3801 Boiler Update

 
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
And just think, we could have had 3801 back on the tracks by now if not for this mess! if one good thing came out of it, it is that the delays meant that they could work more on the Loco itself - it really is/was an utter shambles!

Kind Regards

Sponsored advertisement

  C3827 Junior Train Controller

Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
This sorry saga makes no sense to me but in the absence of honest, detailed, competent, informed facts and truth coupled with an absence of spin and other BS we will forever be unable to judge for ourselves.
It just does not add up.............
Perhaps we could set up a Royal Commission.  Rolling Eyes
  a6et Minister for Railways

Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
C3827
So the whole debacle gets swept under the wheels like dust & soot, then hosed away with the first boiler leaks oops! tests & seeing these wondrous green machines run around the state, more than likely with diesels up their rear ends rather than those responsible for it, & pat them on the back handsomely.

Makes one wonder, if 01's boiler is now repairable, how many other loco's that sit in rotten row arena's would not be able to be repaired?  especially those that could go onto loco's that would make up a fair mainline work list, including 3820 & a couple of other pigs, especially the later as there are new boilers for them already waiting.
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
So the whole debacle gets swept under the wheels like dust & soot, then hosed away with the first boiler leaks oops! tests & seeing these wondrous green machines run around the state, more than likely with diesels up their rear ends rather than those responsible for it, & pat them on the back handsomely.

Makes one wonder, if 01's boiler is now repairable, how many other loco's that sit in rotten row arena's would not be able to be repaired?  especially those that could go onto loco's that would make up a fair mainline work list, including 3820 & a couple of other pigs, especially the later as there are new boilers for them already waiting.
a6et
Do some research and actually look into the number of trips that are operated without diesel assistance and why the ones that are have it.

The old boiler was always considered repairable- http://www.heritageexpress.com.au/pages/legendsofsteam/3801/updates/3801update-2008-05-18.htm.  It was simply the less favoured option.

Restoration feasibilitycost of a locomotive is not the be all and end all of determining which engines can be restored.  There will always be a finite limit to the number of locomotives that can be reliably maintained in an operational condition with human resources available, not to mention the actual commercial viability/operational usefullnes of certain locomotive types.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
So the whole debacle gets swept under the wheels like dust & soot, then hosed away with the first boiler leaks oops! tests & seeing these wondrous green machines run around the state, more than likely with diesels up their rear ends rather than those responsible for it, & pat them on the back handsomely.

Makes one wonder, if 01's boiler is now repairable, how many other loco's that sit in rotten row arena's would not be able to be repaired?  especially those that could go onto loco's that would make up a fair mainline work list, including 3820 & a couple of other pigs, especially the later as there are new boilers for them already waiting.
Do some research and actually look into the number of trips that are operated without diesel assistance and why the ones that are have it.

The old boiler was always considered repairable- http://www.heritageexpress.com.au/pages/legendsofsteam/3801/updates/3801update-2008-05-18.htm.  It was simply the less favoured option.

Restoration feasibilitycost of a locomotive is not the be all and end all of determining which engines can be restored.  There will always be a finite limit to the number of locomotives that can be reliably maintained in an operational condition with human resources available, not to mention the actual commercial viability/operational usefullnes of certain locomotive types.
Duffy
Mate, I understand the element of how many trips that are done without diesel useage, also those that have to have them, many of the trips are expensive & no doubt the Canberra ones get a benefit from reduced coal useage/costs by using them in conjuction with diesels.

The same issues exist at locations where there are no turntables, & a diesel hauling the train back is an advantage, however.  The thing that strikes me is that there are a lot of trips that could be done that have diesels included in the consist that really do not need them, & I struggle to find reasons for some of them, not all.

The thing is though, when the list of heritage loco's were drawn up yonks ago under the old heading of preserved loco's & those that were listed as operational as against those that were static, most of the operational loco's had been overhauled not long before being removed from active service in order to preserve them for tour or the "heritage" work envisaged for them. In fact, those engines were not generally used until steam itself was removed from service & up to that point of time active service engines were used.

Over the many years since, I have also watched as pretty well all of those engines, have gone into the static halls of exhibits, with the work load being ever consumed by a few different engines, much I understand under the pretext of different restrictions, but also one that referred to the fact that they had been flogged to death & had failed the various tests required to keep them going, thereby ever reducing the fleet.

Certainly it did not help when certain fights between societies & threats were made to close down the LES for latte operations instead did not help either.  The thing is even though that has been sort of reversed, how many of the volounteers & other workers who were both employed & assisted in work at the LES were lost to the valuable work/tasks they had there as getting to Thirlmere was too unaccesible to them them?   Thus the industry as such lost out.

My point re the boiler of 01 stands, & I based it very much on the report as provided by your link.  The aspect that says that the original boiler was not considered the best option may well have been mentioned in early despatches but, from what was writtten & promoted by the sides of the debate which counted was that the old boiler was "Beyone economical repair" & was also promoted that it really was not viable to do so, thus the decision was made to source a new boiler, with the German company winning the tender.

I would simply submit, that given what is said in the latest news, its not reasonable to simply brush aside the reasons that were promoted/provided for sourcing a new boiler at the time, & replace it with some new sugar coating that provides for the new boiler now being spare.

My point aside from this, & something that came out of the other issues identified years ago was that the amount of trafficable engines was very much reduced by flogging them, or as more eloguently put, "Their Over use as no others available"".  At least there is a spare 38cl boiler now, if it can be made to fit, & I suggest/implied fit, not just to 01 if & when the old one fails, but it could fit each of the remaining 38cl, including 20 giving 3 available for service.

If the known new & spare 36cl boilers were also used & fitted to 09 & 16, 2 more would be available for service, & with 16, there would also be a more economical loco as well, giving the whole fleet 6 main line Express type loco's not including 3526.

