3801 Boiler Update

 
  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.


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
M636C
M  I remember reading in a publication some years back (& think its one item that is a large missing bag of mine following a move, that lost a lot of my docuementations, photo's & records) that the initial order was for 100 boilers suitable as you say for both 35 & 36cl locomotives, as the 35cl boilers were approaching their use by date, that would make the two classes more akin to the same, especially as both worked the same load & conditions on the Northern line.

In Thompsons 36cl book, the boiler that was fitted to 3642 was numbered 3646b, so would that mean, the boilers numbered at least 121, not counting potentials for the 35cl?

Your questions re the repair now of 01s boiler is exactly what I asked as well, in regards to the German boiler, the question really is why was it not built &/or repaired correctly in the first place after being sent back?

Sponsored advertisement

  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I have just read a News Item here about defects on the Hawkesbury River Bridge which links to factual (but relatively sketchy) engineering consultants reports on the condition of the bridge piers.
Why cannot the public see the engineering reports on 3801's and 3830's multiple boilers?
We need some very specific and clearly worded Questions in Parliament that allow for no wriggle room/BS/spin/Humphrey Appleby replies.
Just the facts man, just the facts...............
  backpressure Station Staff

Since 3801 came out of service pending a full overhaul with a new boiler a huge vale of secrecy has been drawn over the loco. There has been wild speculation here on the Railpage Australia™ forum but I don't blame people for wildly speculating.
It now turns out that the boiler that was supposed to have been knackered isn't. So a lot of public money has been wasted on building a new boiler that's still not up to Australian Standards.
This is the problem with having a loco owned by the state government. They went for the cheapest option on a new boiler and because the boiler was being manufactured so far away it wasn't possible to keep a discerning eye on the progress of it's build 100% of the time.
Yes there are companies here in Australia that could have made a new boiler to Australian Standards but no doubt their bid for the work to be done was far far higher than the winning German bid. So it seems to me that instead of getting a new boiler made to "Rolls Royce" standards we got a new boiler at Kmart standards and price which is what the government ordered.

As for the other loco 3830 it's boiler was also supposed to be completely knackered. But it now comes to light that's it's not as bad as what we've all been led to believe. The boiler is in quite good shape. It's the firebox that requires a lot of repair work. But how many times in the past has a loco required fire box repairs at the RTM and that condemns that loco to static exhibit status.
People will say that 3830 is owned by the Powerhouse Museum. But that's just another branch of the state government. Where does the Powerhouse Museum get it's funding from, from the state government. So 3830 is a state government loco in the care of the Powerhouse Museum who have contracted out that care to the RTM.
Now both 38's are having a "business plan" OMG on their return to operational condition. Well 3801 already had a "Business Plan" regarding it's restoration/rebuild and look what happened to that. So I reckon that neither loco will be operational before at least 2020, or even 2030. I hope I'm wrong, I hope.  

I wonder what the TRUE state of the boiler on 3820 is in. I want to know exactly what needs to be done. Not wild speculation, hearsay, individual opinions. Has a proper investigation of 3820 been done to see what really needs to be restored/replaced and or manufactured.

The museum has only a few steam locos that can take to the mainline. In my opinion they are,
3203,14 and 65.
3526
3609,16 and 42
3801,20 and 30, and that's it. Anything else is just too small too slow or too heavy.

This post is just my opinion using something for which I hold dear.....free speech.
  michaelgreenhill Administrator That's Numberwang!

