 3801 pages?, bios of people working on it but little to no information as to the locos progress as a whole.
I don't care about the background of the people working on 3801. What I want to know is what is being done to further the reconstruction and what is the state of the returned boiler.
Many on here have theories as to what's happening but they are just that.........theories.
In this age of information at our finger tips there is a distinct lack of information, which only contributes to the theories, hear-say and total inventions.....passed off as truth.

I guess this is the problem we have with locos like 3801 being government owned. The people don't have a right to know they have a right to be ignorant. Ignorance has a sort of dignity about it. Besides if people know what you've done, they know what you've done wrong.
So the loco seems to have become part of the official secrets act. The official secrets act isn't to protect secrets, it's to protect officials, the ones who cocked it up in the first place.
It would have been far cheaper to have given it a new coat of paint and put it back in the exhibition hall at the RTM and left it there.
backpressure
Don't worry, the truth will come out sooner or later, and many a heads will roll, as they should, this whole project has just been a total disaster!! , when it could have been dead easy, if done correctly

Kind Regards
  georges Chief Train Controller

Don't worry, the truth will come out sooner or later, and many a heads will roll, as they should, this whole project has just been a total disaster!! , when it could have been dead easy, if done correctly
Israelfan


I wonder what a Freedom of Information request would reveal, apart from 'Commercial in confidence.'
This very sorry story is a backhanded tribute to what workshops like Eveleigh used to routinely achieve. Time to reopen them?
  a6et Minister for Railways

To me there is a heck of a lot of information regarding 3801 that is very much in wonderment or wonderland stage.  The boiler issue aside, what I do not understand is why the rest of the loco has been sent to Chullora for work to be carried out on it, making the whole assembly process ready for when the boiler arrived.

Reports then came following the blitz disaster that the oppurtunity now existed to do a more extensive overhaul on the remaining locomotive, reasoning that when the boiler arrives & fitted the denisons of NSW would in actuality have a brand new locomotive after all the work was carried out on it.

For me I firstly do not understand why the need for the work to be carried out at Chullora, & why the LES was ignored as being an overhaul location, especially once the future of the LES had been resolved for the benefit of heritage rail overall. An ideal opportunity missed to have the LES brought up to scratch & make it into a maintenance centre, closer to Sydney & being able to avail more older & experienced workers who are able to use the convenience of trains to Redfern.

In regard to 3830.  The restoration of it was (again from my understanding which may well be wrong,, & likely to be so) carried out at the Hunter Valley centre at East Greta?  The restoration was a full one based upon the old NSWGR Heavy Overhaul at minimum, the inclusion of through Main Reservoir hoses & 3 & 4 air pipes also were included.  The charter was for it to be restored into the same standard as it was when originally built, the reasoning behind the riveted tender rather than a welded type.

Once back in operation, the ongoing operational maintenance was carried out at the LES, which from all accounts was well done, then the news that it had to have another full overhaul & carried out this time by the owners, Powerhouse museum, then it came out that the time needed would not allow her to return to operation inside the usual summer steam shutdown period but would be finished for the following steam season.

So, when did 3830 return to service after the initial restoration?   How many years, & for that matter how much work did it actually perform before returning to Rookwood, or some other cemetry where it appears it will remain in a skeletal position.

What saddens me is the amount of money that has been spent on these two locomotives, & there certainly has been no value for money to come out of them.  At least that's my thoughts behind the debacles.
  M636C Minister for Railways


So, when did 3830 return to service after the initial restoration?   How many years, & for that matter how much work did it actually perform before returning to Rookwood, or some other cemetry where it appears it will remain in a skeletal position.

What saddens me is the amount of money that has been spent on these two locomotives, & there certainly has been no value for money to come out of them.  At least that's my thoughts behind the debacles.
"a6et"


3830 was returned to service in 1997.

It has been in service as preserved for 18 years.

I believe it only spent 19 years in service with the NSWGR and was in storage for nearly 30 years....

Since Trainworks replaced the RTM, not only has a lot of money been spent but very few locomotives remain in service. The main line diesels that played such an important supporting role in longer tours all require major work, hence HL203 and FL220 have been leased to replace their own units.

Sadly, this has become more common in government and industry as fewer people understand the work they are involved in, relying on generalised management theory instead.

M636C
  a6et Minister for Railways


So, when did 3830 return to service after the initial restoration?   How many years, & for that matter how much work did it actually perform before returning to Rookwood, or some other cemetry where it appears it will remain in a skeletal position.

What saddens me is the amount of money that has been spent on these two locomotives, & there certainly has been no value for money to come out of them.  At least that's my thoughts behind the debacles.

3830 was returned to service in 1997.

It has been in service as preserved for 18 years.

I believe it only spent 19 years in service with the NSWGR and was in storage for nearly 30 years....