Should some of the work be carried out at the LES, then perhaps some of those who have been lost to the industry could also be interested in being involved, maybe also other societies could as well, such as the Canberra group who have done a marvelous job, & perhaps could receive grants under the RAHS to go towards such work as well as for 1210, 3016 & the garratt.

The biggest sorrow out of the whole new boiler for 3801 saga is that too much time & money has been thrown at that dog which could have been used on other members of the class for more results, in the same way as towards other NSW operators especially (& I use hindsight as a great equaliser in the debate) with the problems & end costs of this new boiler, what would it have cost to have built the boiler here?

In asking that, the job in building a new boiler for 3265 showed it could be done, albeit with a smaller boiler, yet there are others who could also have build one, including the Ipswich workshops.
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
So the whole debacle gets swept under the wheels like dust & soot, then hosed away with the first boiler leaks oops! tests & seeing these wondrous green machines run around the state, more than likely with diesels up their rear ends rather than those responsible for it, & pat them on the back handsomely.

Makes one wonder, if 01's boiler is now repairable, how many other loco's that sit in rotten row arena's would not be able to be repaired?  especially those that could go onto loco's that would make up a fair mainline work list, including 3820 & a couple of other pigs, especially the later as there are new boilers for them already waiting.
Do some research and actually look into the number of trips that are operated without diesel assistance and why the ones that are have it.

The old boiler was always considered repairable- http://www.heritageexpress.com.au/pages/legendsofsteam/3801/updates/3801update-2008-05-18.htm.  It was simply the less favoured option.

Restoration feasibilitycost of a locomotive is not the be all and end all of determining which engines can be restored.  There will always be a finite limit to the number of locomotives that can be reliably maintained in an operational condition with human resources available, not to mention the actual commercial viability/operational usefullnes of certain locomotive types.
Mate, I understand the element of how many trips that are done without diesel useage, also those that have to have them, many of the trips are expensive & no doubt the Canberra ones get a benefit from reduced coal useage/costs by using them in conjuction with diesels.

The same issues exist at locations where there are no turntables, & a diesel hauling the train back is an advantage, however.  The thing that strikes me is that there are a lot of trips that could be done that have diesels included in the consist that really do not need them, & I struggle to find reasons for some of them, not all.

The thing is though, when the list of heritage loco's were drawn up yonks ago under the old heading of preserved loco's & those that were listed as operational as against those that were static, most of the operational loco's had been overhauled not long before being removed from active service in order to preserve them for tour or the "heritage" work envisaged for them. In fact, those engines were not generally used until steam itself was removed from service & up to that point of time active service engines were used.

Over the many years since, I have also watched as pretty well all of those engines, have gone into the static halls of exhibits, with the work load being ever consumed by a few different engines, much I understand under the pretext of different restrictions, but also one that referred to the fact that they had been flogged to death & had failed the various tests required to keep them going, thereby ever reducing the fleet.

Certainly it did not help when certain fights between societies & threats were made to close down the LES for latte operations instead did not help either.  The thing is even though that has been sort of reversed, how many of the volounteers & other workers who were both employed & assisted in work at the LES were lost to the valuable work/tasks they had there as getting to Thirlmere was too unaccesible to them them?   Thus the industry as such lost out.

My point re the boiler of 01 stands, & I based it very much on the report as provided by your link.  The aspect that says that the original boiler was not considered the best option may well have been mentioned in early despatches but, from what was writtten & promoted by the sides of the debate which counted was that the old boiler was "Beyone economical repair" & was also promoted that it really was not viable to do so, thus the decision was made to source a new boiler, with the German company winning the tender.

I would simply submit, that given what is said in the latest news, its not reasonable to simply brush aside the reasons that were promoted/provided for sourcing a new boiler at the time, & replace it with some new sugar coating that provides for the new boiler now being spare.

My point aside from this, & something that came out of the other issues identified years ago was that the amount of trafficable engines was very much reduced by flogging them, or as more eloguently put, "Their Over use as no others available"".  At least there is a spare 38cl boiler now, if it can be made to fit, & I suggest/implied fit, not just to 01 if & when the old one fails, but it could fit each of the remaining 38cl, including 20 giving 3 available for service.

If the known new & spare 36cl boilers were also used & fitted to 09 & 16, 2 more would be available for service, & with 16, there would also be a more economical loco as well, giving the whole fleet 6 main line Express type loco's not including 3526.

Should some of the work be carried out at the LES, then perhaps some of those who have been lost to the industry could also be interested in being involved, maybe also other societies could as well, such as the Canberra group who have done a marvelous job, & perhaps could receive grants under the RAHS to go towards such work as well as for 1210, 3016 & the garratt.

The biggest sorrow out of the whole new boiler for 3801 saga is that too much time & money has been thrown at that dog which could have been used on other members of the class for more results, in the same way as towards other NSW operators especially (& I use hindsight as a great equaliser in the debate) with the problems & end costs of this new boiler, what would it have cost to have built the boiler here?

In asking that, the job in building a new boiler for 3265 showed it could be done, albeit with a smaller boiler, yet there are others who could also have build one, including the Ipswich workshops.
a6et

Out of interest, can you tell me which trips have operated that didn't require diesel assist?  Given this is brought up a fair bit, operators are extremely mindful of it and as such, there is nearly always a reason for it to be there.  Eg, 3016 is assisted at present because its superheater elements require renewal and needs a general mechanical toneup- Nothing to do with operating efficiency.  Indeed, it is more of a pain to actually add the diesel, as it means you have to find another crew.