Location: Melbourne
This post is just my opinion using something for which I hold dear.....free speech.
backpressure
Just FYI, there is nothing in Australian law which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.
  apw5910 Chief Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
I wonder what the TRUE state of the boiler on 3820 is in. I want to know exactly what needs to be done. Not wild speculation, hearsay, individual opinions. Has a proper investigation of 3820 been done to see what really needs to be restored/replaced and or manufactured.
backpressure
My own opinion: As I recall, all four 38 class boilers were examined when David Hill wanted to get 3801 going again back in the eighties. None was found to be in such stunningly good condition to warrant pulling a complete loco (3820, 3830) apart to extract an easily repaired boiler, nor was 3813's much use. They all needed extensive and expensive repairs. I remember reading a RTM newsletter saying the boiler barrels were OK, the tubeplates and inner fireboxes stuffed. The old boiler inspector no doubt made extensive handwritten notes (not a "Business Case!") but these are probably lost. So they went with what they found on 3801. 30 years later, why do you think anything has changed for the better with regards to 3820?
  a6et Minister for Railways

I wonder what the TRUE state of the boiler on 3820 is in. I want to know exactly what needs to be done. Not wild speculation, hearsay, individual opinions. Has a proper investigation of 3820 been done to see what really needs to be restored/replaced and or manufactured.
My own opinion: As I recall, all four 38 class boilers were examined when David Hill wanted to get 3801 going again back in the eighties. None was found to be in such stunningly good condition to warrant pulling a complete loco (3820, 3830) apart to extract an easily repaired boiler, nor was 3813's much use. They all needed extensive and expensive repairs. I remember reading a RTM newsletter saying the boiler barrels were OK, the tubeplates and inner fireboxes stuffed. The old boiler inspector no doubt made extensive handwritten notes (not a "Business Case!") but these are probably lost. So they went with what they found on 3801. 30 years later, why do you think anything has changed for the better with regards to 3820?
apw5910
I pretty well agree with yo regarding the eventualities with the boilers especially the bit that no reason to swap out a boiler from the other lot owing to the cost, especially if they were not in any better condition, the only aspect regarding 20 though is that it had undergone an overhaul at the LES later in its life, so it may have been somewhat better.

There has been a fair bit of debate on 20 in the past, with one poster saying that parts of the boiler have been cut away to supply 01 & 30, whatever that means, so it would be interesting to know the condition of each of the boilers that are still in existance including that of 20, along with what else would be needed.  If for no other reason that it would clear up a lot of things regarding it, rather than the general statement that says because 20 is a static display representing the class as they were in latter service.

The problem with 13's boiler is more likely to be the ravages of rust hill on it as it had extensive work carried out on it prior to Shirley's LES inspection & orders to rail everything to Clyde, in more open air treatment. The only thing is though has it been given any weather proving at Dorrigo.
  M636C Minister for Railways

I have just read a News Item here about defects on the Hawkesbury River Bridge which links to factual (but relatively sketchy) engineering consultants reports on the condition of the bridge piers.
Why cannot the public see the engineering reports on 3801's and 3830's multiple boilers?
We need some very specific and clearly worded Questions in Parliament that allow for no wriggle room/BS/spin/Humphrey Appleby replies.
Just the facts man, just the facts...............
"YM-Mundrabilla"


To divert briefly on the Hawkesbury Bridge, I recall stories saying how the New York Bridge Company had carried out inferior work because their pier nearest to the present pier 2 had failed and how the NSWGR engineers had gone deeper for their pier 2 down to bedrock so it would never suffer the same problem. But now the mighty pier 2 is in trouble, maybe the same trouble...

The bit that caused me to think was the statement that the problem went deeper (literally) than they first thought and tenders had to be recalled for the new scope.

It sounds a bit like the German 3801 boiler.

As I said earlier, the Germans admitted a problem with the stays and replaced the affected stays.

They did not, apparently, accept as their responsibility, other things seen as defective and did not fix everything that the customer wanted fixed.

Since the Germans designed the boiler as well as built it, if they said it met the design criteria it probably did.

It appears we went to Volkswagen expecting a Bentley while paying for a Polo.

M636C
  a6et Minister for Railways



To divert briefly on the Hawkesbury Bridge, I recall stories saying how the New York Bridge Company had carried out inferior work because their pier nearest to the present pier 2 had failed and how the NSWGR engineers had gone deeper for their pier 2 down to bedrock so it would never suffer the same problem. But now the mighty pier 2 is in trouble, maybe the same trouble...