Since Trainworks replaced the RTM, not only has a lot of money been spent but very few locomotives remain in service. The main line diesels that played such an important supporting role in longer tours all require major work, hence HL203 and FL220 have been leased to replace their own units.

Sadly, this has become more common in government and industry as fewer people understand the work they are involved in, relying on generalised management theory instead.

M636C
M636C
M

I think 30 had a major rebuild under the auspices of the Powerhouse museum later than 1997, although I could be wrong, but it certainly did not seem to have a great mileage run when compared to the others.

The upheaval, & I use that word that took place in the last 15years with certain fights between organisations took a toll in many area's including the loss of a lot of experienced staff.  The reason I ask re 30 is that the work I refer to being done at the Hunter Valley Training centre at East Greta, brought in a fair few new apprentices just like happened with 01's rebuild at the Dockyard, these apprentices who learned some valuable skills & likely all gone now, are a loss to preservation as a whole.

The whole sorry history of NSW preservation is an absolute disgrace with many serviceable engines let go to pieces, & dare I suggest milllions of dollars wasted as the years unfolded.
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
Since Trainworks replaced the RTM, not only has a lot of money been spent but very few locomotives remain in service. The main line diesels that played such an important supporting role in longer tours all require major work, hence HL203 and FL220 have been leased to replace their own units.

Sadly, this has become more common in government and industry as fewer people understand the work they are involved in, relying on generalised management theory instead.

M636C
M636C
I think you're overlooking a couple of other things-
1- Trainworks is the museum side only.  They had no role in the operational fleet which was still administered by RTM who had to be self-supporting until THNSW came about.
2- Significant investment has been made in the past 3 years on the THNSW carriages, with all the mainline cars recieving substantial bodywork refit and new paintwork.  This work is ongoing and will also include internal refurbishment going forward
3- 3642 is being maintained in exemplary condition but is the sole mainline steam locomotive for Heritage Express and has probably covered the most miles of any NSW engine over the past 8 years (And with very good reliability, especially since the bottom end overhaul in 2012).  The investment and work on 3526 is crucial to provide a second locomotive to 'share the load'
4- The CFCLA leases are a no brainer for cutting the work load short term.  Use someone elses equipment, that they maintain for you.  Meanwhile, work on the THNSW fleet is ongoing.  4201 will be back out after bogie overhaul in the near future, 4520 has seen significant investment in bogie and engine overhaul etc etc.

Despite being government backed, there is still a limit to what can be achieved and I think theyre doing a bang up job focussing the effort where its most needed at present

Regarding 3830s 'value for money', I think theres another engine at Thirlmere which if you looked at it on a Per restoration $ vs total operating dayskms comes out even worse than 3830.
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
Since Trainworks replaced the RTM, not only has a lot of money been spent but very few locomotives remain in service. The main line diesels that played such an important supporting role in longer tours all require major work, hence HL203 and FL220 have been leased to replace their own units.

Sadly, this has become more common in government and industry as fewer people understand the work they are involved in, relying on generalised management theory instead.

M636C
I think you're overlooking a couple of other things-
1- Trainworks is the museum side only.  They had no role in the operational fleet which was still administered by RTM who had to be self-supporting until THNSW came about.
2- Significant investment has been made in the past 3 years on the THNSW carriages, with all the mainline cars recieving substantial bodywork refit and new paintwork.  This work is ongoing and will also include internal refurbishment going forward
3- 3642 is being maintained in exemplary condition but is the sole mainline steam locomotive for Heritage Express and has probably covered the most miles of any NSW engine over the past 8 years (And with very good reliability, especially since the bottom end overhaul in 2012).  The investment and work on 3526 is crucial to provide a second locomotive to 'share the load'
4- The CFCLA leases are a no brainer for cutting the work load short term.  Use someone elses equipment, that they maintain for you.  Meanwhile, work on the THNSW fleet is ongoing.  4201 will be back out after bogie overhaul in the near future, 4520 has seen significant investment in bogie and engine overhaul etc etc.

Despite being government backed, there is still a limit to what can be achieved and I think theyre doing a bang up job focussing the effort where its most needed at present

Regarding 3830s 'value for money', I think theres another engine at Thirlmere which if you looked at it on a Per restoration $ vs total operating dayskms comes out even worse than 3830.
Duffy
  M636C Minister for Railways


M

I think 30 had a major rebuild under the auspices of the Powerhouse museum later than 1997, although I could be wrong, but it certainly did not seem to have a great mileage run when compared to the others.

The upheaval, & I use that word that took place in the last 15years with certain fights between organisations took a toll in many area's including the loss of a lot of experienced staff.  The reason I ask re 30 is that the work I refer to being done at the Hunter Valley Training centre at East Greta, brought in a fair few new apprentices just like happened with 01's rebuild at the Dockyard, these apprentices who learned some valuable skills & likely all gone now, are a loss to preservation as a whole.