3616 and in particular 3609 would need a lot of work and money to operate again.  I recall reading in a roundhouse article that 3609 was one of the first 'donated' to the then RTM because it was life expired and a cursory examination will confirm that with just about every component needing renewal.  It also has the cracked axle that came out of 3642 in the 1990s.

The question is that does there need to be a mainline fleet bigger than the envisaged one (3801, 3830, 3642, 3526, 3265), given that additional locomotives can be drawn from Canberra and Lachlan Valley, as already happens?

No argument on group infighting from me.  However, most groups are now able to work together- reference 6029s recent stay in Thirlmere or even 3642s use on 3801 Ltds train the weekend before last, something unheard of in recent years.  

With regards the boiler issue, we are going back 7 years.  The landscape was vastly different, as were the people making the decisions.  Of course with hindsight we can say a new boiler out of Germany was the wrong option, however, this doesnt achieve anything in the here and now.  Neither really does pursuing those responsible at the time- Its not like the money can be recovered unless there was serious fraud involved, of which there is no case.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Trying to brush it aside like nothing happened won't help matters either, serious mistakes were made, and yes maybe the people responsible at the time have moved on, but questions still need to be asked and answered,  as to how did the Germans get it so wrong, and 2. why wasn't a home grown Tender sought, who could have done the job for half the cost? are there no boiler workshops in Australia that could have carried this out? surely there must be at least one? -
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
The good news is that we may see 3830 and 3801 on the steels within a couple of years.
The sad fact is that the whole 3801 exercise has been a fart-up of monumental proportions. Being a Public Service shambles undoubtedly means that those responsible will be promoted soon, under the provisions of the Guard your A r s e  Act. In private industry, the person or persons responsible for such a mess would, by now, be carefully perusing the Situations Vacant.
  Newcastle Express Chief Commissioner

Duffy, yes I can tell you what trip didn't require ANY diesel at all. That was what was called The Heartland Flyer in 2007, or what I call "Quick, let's get outo-town while Bush was "invited" /"invitied" himself here."

3801 did went on if remember a 5 day round trop, with no diesel at all, that includes any shunting, turning on turntables it may needed.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Of course the whole project was poorly executed but at least we now have a decision and having two 38's again will be something to really look forward to.
It will be interesting to hear Bruce Rankin presentation at the 15th October forum.
So the whole debacle gets swept under the wheels like dust & soot, then hosed away with the first boiler leaks oops! tests & seeing these wondrous green machines run around the state, more than likely with diesels up their rear ends rather than those responsible for it, & pat them on the back handsomely.

Makes one wonder, if 01's boiler is now repairable, how many other loco's that sit in rotten row arena's would not be able to be repaired?  especially those that could go onto loco's that would make up a fair mainline work list, including 3820 & a couple of other pigs, especially the later as there are new boilers for them already waiting.
Do some research and actually look into the number of trips that are operated without diesel assistance and why the ones that are have it.

The old boiler was always considered repairable- http://www.heritageexpress.com.au/pages/legendsofsteam/3801/updates/3801update-2008-05-18.htm.  It was simply the less favoured option.

Restoration feasibilitycost of a locomotive is not the be all and end all of determining which engines can be restored.  There will always be a finite limit to the number of locomotives that can be reliably maintained in an operational condition with human resources available, not to mention the actual commercial viability/operational usefullnes of certain locomotive types.
Mate, I understand the element of how many trips that are done without diesel useage, also those that have to have them, many of the trips are expensive & no doubt the Canberra ones get a benefit from reduced coal useage/costs by using them in conjuction with diesels.

The same issues exist at locations where there are no turntables, & a diesel hauling the train back is an advantage, however.  The thing that strikes me is that there are a lot of trips that could be done that have diesels included in the consist that really do not need them, & I struggle to find reasons for some of them, not all.

The thing is though, when the list of heritage loco's were drawn up yonks ago under the old heading of preserved loco's & those that were listed as operational as against those that were static, most of the operational loco's had been overhauled not long before being removed from active service in order to preserve them for tour or the "heritage" work envisaged for them. In fact, those engines were not generally used until steam itself was removed from service & up to that point of time active service engines were used.

Over the many years since, I have also watched as pretty well all of those engines, have gone into the static halls of exhibits, with the work load being ever consumed by a few different engines, much I understand under the pretext of different restrictions, but also one that referred to the fact that they had been flogged to death & had failed the various tests required to keep them going, thereby ever reducing the fleet.

Certainly it did not help when certain fights between societies & threats were made to close down the LES for latte operations instead did not help either.  The thing is even though that has been sort of reversed, how many of the volounteers & other workers who were both employed & assisted in work at the LES were lost to the valuable work/tasks they had there as getting to Thirlmere was too unaccesible to them them?   Thus the industry as such lost out.

My point re the boiler of 01 stands, & I based it very much on the report as provided by your link.  The aspect that says that the original boiler was not considered the best option may well have been mentioned in early despatches but, from what was writtten & promoted by the sides of the debate which counted was that the old boiler was "Beyone economical repair" & was also promoted that it really was not viable to do so, thus the decision was made to source a new boiler, with the German company winning the tender.

I would simply submit, that given what is said in the latest news, its not reasonable to simply brush aside the reasons that were promoted/provided for sourcing a new boiler at the time, & replace it with some new sugar coating that provides for the new boiler now being spare.

My point aside from this, & something that came out of the other issues identified years ago was that the amount of trafficable engines was very much reduced by flogging them, or as more eloguently put, "Their Over use as no others available"".  At least there is a spare 38cl boiler now, if it can be made to fit, & I suggest/implied fit, not just to 01 if & when the old one fails, but it could fit each of the remaining 38cl, including 20 giving 3 available for service.