The bit that caused me to think was the statement that the problem went deeper (literally) than they first thought and tenders had to be recalled for the new scope.

It sounds a bit like the German 3801 boiler.

As I said earlier, the Germans admitted a problem with the stays and replaced the affected stays.

They did not, apparently, accept as their responsibility, other things seen as defective and did not fix everything that the customer wanted fixed.

Since the Germans designed the boiler as well as built it, if they said it met the design criteria it probably did.

It appears we went to Volkswagen expecting a Bentley while paying for a Polo.

M636C
M636C
A good analogy M, when the contract deliberations were going on, I presented the case that China still had at least one factory that could build new boilers, I am not sure if any still exist there, the rebuilds of the QJ's that went to the U.S to the U.S Federal Administralian standards showed what they can do.

England had problems with Tornado from the same German factory, so it was a yellow flag, but with England being much closer than Australia is to Germany, it reall meant trusting the Germans to do things right, in other words, give them the money for a product they say they can build but without any sort of guarantee that it will actualy be right. Early on there was one report saying that the 38cl boiler was of a type they had never built previously, so another wart appeared.

I find it actually amazing given the cost of the boiler & distances invoved for any inspections which should have taken place, meaning extra travel costs etc, how much was really saved by going for the German tender?  There are in some ways comparisons for the modeller & many other interests that come to mind that make dealing with overseas companies, no matter how good they are, & comparing them with what is paid for locally.

While polititians are great with announcements proclaiming any & everything great, they are also in many areas loathe to provide & allow ongoing updates as to where a project is at, & this is a classic case.

What we had was 2 dicky boilers which were deemed no good, 01 & 30, now another one sits on the scene, which adds another one to the dickie lining.
  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
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?
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
M636C
I am no boiler expert either but could the pressure reduction be caused by the loss of rigidity by not having overlapping plates rivetted together, this I would suspect cause the Stays in this area to be further apart than they would be in a fully welded Boiler.  I say this because altering the position of stays would require mods to the outer Box as well.
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
3801's boiler when restored at the Dockyard had a new inner firebox fitted. This was made at Curtains of Revesby. When made it was pre-drilled off the original firebox plates. However to achieve this they were flattened. When the new firebox arrived to be fitted in the boiler it was found that the pre drilled stay holes did not line up. After extensive consultation with the boiler inspector the decision was taken to weld up the stay holes and re-drill them so they lined up correctly. As a result the stay holes at the front of the new firebox then ended such that a section of the new firebox was not stayed. The new firebox being slightly longer at the front. The firebox was set up to be lined up from the rear as these dimensions were critical when the firebox was fitted.

With this problem two alternatives were available, add additional staying to the front un-stayed area. This was considered to be very difficult given the area in question and the possible sealing of such stays as they would need to be in the radius of the boiler shell, there was also issues with expansion and contraction of the stays. The other option was to leave the staying alone and to protect the unstayed area reduce the boiler pressure. It was decided that although the boiler was tested to 245PSI the reduction of the boiler pressure would not only protect the inner firebox but also increase the longevity of the boiler given that it was required to get 20 years out of this boiler before further restoration would be required.

The other consideration was that the boiler was tested in August of 1986, the locomotive needing to be ready for November 1986. The addition work was both time consuming and complex given the staying required and as the original restoration date had been cut short by over 6 months it was considered there was insufficient time to attempt to stay this area given the completion date set for the locomotive.

3801 returned to steam on 8 November 1986 with a reduced boiler pressure and continued in service for the duration of her lease and then for a further couple of years.

As far as 3820, its boiler was also inspected along with 3813. It was decided after several area's were cut out of 13's that 01 (3819) boiler was in the best condition overall and the boiler needing the least amount of work which was a critical consideration given the restoration was done by out of work apprentices.  