The whole sorry history of NSW preservation is an absolute disgrace with many serviceable engines let go to pieces, & dare I suggest milllions of dollars wasted as the years unfolded.
"a6et"


I went to the celebration of 3830's return which was held at East Greta and that overhaul was carried out by the HVTC.

That was shortly after the Beresfield rear end collision and I think they were still lifting the inverted 82 class off the roof of Beresfield station at the time. I made a point of not going anywhere near there at the time. So 1997 seems right...

M636C
  M636C Minister for Railways



I think you're overlooking a couple of other things-
1- Trainworks is the museum side only.  They had no role in the operational fleet which was still administered by RTM who had to be self-supporting until THNSW came about.
2- Significant investment has been made in the past 3 years on the THNSW carriages, with all the mainline cars recieving substantial bodywork refit and new paintwork.  This work is ongoing and will also include internal refurbishment going forward
3- 3642 is being maintained in exemplary condition but is the sole mainline steam locomotive for Heritage Express and has probably covered the most miles of any NSW engine over the past 8 years (And with very good reliability, especially since the bottom end overhaul in 2012).  The investment and work on 3526 is crucial to provide a second locomotive to 'share the load'
4- The CFCLA leases are a no brainer for cutting the work load short term.  Use someone elses equipment, that they maintain for you.  Meanwhile, work on the THNSW fleet is ongoing.  4201 will be back out after bogie overhaul in the near future, 4520 has seen significant investment in bogie and engine overhaul etc etc.

Despite being government backed, there is still a limit to what can be achieved and I think theyre doing a bang up job focussing the effort where its most needed at present

Regarding 3830s 'value for money', I think theres another engine at Thirlmere which if you looked at it on a Per restoration $ vs total operating dayskms comes out even worse than 3830.
"Duffy"


I must admit that I am not familiar with the ownership and operating changes.

I have noticed the restored and repainted main line cars and they do look quite good.

It would be nice if Heritage Express and ARHS (ACT) and 3801 Ltd repainted their N cars to the same livery at the same time so a realistic looking N set could be assembled, and a complete train of S type cars might be run, rather than the present mixture....

I'd agree that 3642 appears to be good value for money.

Perhaps it is time to fit one of the available 36 class boilers to 3616. I seem to recall seeing a pressure test on the 36 class boiler in Canberra some time ago. With two 36 class, the absence of the 38 would be less obvious, particularly since 3616 has bigger valves and is thought to be more powerful than most of the class.

What about 5910? It would be nice to have two 59s working. I was most impressed with the speed that 5917 displayed climbing Bethungra with no diesel assistance on some LVR trips last year. These are modern and powerful locomotives that can make a good impression on the public.

3526 gave a poor impression on the last Maitland steamfest it attended. It seemed to produce more smoke for less effort than the other locomotives and this spoiled some photographs.

The two former 422s are doing a good job. I'd prefer that they were in a heritage livery for the work they do...

I still think that with people with more real experience of railways in management that better results might be obtained, although this concern is related to the failure to get 3801 operating and the rapid reversal of fortunes for 3830, despite there being no reasonable explanation for either being made public.

M636C
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT


I think you're overlooking a couple of other things-
1- Trainworks is the museum side only.  They had no role in the operational fleet which was still administered by RTM who had to be self-supporting until THNSW came about.
2- Significant investment has been made in the past 3 years on the THNSW carriages, with all the mainline cars recieving substantial bodywork refit and new paintwork.  This work is ongoing and will also include internal refurbishment going forward
3- 3642 is being maintained in exemplary condition but is the sole mainline steam locomotive for Heritage Express and has probably covered the most miles of any NSW engine over the past 8 years (And with very good reliability, especially since the bottom end overhaul in 2012).  The investment and work on 3526 is crucial to provide a second locomotive to 'share the load'
4- The CFCLA leases are a no brainer for cutting the work load short term.  Use someone elses equipment, that they maintain for you.  Meanwhile, work on the THNSW fleet is ongoing.  4201 will be back out after bogie overhaul in the near future, 4520 has seen significant investment in bogie and engine overhaul etc etc.

Despite being government backed, there is still a limit to what can be achieved and I think theyre doing a bang up job focussing the effort where its most needed at present

Regarding 3830s 'value for money', I think theres another engine at Thirlmere which if you looked at it on a Per restoration $ vs total operating dayskms comes out even worse than 3830.

I must admit that I am not familiar with the ownership and operating changes.

I have noticed the restored and repainted main line cars and they do look quite good.

It would be nice if Heritage Express and ARHS (ACT) and 3801 Ltd repainted their N cars to the same livery at the same time so a realistic looking N set could be assembled, and a complete train of S type cars might be run, rather than the present mixture....

I'd agree that 3642 appears to be good value for money.