If the known new & spare 36cl boilers were also used & fitted to 09 & 16, 2 more would be available for service, & with 16, there would also be a more economical loco as well, giving the whole fleet 6 main line Express type loco's not including 3526.

Should some of the work be carried out at the LES, then perhaps some of those who have been lost to the industry could also be interested in being involved, maybe also other societies could as well, such as the Canberra group who have done a marvelous job, & perhaps could receive grants under the RAHS to go towards such work as well as for 1210, 3016 & the garratt.

The biggest sorrow out of the whole new boiler for 3801 saga is that too much time & money has been thrown at that dog which could have been used on other members of the class for more results, in the same way as towards other NSW operators especially (& I use hindsight as a great equaliser in the debate) with the problems & end costs of this new boiler, what would it have cost to have built the boiler here?

In asking that, the job in building a new boiler for 3265 showed it could be done, albeit with a smaller boiler, yet there are others who could also have build one, including the Ipswich workshops.

Out of interest, can you tell me which trips have operated that didn't require diesel assist?  Given this is brought up a fair bit, operators are extremely mindful of it and as such, there is nearly always a reason for it to be there.  Eg, 3016 is assisted at present because its superheater elements require renewal and needs a general mechanical toneup- Nothing to do with operating efficiency.  Indeed, it is more of a pain to actually add the diesel, as it means you have to find another crew.

3616 and in particular 3609 would need a lot of work and money to operate again.  I recall reading in a roundhouse article that 3609 was one of the first 'donated' to the then RTM because it was life expired and a cursory examination will confirm that with just about every component needing renewal.  It also has the cracked axle that came out of 3642 in the 1990s.

The question is that does there need to be a mainline fleet bigger than the envisaged one (3801, 3830, 3642, 3526, 3265), given that additional locomotives can be drawn from Canberra and Lachlan Valley, as already happens?

No argument on group infighting from me.  However, most groups are now able to work together- reference 6029s recent stay in Thirlmere or even 3642s use on 3801 Ltds train the weekend before last, something unheard of in recent years.  

With regards the boiler issue, we are going back 7 years.  The landscape was vastly different, as were the people making the decisions.  Of course with hindsight we can say a new boiler out of Germany was the wrong option, however, this doesnt achieve anything in the here and now.  Neither really does pursuing those responsible at the time- Its not like the money can be recovered unless there was serious fraud involved, of which there is no case.
Duffy
The use of diesels has become more of late, going back & the centenial train services that visited country regions in 1988 were not provided with Diesel assistance.  The Eureka 38cl model launch had 3801 up front with diesels in the rear, 44cl, not surprising though as it was severally over the load for a 38c in both directions though.  

I was out of touch with railways from 1990 - 1999, but since then I have noticed an increase in the use, interestingly it was a no no in my days on the job, last working of rear end banking of passenger trains was at Laurance road years ago, & the Camden line afterwards.

I read somewhere that there was a requirement eithe ARTC for steam to have diesel assistance, not sure of the conditions as it was a while back, but I think it had something to do with reliability & was to be provided in case of the steam locomotive not being able to work the train, it failed or the like.  I could possibly think that loads would play a part in it, as well as the type of passenger stock as well. Looking at the video of 3642 that went to Wimbledon, recently I would say it was over the load for the pig by itself as the load for them on that spot was 265tons.  If Wimbledon no longer has reversing points for a loco to run round, then the diesel is there for the reason to bring the train back to BX.

LVR ran a trip up the Mountains a littel while back with 5917 by itself, & had a full load for the 1:30's no assistance which was good, maybe a test to see if steam could do it, & maybe light coal program was on.

The removal of so many steam facilities around the state, even run round sections also make it a likely reason for those operations, but I know I have witnessed them the top & tailed services up here on the Central Coast, again I would assume load may be the reason.

The report that 3609 was derelict when donated to the RTM is crap.  It received an overhall at Eveliegh in late 64 or early 65, it was sent west for a short time, & then returned to Enfield, prior to going to Petersham, rather than put it in the shed there, at least the locomotive itself, it went outside & IIRC, Corrimal #18 was placed in the shed for protection & volounteers to work on it for static display, when the both were taken back to Enfield, one would have thought nothing had been done on them. But 09 was in running order when put in Temporary store & listed as traffical locomotive for museum purposes.  3616 was not much different, as it was out of overhaul & sent back to Parkes, but not long later it was sent to Bmd, & 3615 was sent from there to BX as a replacement, 16 worked there for Northern mail services to Armidale, when returned to Enfield it was put in store as a working engine, not listed initially as a Heritage loco or the like.

I understand there was a crack in the frame of 09, but as Goulburn did not have the equipment anymore to perform the welding necessary, the easiest option was to make a swap. The report said that the crack along with one of the saddles being broken with the boiler sitting on the frame was a reason why the loco rode rough for so long, never saw or worked on a pig that was not rough, some worse than others.  Depending on the frames condition, & even if cracked, the modern welding processes available these days is able to repair it.  Also as the frame is a plate type, then not impossible to get a new one made, & likely much stronger than the originals.

A lot of good loco's put aside in working order for museum & tour operations along with their condition would surprise many.

The workload is still quite heavy really for those loco's, & while having a spare boiler for a 38cl may be good,, how hard has it been on the fleet in the  seven year itch without the 2 38's, with 3526 also out of the ledger & with only the 2 P's as real back up especially as you say 3016 is not in the best of nick either, all that remains really is 5917 from LVR now that its in running condition as a back up.

The cost to run 6029 with coal is phenominal from what I have read, & is a reason the diesels are used as having them take the load as it were, means the garrat's not consuming the amount of coal it would if by itself.