When Railcorp started there assessment process through the ORH all locomotives were considered. It was in this process where 3820 was to be kept as the representative of an express passenger locomotive because it was still in as built and ex service condition. by this time 3801 was restored as an operational locomotive with welded tender and safety equipment installed to allow it to operated post Brooklyn. When 30 was restored it to has a welded tender and modification as 01 to allow it to operate on the main line. Only 3820 was considered a 'core item' like 01 and 30 none of the 36's or 3526 were considered because of modification over the years in service and the recommendation was to keep these locomotives active in preservation for as long as operationally possible.  

Regards

Greg.
  M636C Minister for Railways

3801's boiler when restored at the Dockyard had a new inner firebox fitted. This was made at Curtains of Revesby. When made it was pre-drilled off the original firebox plates. However to achieve this they were flattened. When the new firebox arrived to be fitted in the boiler it was found that the pre drilled stay holes did not line up. After extensive consultation with the boiler inspector the decision was taken to weld up the stay holes and re-drill them so they lined up correctly. As a result the stay holes at the front of the new firebox then ended such that a section of the new firebox was not stayed. The new firebox being slightly longer at the front. The firebox was set up to be lined up from the rear as these dimensions were critical when the firebox was fitted.

With this problem two alternatives were available, add additional staying to the front un-stayed area. This was considered to be very difficult given the area in question and the possible sealing of such stays as they would need to be in the radius of the boiler shell, there was also issues with expansion and contraction of the stays. The other option was to leave the staying alone and to protect the unstayed area reduce the boiler pressure. It was decided that although the boiler was tested to 245PSI the reduction of the boiler pressure would not only protect the inner firebox but also increase the longevity of the boiler given that it was required to get 20 years out of this boiler before further restoration would be required.
Greg.
Aussielgb


That sounds quite convincing.
So all we have to do is either get a new inner firebox to the correct dimensions and stay pattern or modify the existing one with a new throatplate making it the right size and you get the original boiler pressure back...

We might be able to get it right this time...

M636C
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
3801's boiler when restored at the Dockyard had a new inner firebox fitted. This was made at Curtains of Revesby. When made it was pre-drilled off the original firebox plates. However to achieve this they were flattened. When the new firebox arrived to be fitted in the boiler it was found that the pre drilled stay holes did not line up. After extensive consultation with the boiler inspector the decision was taken to weld up the stay holes and re-drill them so they lined up correctly. As a result the stay holes at the front of the new firebox then ended such that a section of the new firebox was not stayed. The new firebox being slightly longer at the front. The firebox was set up to be lined up from the rear as these dimensions were critical when the firebox was fitted.

With this problem two alternatives were available, add additional staying to the front un-stayed area. This was considered to be very difficult given the area in question and the possible sealing of such stays as they would need to be in the radius of the boiler shell, there was also issues with expansion and contraction of the stays. The other option was to leave the staying alone and to protect the unstayed area reduce the boiler pressure. It was decided that although the boiler was tested to 245PSI the reduction of the boiler pressure would not only protect the inner firebox but also increase the longevity of the boiler given that it was required to get 20 years out of this boiler before further restoration would be required.

The other consideration was that the boiler was tested in August of 1986, the locomotive needing to be ready for November 1986. The addition work was both time consuming and complex given the staying required and as the original restoration date had been cut short by over 6 months it was considered there was insufficient time to attempt to stay this area given the completion date set for the locomotive.

3801 returned to steam on 8 November 1986 with a reduced boiler pressure and continued in service for the duration of her lease and then for a further couple of years.

As far as 3820, its boiler was also inspected along with 3813. It was decided after several area's were cut out of 13's that 01 (3819) boiler was in the best condition overall and the boiler needing the least amount of work which was a critical consideration given the restoration was done by out of work apprentices.  

When Railcorp started there assessment process through the ORH all locomotives were considered. It was in this process where 3820 was to be kept as the representative of an express passenger locomotive because it was still in as built and ex service condition. by this time 3801 was restored as an operational locomotive with welded tender and safety equipment installed to allow it to operated post Brooklyn. When 30 was restored it to has a welded tender and modification as 01 to allow it to operate on the main line. Only 3820 was considered a 'core item' like 01 and 30 none of the 36's or 3526 were considered because of modification over the years in service and the recommendation was to keep these locomotives active in preservation for as long as operationally possible.  