Perhaps it is time to fit one of the available 36 class boilers to 3616. I seem to recall seeing a pressure test on the 36 class boiler in Canberra some time ago. With two 36 class, the absence of the 38 would be less obvious, particularly since 3616 has bigger valves and is thought to be more powerful than most of the class.

What about 5910? It would be nice to have two 59s working. I was most impressed with the speed that 5917 displayed climbing Bethungra with no diesel assistance on some LVR trips last year. These are modern and powerful locomotives that can make a good impression on the public.

3526 gave a poor impression on the last Maitland steamfest it attended. It seemed to produce more smoke for less effort than the other locomotives and this spoiled some photographs.

The two former 422s are doing a good job. I'd prefer that they were in a heritage livery for the work they do...

I still think that with people with more real experience of railways in management that better results might be obtained, although this concern is related to the failure to get 3801 operating and the rapid reversal of fortunes for 3830, despite there being no reasonable explanation for either being made public.

M636C
M636C

The 36 boilers at Canberra have never been tested by ARHS.  One is stencilled "Repaired but not tested and is most likely ex workshops.  The other was probably last used as a static boiler as it has a non-standard smokebox attached.  Both were purchased privately by ARHS members but are not counted as society assets.

Not sure about 3616 having bigger valves than 3642.  3642 is fitted with 12 inch trick ported valves. What I think you're probably refering to is 3616s modified front end arrangements (Giesl Ejector).

I don't know how you can judge 3526s performance on the basis of how much smoke it was producing.  This could simply be put down to the crew operating the locomotive on the day you observed. Also dreadful that photographs were spoiled.  Perhaps the museum can put an additional check box in its reassessments in future covering presenting the locomotive for better photos?

When the engine was withdrawn in 2012 it was performing much the same as it had done for the past 7-8 years, if not better.  The issue lay with the locomotives tender tank and the limit of wearoperation being reached on the driving wheels.

The 422s are still owned by CFCLA.  Its up to them as to what colour the locomotives are painted.
  a6et Minister for Railways

From what I have observed with all the loco's currently & previously in operation, & that does not include LVR's 5367 either, the method of fireing is certainly very much in contradiction to how they were in regular service, I prinarilly include the 30T, 32 & 35classes, I have spotted the other classes including the pig, 38's & 59's as well.

Each of these engines are fitted with slopping grates/firebox & should be fired with a bank & with the old non Butterfly door engines use the door as the inside baffle, this allows best steaming abilities with correct amount of air for combustion, what I have mostly seen is they fire them all but flat & close the door completely.

Any thought that firing that way would be saving money is a fallacy as they are not being worked very hard either, the other thing is ho light the blower is which is another problem as the more even distribution of draft over the fire also provides for better combustion.

I guess more is known these days, then from old sods like myself & others who never set foot on any of them but also wonder why those like me dropped out of membership in the early days, & see no change to the why & reasons behind it,
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
From what I have observed with all the loco's currently & previously in operation, & that does not include LVR's 5367 either, the method of fireing is certainly very much in contradiction to how they were in regular service, I prinarilly include the 30T, 32 & 35classes, I have spotted the other classes including the pig, 38's & 59's as well.

Each of these engines are fitted with slopping grates/firebox & should be fired with a bank & with the old non Butterfly door engines use the door as the inside baffle, this allows best steaming abilities with correct amount of air for combustion, what I have mostly seen is they fire them all but flat & close the door completely.

Any thought that firing that way would be saving money is a fallacy as they are not being worked very hard either, the other thing is ho light the blower is which is another problem as the more even distribution of draft over the fire also provides for better combustion.

I guess more is known these days, then from old sods like myself & others who never set foot on any of them but also wonder why those like me dropped out of membership in the early days, & see no change to the why & reasons behind it,
a6et
Interesting views.  
We've always found it unecessary to run 3016 with a bank- With sensible driving It runs quite happily on a 3-3-3 pattern (3 in the middle front, 3 in the middle back, 3 across the back in the corners).  Ive had many a run up the 1 in 40 of the Molonglo gorge with the locomotive steaming against the injector and sitting on 150-155.  The front damper is normally open, the back one shut and the door adjusted to suit.  Certainly shutting the door and producing clouds of black smoke is something not really encouraged either- Just a waste of fuel and a choked fire.

I've also found 3265 will run on the above method, however theres less in reserve so the back corners tend to be filled up a little more.

3642 is nearly always done with a bank and the door left open at all times to prevent the bank being pulled.  I did fire it flat on the run from Werris Creek to Narrabri last year as it seemed perfectly happy.  A half bank was put in it at Boggabri to give a little extra 'push'.
More recently we did the shuttles up Tumulla.  She steamed quite magnificantly, sitting on 185-190 against the squirt, with the bank being left to burn down over the last 2 km

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.