In the end, its far better to have something in reserve should something go wrong, especially when it comes to tour trips.  The first triple header tour up the Illawarra escarpment was rosted for a 53 & 55 from Central to Unanderra, & then assisted by a 50cl from there, each loco had different tenders, & naturally 5595 had the wampu, the 53 a Turret.  When the train was due to depart there was no sign of the engines, enquiries were made to control where they were, Enfield Loco was contacted, & was told by the Chargeman, that they were not ready to depart as they were late being lit up, wont say why they were late.

The crews for the train had signed on at GFO, & were waiting, when control found out, they were stuck in the cab of a 30tanker from one of the yard shunters & sent to Eveliegh to grab the two pilots, 3268 & 3802, we set off behind them with a spritely trip & one photo stop only to Unanderra where the P was replaced for the trip by another 50cl.

Today, steam still fails as do diesels & when steam fails, deisels are used, would be nice if steam was used from an available fleet, learn from the lessons & not repeat them.
  Duffy Chief Commissioner

Location: ACT
The use of diesels has become more of late, going back & the centenial train services that visited country regions in 1988 were not provided with Diesel assistance.  The Eureka 38cl model launch had 3801 up front with diesels in the rear, 44cl, not surprising though as it was severally over the load for a 38c in both directions though.  
I was out of touch with railways from 1990 - 1999, but since then I have noticed an increase in the use, interestingly it was a no no in my days on the job, last working of rear end banking of passenger trains was at Laurance road years ago, & the Camden line afterwards.

I read somewhere that there was a requirement eithe ARTC for steam to have diesel assistance, not sure of the conditions as it was a while back, but I think it had something to do with reliability & was to be provided in case of the steam locomotive not being able to work the train, it failed or the like.  I could possibly think that loads would play a part in it, as well as the type of passenger stock as well. Looking at the video of 3642 that went to Wimbledon, recently I would say it was over the load for the pig by itself as the load for them on that spot was 265tons.  If Wimbledon no longer has reversing points for a loco to run round, then the diesel is there for the reason to bring the train back to BX.

LVR ran a trip up the Mountains a littel while back with 5917 by itself, & had a full load for the 1:30's no assistance which was good, maybe a test to see if steam could do it, & maybe light coal program was on.

The removal of so many steam facilities around the state, even run round sections also make it a likely reason for those operations, but I know I have witnessed them the top & tailed services up here on the Central Coast, again I would assume load may be the reason.

The report that 3609 was derelict when donated to the RTM is crap.  It received an overhall at Eveliegh in late 64 or early 65, it was sent west for a short time, & then returned to Enfield, prior to going to Petersham, rather than put it in the shed there, at least the locomotive itself, it went outside & IIRC, Corrimal #18 was placed in the shed for protection & volounteers to work on it for static display, when the both were taken back to Enfield, one would have thought nothing had been done on them. But 09 was in running order when put in Temporary store & listed as traffical locomotive for museum purposes.  3616 was not much different, as it was out of overhaul & sent back to Parkes, but not long later it was sent to Bmd, & 3615 was sent from there to BX as a replacement, 16 worked there for Northern mail services to Armidale, when returned to Enfield it was put in store as a working engine, not listed initially as a Heritage loco or the like.

I understand there was a crack in the frame of 09, but as Goulburn did not have the equipment anymore to perform the welding necessary, the easiest option was to make a swap. The report said that the crack along with one of the saddles being broken with the boiler sitting on the frame was a reason why the loco rode rough for so long, never saw or worked on a pig that was not rough, some worse than others.  Depending on the frames condition, & even if cracked, the modern welding processes available these days is able to repair it.  Also as the frame is a plate type, then not impossible to get a new one made, & likely much stronger than the originals.

A lot of good loco's put aside in working order for museum & tour operations along with their condition would surprise many.

The workload is still quite heavy really for those loco's, & while having a spare boiler for a 38cl may be good,, how hard has it been on the fleet in the  seven year itch without the 2 38's, with 3526 also out of the ledger & with only the 2 P's as real back up especially as you say 3016 is not in the best of nick either, all that remains really is 5917 from LVR now that its in running condition as a back up.

The cost to run 6029 with coal is phenominal from what I have read, & is a reason the diesels are used as having them take the load as it were, means the garrat's not consuming the amount of coal it would if by itself.

In the end, its far better to have something in reserve should something go wrong, especially when it comes to tour trips.  The first triple header tour up the Illawarra escarpment was rosted for a 53 & 55 from Central to Unanderra, & then assisted by a 50cl from there, each loco had different tenders, & naturally 5595 had the wampu, the 53 a Turret.  When the train was due to depart there was no sign of the engines, enquiries were made to control where they were, Enfield Loco was contacted, & was told by the Chargeman, that they were not ready to depart as they were late being lit up, wont say why they were late.

The crews for the train had signed on at GFO, & were waiting, when control found out, they were stuck in the cab of a 30tanker from one of the yard shunters & sent to Eveliegh to grab the two pilots, 3268 & 3802, we set off behind them with a spritely trip & one photo stop only to Unanderra where the P was replaced for the trip by another 50cl.

Today, steam still fails as do diesels & when steam fails, deisels are used, would be nice if steam was used from an available fleet, learn from the lessons & not repeat them.
There is no requirement from ARTC, John Holland or Sydney Trains for steam locomotives to be diesel assisted.  3642 was rear assisted on Tumulla because of the load and the requirement for a locomotive on the back end.  The earliest run round opportunity would be Murrobo,or failing that Blayney.  Longer journey time, less rides available, less opportunity to give people a train ride (All shuttles out of Bathurst were sold out).  This also applies to shuttles at the likes of the June long weekend or the Newcastle shuttles last year.