Regards

Greg.
Aussielgb
Thanks Greg.
A credible post at last
  a6et Minister for Railways

3801's boiler when restored at the Dockyard had a new inner firebox fitted. This was made at Curtains of Revesby. When made it was pre-drilled off the original firebox plates. However to achieve this they were flattened. When the new firebox arrived to be fitted in the boiler it was found that the pre drilled stay holes did not line up. After extensive consultation with the boiler inspector the decision was taken to weld up the stay holes and re-drill them so they lined up correctly. As a result the stay holes at the front of the new firebox then ended such that a section of the new firebox was not stayed. The new firebox being slightly longer at the front. The firebox was set up to be lined up from the rear as these dimensions were critical when the firebox was fitted.

With this problem two alternatives were available, add additional staying to the front un-stayed area. This was considered to be very difficult given the area in question and the possible sealing of such stays as they would need to be in the radius of the boiler shell, there was also issues with expansion and contraction of the stays. The other option was to leave the staying alone and to protect the unstayed area reduce the boiler pressure. It was decided that although the boiler was tested to 245PSI the reduction of the boiler pressure would not only protect the inner firebox but also increase the longevity of the boiler given that it was required to get 20 years out of this boiler before further restoration would be required.

The other consideration was that the boiler was tested in August of 1986, the locomotive needing to be ready for November 1986. The addition work was both time consuming and complex given the staying required and as the original restoration date had been cut short by over 6 months it was considered there was insufficient time to attempt to stay this area given the completion date set for the locomotive.

3801 returned to steam on 8 November 1986 with a reduced boiler pressure and continued in service for the duration of her lease and then for a further couple of years.

As far as 3820, its boiler was also inspected along with 3813. It was decided after several area's were cut out of 13's that 01 (3819) boiler was in the best condition overall and the boiler needing the least amount of work which was a critical consideration given the restoration was done by out of work apprentices.  

When Railcorp started there assessment process through the ORH all locomotives were considered. It was in this process where 3820 was to be kept as the representative of an express passenger locomotive because it was still in as built and ex service condition. by this time 3801 was restored as an operational locomotive with welded tender and safety equipment installed to allow it to operated post Brooklyn. When 30 was restored it to has a welded tender and modification as 01 to allow it to operate on the main line. Only 3820 was considered a 'core item' like 01 and 30 none of the 36's or 3526 were considered because of modification over the years in service and the recommendation was to keep these locomotives active in preservation for as long as operationally possible.  

Regards

Greg.
Aussielgb
Greg

Thanks for that information as it helps a lot in how the decision making was made.

Some posts in the past have indicated that the boiler in 3820 had areas cut out in it to keep 01 & not sure if 30 was included in that as well, also the areas of which the cut outs were taken from, what has not been mentioned, at least to what I have read or heard of is that has also been found on 13's boiler.

Certainly I remember being at Eveliegh on several occassions whene 13 was undergoing the gift overhaul before Shirley saw it, & the boiler was complete & all work was said to be finished on it, & nothing had been cut from it at that stage.  

Also & again I am not totally sure on this but at that time 20 was being used as a serviceble engine so it too was complete, & once that era finished it was only later that the cutting areas took place, but what I am wondering is there any sort of time line or similar when the cutting of 13's also 20's boiler took place, & what purposses were they for?

The other thing is that its been said in posts on 20's problems that it has been cannibalised of parts to keep the others in service, again I would be interested in knowing what those parts are.

I also wonder at the loss of experience gainded by those works apprentices, & how many still are working in their field of trade, & would they be able to offer some help in the steam preservation area all these years on, likewise those from the HVDC, simlarly involved in steam work?
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
All 3 38 class boilers were examined internally prior to 3801's restoration. Originally it was only the replacement of the inner firebox which was cause for concern. However when the firebox was removed the boiler inspector required an in-depth examination of the complete boiler. During this inspection it was found that there appeared to be hair line cracks in the rear internal corners of the Back head plates (the rear outer firebox plate where the fire hole door is mounted). These cracks were numerous and caused some concern.

3813 was only ever considered a doner parts 38 and so it was decided to investigate if it to had these cracks and the best method to repair them. A decision was made by the boiler inspector to cut sections of the rear corners out of 13's boiler to do extensive testing and find a solution before any work was done on 01's boiler. These plates were sent to the railway laboratory and experimental welding and testing procedures developed and suitable testing methods. It was found that these cracks were not very deep and so they could be ground out and welded, then die tested to check the results. This was done to all of them on both sides an in my video '3801 back in steam 1986' you can see this process indicated by the white with red die inside the outer firebox. This process took some considerable time.  



https://youtu.be/wNl3cg_-aO8


As for 3820. Yes parts were removed from her temporarily, but were replaced. This occurred twice once in July 1987 when
01 was vandalised at the LES when gauges, numbers and the builders plates were stolen off the locomotive. One other item was
the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was
completed the original parts were put back on 20. This incident which was 3801's first official run out of LES was the reason 3001
was used to replace 3801, re numbered 3801 with the infamous 'We Deliver' headboard. The only other time was when 3801 failed
on its way to Perth and had to have the crank pin replaced the Sant Fe big-end busk was sent over but again returned to 20 once a
replacement had been sourced for 01. Other than this 3820 has not been touched at all, 13 however is another story.

With the back corners of 01 able to be repaired the restoration was able to continue and the repairs made and inspected every step
of the way. With the staying problem the boiler inspector was still not totally convinced of the conditions the new welded firebox
might face so after x-raying and magnetic particle testing, so the CSIRO conducted an 'Acoustic Emissions' test which finally satisfied
the boiler inspector that the boiler was satisfactorily repaired and ready for service. Although the 2 boiler test conduct on 12 and 19
August 1986 proved successful as 01 primary reason for restoration was to be the 'Flag ship' for State Rail during the 1988
Bi-Centenary and a very involved program was being developed the boiler inspector made his decisions based on the crowds that
would be drawn to the locomotive and in consideration that 3801 needed to be operational for 20 years in order to raise the funds
to allow it to be self funding by the time of the next restoration. The life of the boiler dictating the terms of the lease.period.

Hope this helps further.

Regards

Greg.      
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
All 3 38 class boilers were examined internally prior to 3801's restoration. Originally it was only the replacement of the inner firebox which was cause for concern. However when the firebox was removed the boiler inspector required an in-depth examination of the complete boiler. During this inspection it was found that there appeared to be hair line cracks in the rear internal corners of the Back head plates (the rear outer firebox plate where the fire hole door is mounted). These cracks were numerous and caused some concern.

3813 was only ever considered a doner parts 38 and so it was decided to investigate if it to had these cracks and the best method to repair them. A decision was made by the boiler inspector to cut sections of the rear corners out of 13's boiler to do extensive testing and find a solution before any work was done on 01's boiler. These plates were sent to the railway laboratory and experimental welding and testing procedures developed and suitable testing methods. It was found that these cracks were not very deep and so they could be ground out and welded, then die tested to check the results. This was done to all of them on both sides an in my video '3801 back in steam 1986' you can see this process indicated by the white with red die inside the outer firebox. This process took some considerable time.  



https://youtu.be/wNl3cg_-aO8


As for 3820. Yes parts were removed from her temporarily, but were replaced. This occurred twice once in July 1987 when
01 was vandalised at the LES when gauges, numbers and the builders plates were stolen off the locomotive. One other item was
the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was
completed the original parts were put back on 20. This incident which was 3801's first official run out of LES was the reason 3001
was used to replace 3801, re numbered 3801 with the infamous 'We Deliver' headboard. The only other time was when 3801 failed
on its way to Perth and had to have the crank pin replaced the Sant Fe big-end busk was sent over but again returned to 20 once a
replacement had been sourced for 01. Other than this 3820 has not been touched at all, 13 however is another story.