3642 does plenty of solo trips as well I think youll find:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxosSFphfZ0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyBTsBgw0tE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOuUf23DT4w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaol7HucS_Y


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8G5IOaQNuo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks0rzT8wQbY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxeoKAjt4H4

The fleet availability will always peak and trough.  Recall how many engines were mainline operational in say 2000? 2 38s, 3112, 1210 and that was about it.  No 3642, no 3526, no 3016, no 3237, no 3265, no 2705, no 5917, no 6029.  Try taking the glass half full look at the present situation instead.

As for reliability, Im scratching my head to think of the last time a steam locomotive was 'failed' on the mainline, before entering traffic, perhaps, in which case another locomotive was subbed.  
To maintain pilot steam locomotives in this day and age is impractical.  If a steam locomotive fails at say Gosford, it may take a couple of hours to get a replacement locomotive there, even if its already in steam and you have a crew standing by doing nothing.  By then the tour is running later and later, meaning passengers miss out on their destination and arrive back far later than anticipated.  Aside from die hard gunzels, nobody enjoys getting back at 2300 on a Sunday night from a steam tour.
  vk2amv Locomotive Fireman

A bit of a joke?  I actually find the whole issue a dead set joke, & I think so called answers actually raise more questions than it answers, especially in regard to the old boiler, & why on earth is there a need to do so much work on the new one for it to be just a spare.
a6et

I agree completely with what you are saying.

I was just trying to be diplomatic with my wording.


Also to reply to the other posters comment about diesel assistance on steam trips.

I can name straight up a few recent trips (some I have been on myself) with no diesel assistance.

LVR running the Fotoz Flyer 2014,  locomotive 5917 unassisted from Moss Vale to Lithgow and return.

LVR again, Fotoz Flyer 2015,  locomotives 3237 & 5917 unassisted, Central to Wollongong, over to Moss Vale, then return to Central.
We ended up running very late on that one and didn't return to Central until just before 2AM Sunday morning.
Was still a great trip however haha.

And Heritage Express last month,  3642 from Dubbo to Nyngan & return unassisted.

So there is no operational requirement from ARTC or anything like that for Diesel assistance.

It is up to the individual operator and their own requirements.
  Newcastle Express Chief Commissioner



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYKIMv_tg9k

As stated before, unassisted for the whole 5 day or so tour
  a6et Minister for Railways

There is no requirement from ARTC, John Holland or Sydney Trains for steam locomotives to be diesel assisted.  3642 was rear assisted on Tumulla because of the load and the requirement for a locomotive on the back end.  The earliest run round opportunity would be Murrobo,or failing that Blayney.  Longer journey time, less rides available, less opportunity to give people a train ride (All shuttles out of Bathurst were sold out).  This also applies to shuttles at the likes of the June long weekend or the Newcastle shuttles last year.

The fleet availability will always peak and trough.  Recall how many engines were mainline operational in say 2000? 2 38s, 3112, 1210 and that was about it.  No 3642, no 3526, no 3016, no 3237, no 3265, no 2705, no 5917, no 6029.  Try taking the glass half full look at the present situation instead.

As for reliability, Im scratching my head to think of the last time a steam locomotive was 'failed' on the mainline, before entering traffic, perhaps, in which case another locomotive was subbed.  
To maintain pilot steam locomotives in this day and age is impractical.  If a steam locomotive fails at say Gosford, it may take a couple of hours to get a replacement locomotive there, even if its already in steam and you have a crew standing by doing nothing.  By then the tour is running later and later, meaning passengers miss out on their destination and arrive back far later than anticipated.  Aside from die hard gunzels, nobody enjoys getting back at 2300 on a Sunday night from a steam tour.
Duffy
Based on what all have said I have to say that I was wrong with the aspect of diesels having to assist trains owing to an ARTC rule.  I only stated that as I do reccolect reading somewhere on RP a while back now that there was some requirement, I admit totally to being more than happy to be wrong on it.

Its fairly easy to pick years & what engines were available & in serviceable condition, & agree that it fluctuates immensely & easy to see.  Thing is that I was also trying to provide other points of view & illustrations, nothing more - nothing less.

Its also fairly easy to look at things & look at them all rosy with the glass half full basis, & its a position I also take on many things, however lets not forget that at the same time the glass is still half empty when its half full.

I therefore stand by what I have said on this topic, along with the politics that has surrounded the whole boiler debacle, loss of real benefits with the LES being unable to fill the role it should still be doing in the heritage arena, & the simple fact that there has been too much money wasted over the years by poor decision makers.

To all of those who do work in the heritage area that keep so many items in working order my hat goes off to them & in no way do I put any blame on them.
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
Well this is all interesting however the timings are the most interesting for the 2 locomotives. 3801 will now retain the original boiler, which was not the best option originally, Why now?
3830 whose boiler we were led to believe was too be damaged or beyond repair is now able to be repaired, without removing the boiler from the frames or locomotive. More 'cut and shut' if we are to believe the reports and finally repairing the inbuilt stay problems etc. How do you do major boiler work with the boiler still on the locomotive. Unless the faults were not as was reported and 30 was a case of funding.
THNSW has now picked up the funding of 30 in an agreement no doubt similar to the ORH and 3265 where the ORH paid a considerable amount to complete the restoration of 3265.
The most interesting part of the whole media release is THNSW will be doing the work on 30 at Thirlmere and will have her operational 12 months before 3801. Yet 3801 we are to believe has had the most thorough of the 2 locomotives restoration but is going to take a further 2 years to complete, even though we are told that the delays have allowed all this extra work to be done on the locomotive. Again what extra work was required which wasn't listed in the original restoration.
3801 was restored in the 1980's, from the ground up, including full boiler repairs, (including a new inner firebox, welding repairs to the firebox corners, new front tube plate and tubes as well as all new stays and rivet where required, testing to 245PSI. Nothing was left in this restoration, every piece of 01 was repaired, replaced or new parts sourced. This restoration was done in 3 years and 01 gave over 20 years service.
30 was restored in the LES by the Powerhouse Museum (MAAS) and operated under 3801's accreditation while in steam and operational condition. Restriction were placed on its use by the Museum and so 30 only completed 9 years of operation before taken out of service.
So we have 3801 that has had several years of restoration still requiring another 2. given we were told that it could be running 3-6 months after the boiler arrived from Germany it is going to take 12 months + to do the boiler.
and 3830 which has had very little done to it since taken out of service, will have major boiler work done at Thirlmere and will be returned to steam 12 months before 3801.Makes no or little sense.