With the back corners of 01 able to be repaired the restoration was able to continue and the repairs made and inspected every step
of the way. With the staying problem the boiler inspector was still not totally convinced of the conditions the new welded firebox
might face so after x-raying and magnetic particle testing, so the CSIRO conducted an 'Acoustic Emissions' test which finally satisfied
the boiler inspector that the boiler was satisfactorily repaired and ready for service. Although the 2 boiler test conduct on 12 and 19
August 1986 proved successful as 01 primary reason for restoration was to be the 'Flag ship' for State Rail during the 1988
Bi-Centenary and a very involved program was being developed the boiler inspector made his decisions based on the crowds that
would be drawn to the locomotive and in consideration that 3801 needed to be operational for 20 years in order to raise the funds
to allow it to be self funding by the time of the next restoration. The life of the boiler dictating the terms of the lease.period.

Hope this helps further.

Regards

Greg.      
  a6et Minister for Railways

All 3 38 class boilers were examined internally prior to 3801's restoration. Originally it was only the replacement of the inner firebox which was cause for concern. However when the firebox was removed the boiler inspector required an in-depth examination of the complete boiler. During this inspection it was found that there appeared to be hair line cracks in the rear internal corners of the Back head plates (the rear outer firebox plate where the fire hole door is mounted). These cracks were numerous and caused some concern.

3813 was only ever considered a doner parts 38 and so it was decided to investigate if it to had these cracks and the best method to repair them. A decision was made by the boiler inspector to cut sections of the rear corners out of 13's boiler to do extensive testing and find a solution before any work was done on 01's boiler. These plates were sent to the railway laboratory and experimental welding and testing procedures developed and suitable testing methods. It was found that these cracks were not very deep and so they could be ground out and welded, then die tested to check the results. This was done to all of them on both sides an in my video '3801 back in steam 1986' you can see this process indicated by the white with red die inside the outer firebox. This process took some considerable time.  



https://youtu.be/wNl3cg_-aO8


As for 3820. Yes parts were removed from her temporarily, but were replaced. This occurred twice once in July 1987 when
01 was vandalised at the LES when gauges, numbers and the builders plates were stolen off the locomotive. One other item was
the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was
completed the original parts were put back on 20. This incident which was 3801's first official run out of LES was the reason 3001
was used to replace 3801, re numbered 3801 with the infamous 'We Deliver' headboard. The only other time was when 3801 failed
on its way to Perth and had to have the crank pin replaced the Sant Fe big-end busk was sent over but again returned to 20 once a
replacement had been sourced for 01. Other than this 3820 has not been touched at all, 13 however is another story.

With the back corners of 01 able to be repaired the restoration was able to continue and the repairs made and inspected every step
of the way. With the staying problem the boiler inspector was still not totally convinced of the conditions the new welded firebox
might face so after x-raying and magnetic particle testing, so the CSIRO conducted an 'Acoustic Emissions' test which finally satisfied
the boiler inspector that the boiler was satisfactorily repaired and ready for service. Although the 2 boiler test conduct on 12 and 19
August 1986 proved successful as 01 primary reason for restoration was to be the 'Flag ship' for State Rail during the 1988
Bi-Centenary and a very involved program was being developed the boiler inspector made his decisions based on the crowds that
would be drawn to the locomotive and in consideration that 3801 needed to be operational for 20 years in order to raise the funds
to allow it to be self funding by the time of the next restoration. The life of the boiler dictating the terms of the lease.period.

Hope this helps further.

Regards

Greg.      
Aussielgb
Thanks very much Greg, I will check out the video late & download the link for future reference

It would seem that the previous posts relating to 20 having parts removed only lasted long enough for that disclosure & its good to hear that is read that 20 is complete.

The big hope is that the other issues relating to 01 & 30 are resolved & that they are back on the tracks sonner rather than later.
  apw5910 Chief Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
As for 3820. Yes parts were removed from her temporarily, but were replaced. This occurred twice once in July 1987 when
01 was vandalised at the LES when gauges, numbers and the builders plates were stolen off the locomotive. One other item was
the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was
completed the original parts were put back on 20. This incident which was 3801's first official run out of LES was the reason 3001
was used to replace 3801, re numbered 3801 with the infamous 'We Deliver' headboard.
Aussielgb
Oh yes, I remember that now. Were the stolen parts ever found? I suppose cab numbers and gauges would be easy to nick and sell on, but a whole reverser?

There was certainly an element of "cheekiness" with putting the "We Deliver" headboard on 3(0 or 8)01. It was really from an Australia Post promotion at the time.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
I suppose cab numbers and gauges would be easy to nick and sell on, but a whole reverser?
"apw5910"
Cor lumme, mate; do the poster a favour and read what he wrote:-

"One other item was the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was completed the original parts were put back on 20."
  M636C Minister for Railways

I suppose cab numbers and gauges would be easy to nick and sell on, but a whole reverser?
"apw5910"
Cor lumme, mate; do the poster a favour and read what he wrote:-

"One other item was the cab reverser which was removed from 20 to allow Eveleigh Workshops to cast and manufacture a new one. Once this was completed the original parts were put back on 20."
"Valvegear"


I think the question could be rephrased:

What happened to 3801's reverser such that it needed a new one?

You might expect that 3801's reverser would be as good as 3820s...

If it wasn't stolen (which isn't clear from the earlier post) had it worn excessively or did it have some other defect?

M636C
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
I'd have a semi-educated guess that the casting section of 01's reverser was worn beyond economical repair, and the pattern was nowhere to be found.
  Aussielgb Locomotive Fireman

Location: Gulmarrad Station
I'd have a semi-educated guess that the casting section of 01's reverser was worn beyond economical repair, and the pattern was nowhere to be found.
Valvegear
To be perfectly clear.
When 3801 left Thirlmere for its new home at the Large Erecting Shop it did its first run with 2 cars to launch the 'Chullora Junction' Album.
The next run from the LES was to be 3801's first public run. On the morning of this run I was at the large to light up 01. When we arrived the cabside numbers, builders plates and other plates were missing off the locomotive and tender. All of the pressure gauges and brake gauges were also missing. At this point it was considered theft. We had spare gauges we could have fitted to make the run. However theft turned to deliberate sabotage when the complete cab reversing screw assembly was removed from the cab meaning 01 was going no where.
To get 01 operational again, the reversing screw assembly was removed from 3820 and sent to Eveleigh Workshops so a new one could be manufactured and fitted to 01.
Once this was done the original parts taken from 20 were returned to her at Thirlmere.
As 01 was unable to meet its first runs of July August 1987 3801 Ltd trips were done with both RTM and LVR loco's. This as I said is when 3001 was renumbered 3801 and fitted with the 'We Deliver' headboard which had nothing to do with Australia Post, 3801 Ltd was unable to deliver 01 but the RTM could deliver a locomotive.

Regards

Greg.
  meh Chief Commissioner
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
The next run from the LES was to be 3801's first public run. On the morning of this run I was at the large to light up 01. When we arrived the cabside numbers, builders plates and other plates were missing off the locomotive and tender. All of the pressure gauges and brake gauges were also missing. At this point it was considered theft. We had spare gauges we could have fitted to make the run. However theft turned to deliberate sabotage when the complete cab reversing screw assembly was removed from the cab meaning 01 was going no where.
"Aussielgb"
Thanks for your very informative post. What is the mindset of individuals who do this and other forms of wanton destruction? I suspect that they are serial under-achievers who can't actually make anything and the only way to get satisfaction is to wreck something instead. Then, at least they can say, "Look what I can do."

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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