Regards
Greg.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
None of this makes sense at all, I suspect that the Welded Boiler which was brought back from Germany, is in such bad shape, that they have decided to just cut their losses, and fix the original one, I also suspect that there will have to be major rectification and repair to the original, as that was deemed not suitable in the first place, kindergarten stuff Evil or Very Mad
  NSWGR 3827 Deputy Commissioner

Location: South of the Border
Anyone care to guess what "using a novel repair
approach that doesn’t require the removal of the locomotive’s boiler from the locomotive
frame" for 3830's boiler really means?
apw5910
Although I like everyone else on here has no idea the exact extent of the repairs required to 3830, I do know that several years ago Union Pacific replaced the whole inner firebox on 844 without removing the Boiler from the frame.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
In the midst of all this sorry saga, it seems apparent that nobody ever heard of a very common title - Project Manager.
If anyone did hear of it, it's obvious that there was no notice taken of the job description.
  Spinner5711 Train Controller

For A6ET, there are no brand new, unused 36 Class boilers in existence anywhere that I know of.  All of the spares at Thirlmere, Eveleigh, Cardiff, Junee, Canberra and Dorrigo saw active revenue NSWGR service in one or more sets of 36 Class frames before becoming stationary boilers.  Every one of them has a boiler number confirming same and I am sure that a detailed look through the 36 Class history cards will confirm this.

As for other ex-traffic locomotives falling by the wayside, every one of those that no longer steam are still and quite because they need varying amounts of work done to them to return them to traffic condition.  In the past (pre-Shirley era) this was disguised by locomotives being taken into Eveleigh for 'remedial work' to keep them going.  The cost (financial and labour) is what has stopped that happening now.  Similarly, today's changed railway actively works against anything not capable of running at 80 km/h.

Back to the locomotive in the title, it is good news that a way out of the previous morass has been found and a fully Australian Standards compliant 3801 will grace the rails again.  245 psi too, so it will bark quite crisply and loudly, exactly as intended when designed in 1938.
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

I tried to write a comment but the level of incompetence that has plagued this project has left me speechless.
The parties responsible should be outed publically, as for all we know they could have now been promoted to manage even more costly projects, and through their ineptness ruin more than just us mere gunzels dreams.
  M636C Minister for Railways

For A6ET, there are no brand new, unused 36 Class boilers in existence anywhere that I know of.  All of the spares at Thirlmere, Eveleigh, Cardiff, Junee, Canberra and Dorrigo saw active revenue NSWGR service in one or more sets of 36 Class frames before becoming stationary boilers.  Every one of them has a boiler number confirming same and I am sure that a detailed look through the 36 Class history cards will confirm this.

As for other ex-traffic locomotives falling by the wayside, every one of those that no longer steam are still and quite because they need varying amounts of work done to them to return them to traffic condition.  In the past (pre-Shirley era) this was disguised by locomotives being taken into Eveleigh for 'remedial work' to keep them going.  The cost (financial and labour) is what has stopped that happening now.  Similarly, today's changed railway actively works against anything not capable of running at 80 km/h.

Back to the locomotive in the title, it is good news that a way out of the previous morass has been found and a fully Australian Standards compliant 3801 will grace the rails again.  245 psi too, so it will bark quite crisply and loudly, exactly as intended when designed in 1938.
"Spinner5711"


Regarding 36 Class boilers, the contracts list in Railway Transportation magazine describes these as "35/36 class boilers" and the number contracted for in two separate contracts exceeded the 73 36 class fitted with these boilers. Are you saying that only 73 boilers were delivered, or that more than 73 boilers were installed in 36 class locomotives through their life?

As to 3801's pevious boiler now to be repaired, if it can at reasonable cost be modified to allow operation at 245 lbf/sq.in. one wonders why this wasn't done some time in the last thirty years when it was running at 215 lbf/sq.in.?

Again, if the previous 3801 boiler can not only be repaired at reasonable cost but that this can be acheived in less time than modifying the new German boiler to meet requirements that should have been in the design contract, why wasn't this done at some time while that boiler was on its trip to Germany and back?

M636C
  NSWGR 3827 Deputy Commissioner

Location: South of the Border
As to 3801's pevious boiler now to be repaired, if it can at reasonable cost be modified to allow operation at 245 lbf/sq.in. one wonders why this wasn't done some time in the last thirty years when it was running at 215 lbf/sq.in.?

M636C
M636C
With regards to returning the Old Boiler to operate at 245 PSI, perhaps this is going to be done by replacing the Inner firebox with one of original riveted design rather than the welded one fitted in 1986?
  M636C Minister for Railways

As to 3801's pevious boiler now to be repaired, if it can at reasonable cost be modified to allow operation at 245 lbf/sq.in. one wonders why this wasn't done some time in the last thirty years when it was running at 215 lbf/sq.in.?

M636C
With regards to returning the Old Boiler to operate at 245 PSI, perhaps this is going to be done by replacing the Inner firebox with one of original riveted design rather than the welded one fitted in 1986?
NSWGR 3827
While I don't claim to be an expert in locomotive boiler design, my recollection is that there was a specific problem with the welded inner firebox on 3801. I understand that owing to a particular design feature of this inner firebox, possibly the location of a welded seam, the original stay pattern was not able to be retained and this resulted in the lower permitted pressure with that inner firebox. In retrospect, it may be possible to build a new welded inner firebox with welds in a different location that allows the exact stay spacing and hence allow the original pressure to be maintained.

M636C
  a6et Minister for Railways

For A6ET, there are no brand new, unused 36 Class boilers in existence anywhere that I know of.  All of the spares at Thirlmere, Eveleigh, Cardiff, Junee, Canberra and Dorrigo saw active revenue NSWGR service in one or more sets of 36 Class frames before becoming stationary boilers.  Every one of them has a boiler number confirming same and I am sure that a detailed look through the 36 Class history cards will confirm this.

As for other ex-traffic locomotives falling by the wayside, every one of those that no longer steam are still and quite because they need varying amounts of work done to them to return them to traffic condition.  In the past (pre-Shirley era) this was disguised by locomotives being taken into Eveleigh for 'remedial work' to keep them going.  The cost (financial and labour) is what has stopped that happening now.  Similarly, today's changed railway actively works against anything not capable of running at 80 km/h.

Back to the locomotive in the title, it is good news that a way out of the previous morass has been found and a fully Australian Standards compliant 3801 will grace the rails again.  245 psi too, so it will bark quite crisply and loudly, exactly as intended when designed in 1938.
Spinner5711
For A6ET, there are no brand new, unused 36 Class boilers in existence anywhere that I know of.  All of the spares at Thirlmere, Eveleigh, Cardiff, Junee, Canberra and Dorrigo saw active revenue NSWGR service in one or more sets of 36 Class frames before becoming stationary boilers.  Every one of them has a boiler number confirming same and I am sure that a detailed look through the 36 Class history cards will confirm this.

For Spinner 5711.
There is a piece in the 36cl that says “some spare boilers were forwarded to Thirlmere that had been used in stationary boilers”  There is no denying that however, there was also a report in one of the journals at the time that 8 36cl boilers that had never been used had been offered to given to the Rail Transport Museum.

Now, for me I have no need to make quotes that are not factual, anything that I do say that is subsequently found to be wrong I have no problems in making a retraction & saying so, unlike others.  In this case I certainly have no need to do so.
Ok, let’s look at what you have said & perhaps inferred, it would seem that there are several boilers that are spread around the state, as you put in the list, & they are as per what you have inferred only been used as stationary boilers, & rightfully they would have a boiler number allocated to them.  Where do you believe they were used as stationary boilers?

The only place that I am aware of that used 36cl boilers were at Eveleigh workshops (3) & Chullora Workshops, another 3.  At the time of their use there were still several spare new boilers sitting in the paddock at Chullora amongst a large stockpile of other assorted locomotive parts, much of which went to scrap under Shirley’s edict, but the boilers were kept as they were also spares for the workshops, so essential.  Once Shirley’s reign was finished much of the damage done was impossible to fix, but some such as the boilers was at least saved.


As for other ex-traffic locomotives falling by the wayside, every one of those that no longer steam are still and quite because they need varying amounts of work done to them to return them to traffic condition.  In the past (pre-Shirley era) this was disguised by locomotives being taken into Eveleigh for 'remedial work' to keep them going.  The cost (financial and labour) is what has stopped that happening now.  Similarly, today's changed railway actively works against anything not capable of running at 80 km/h.

What disguises are you talking about in the pre Shirley days?  Maybe you should do some further checks into exactly what was done in the last NSWGR Commissioner Neil McCusker’s days & you might find how much of a friend he really was to the infant preservation scene, setting up a standard that should have continued from that day to this.

McCusker was very much in favour of preservation, the list of loco’s selected was in so many cases dumb! To say the least.  The reasons for 3609 & even 5461 defies description, one because it had run with name boards on the NCLE Flier, yet despite McCusker issuing the engines final overhaul approval, it was known to have frame problems, yet rather than accept one of the better members of the class, they stuck with the choice of 09, the same thing applied with 5461, because of the Poems about 1174 by Frank Brown.  Several pigs were in excellent condition on withdrawal, in fact the best 2 went to the scrappers, being 51 & 64 the latter had run after a minimal tone up at Enfield & had but one problem during the late season of southern steam.  The wonderful (for 36c) riding abilities of the 2 was amazing which indicated a good sturdy frame mechanical condition, more than I could say for some others that lasted a bit longer.

McCusker also ensured that the last overhauls that the traffic engines received at the LES, were heavy overhauls to ensure they lasted as long as possible.  Without McCusker things would have been much worse, if you like check the time sheets of those traffic engines that were spent in the LES, compared to the specified time for the overhaul carried out compared to the work sheet & appropriate length of time of what the time would have been for.

As for the 80Km/h application, that certainly works against some loco’s but there can be exceptions when the appropriate amount of money is paid, such as the use of 2705 recently, hate to have been doing 80K’s on it.  This is a point I make with the selection of loco numbers, rather than taking poetic 5461, which was limited to 38MPH the offer of one of the heavier balanced wheel engines was rejected, had one of those been accepted then they would have had a freighter capable of 70Km/h.

Back to the locomotive in the title, it is good news that a way out of the previous morass has been found and a fully Australian Standards compliant 3801 will grace the rails again.  245 psi too, so it will bark quite crisply and loudly, exactly as intended when designed in 1938.

I too will be happy to see it back running, but its still an abomination that has cost far too much on a single locomotive, much less could have been spent had the board room experts not got in the way & those who had an idea about how to really do things were listened to.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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