3801 Boiler

 
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
t would certainly seem more sensible to modify the frame to make the boiler fit rather than waffle around for another 5 years with nothing at all.
"Showtime"
Spoken by someone with no knowledge of locomotive construction. Just how would you modify a cast steel frame, and how long would it take? Despite the recent experience, it is really not beyond the wit of man to build a boiler accurately in accordance with drawings.

Sponsored advertisement

  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Just how would you modify a cast steel frame, and how long would it take?
Valvegear
Pass me the angle grinder!
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
  CraigW Assistant Commissioner

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
Showtime
With the original boiler now being restored, there is no need for the frame to be modified so your idea seems more than a little pointless.

Craig W
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
With the original boiler now being restored, there is no need for the frame to be modified so your idea seems more than a little pointless.

Craig W
CraigW
Of course it is pointless now.
But if you were in business would you sit without an important piece of equipment for 5 years waiting for a miracle repair or would you try and make what you had work.
Whilst I have never constructed a locomotive I am more than aware that the 38's have cast frames made in the US back around WW11.
Coming from a background where my family had heavy earthmoving equipment and an engineering shop we found ways to make anything work when you didn't have parts, and both my father and brother were boilermakers so they could weld anything long before mig/tig welders were around.
It was pathetic that the boiler wasn't rolled to specification, but given that was the eventual situation, then a solution to adapt it to the frames could have been a possibility, but I suppose no one was game at the time to make any alterations to an irreplaceable item. But you shouldn't say it couldn't have done.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
With the original boiler now being restored, there is no need for the frame to be modified so your idea seems more than a little pointless.

Craig W
Of course it is pointless now.
But if you were in business would you sit without an important piece of equipment for 5 years waiting for a miracle repair or would you try and make what you had work.
Whilst I have never constructed a locomotive I am more than aware that the 38's have cast frames made in the US back around WW11.
Coming from a background where my family had heavy earthmoving equipment and an engineering shop we found ways to make anything work when you didn't have parts, and both my father and brother were boilermakers so they could weld anything long before mig/tig welders were around.
It was pathetic that the boiler wasn't rolled to specification, but given that was the eventual situation, then a solution to adapt it to the frames could have been a possibility, but I suppose no one was game at the time to make any alterations to an irreplaceable item. But you shouldn't say it couldn't have done.
Showtime
you can't cast another frame?

we're not talking about a JCB, or John Deer.

Anyone who wants to take a gas axe, or similar to 38 frame, needs their head examined.

Yeah, it's been a screw up, but chopping bits from a design that has been  proven, not the way to go.

And I do do come from an engineering background.
  M636C Minister for Railways

It would certainly seem more sensible to modify the frame to make the boiler fit rather than waffle around for another 5 years with nothing at all.
Showtime
As I understand it, no change would have been required to the frame.

Apparently the front tubeplate sat at an angle to its intended position, and could not be bolted up to the existing smokebox. I would have thought that manufacturing a new smokebox to match the boiler would have been a fairly easy task, and all this would have been hidden from sight by the boiler cladding.

I'm told that the boiler does not meet Australian Standards.

It may have been possible to get an exemption from some Australian Standards since the boiler presumably met the standards required in Germany, and would have been pressure tested and steam tested in Germany and the appropriate documentation would have been available.

The manufacturer apparently agreed that some firebox stays did not meet the appropriate standard, and all of these were replaced at their cost when the boiler was returned to Germany.

The boiler of Tornado had similar problems with stays, and that boiler was returned to Germany twice for replacement of stays. But the locomotive ran many miles with the boiler as originally supplied, and I'm sure 3801 could have done so too.

We are not talking about nuclear physics here.

The German boiler was clearly more "rough and ready" than was expected here.

But it worked as a boiler and passed the required tests.

I suspect the problem was that the customer said "It isn't what we wanted" and the manufacturer said "it is exactly what you asked for".

When the boiler was returned to Germany, there were statements made that the Germans would have to build a new boiler since the one supplied was unsatisfactory.

Clearly this didn't happen, so the boiler must have been built to the specification provided.

I note that one feature of "Tornado" was that all the drawings involved including those of the boiler, were redrawn to current standards.

I'm fairly sure this wasn't done for 3801 and this might have been a good idea.

But since there was to be no new boiler without more money being paid, the whole "Return to Germany" operation became a bigger embarrassment and nobody wanted to say anything.

But if 3801's boiler was easier to fix than the new boiler, that would always have been the case and could have been done ten years ago.

M636C
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
"Showtime"
Rule 1; do not create a second stuff-up to fix the first one.
Modify the frame and what have you got? A frame which will take the only out-of-spec. boiler in existence;  a boiler, furthermore, which does not meet Australian Standards.  Leave the frame alone and you have the opportunity to overhaul and use any 38 class boiler.
Changing  3801's frame would be boneheaded and shortsighted in the extreme.
  a6et Minister for Railways

It would certainly seem more sensible to modify the frame to make the boiler fit rather than waffle around for another 5 years with nothing at all.
As I understand it, no change would have been required to the frame.

Apparently the front tubeplate sat at an angle to its intended position, and could not be bolted up to the existing smokebox. I would have thought that manufacturing a new smokebox to match the boiler would have been a fairly easy task, and all this would have been hidden from sight by the boiler cladding.

I'm told that the boiler does not meet Australian Standards.

It may have been possible to get an exemption from some Australian Standards since the boiler presumably met the standards required in Germany, and would have been pressure tested and steam tested in Germany and the appropriate documentation would have been available.

The manufacturer apparently agreed that some firebox stays did not meet the appropriate standard, and all of these were replaced at their cost when the boiler was returned to Germany.

The boiler of Tornado had similar problems with stays, and that boiler was returned to Germany twice for replacement of stays. But the locomotive ran many miles with the boiler as originally supplied, and I'm sure 3801 could have done so too.

We are not talking about nuclear physics here.

The German boiler was clearly more "rough and ready" than was expected here.

But it worked as a boiler and passed the required tests.

I suspect the problem was that the customer said "It isn't what we wanted" and the manufacturer said "it is exactly what you asked for".

When the boiler was returned to Germany, there were statements made that the Germans would have to build a new boiler since the one supplied was unsatisfactory.

Clearly this didn't happen, so the boiler must have been built to the specification provided.

I note that one feature of "Tornado" was that all the drawings involved including those of the boiler, were redrawn to current standards.

I'm fairly sure this wasn't done for 3801 and this might have been a good idea.

But since there was to be no new boiler without more money being paid, the whole "Return to Germany" operation became a bigger embarrassment and nobody wanted to say anything.

But if 3801's boiler was easier to fix than the new boiler, that would always have been the case and could have been done ten years ago.

M636C
M636C
Fair point M, regarding a new Smokebox being rerolled to fit the German boiler, if was both feasible and workable. I would think that there would still be some heavy engineering firms here that would be capable of doing it.

What I believe also needs to happen is to get the LES back as the premier workshop for steam locomotives, being close to Sydney transport there would be more chance to get staff to work on steam than at Thirlmere. While Thirlmere is more than adequate for general running repairs with the staff available, the future of heritage steam needs a more central and convenient location to carry out the major works needed beyond the general running repairs.

I don't know what else is left of the old works areas, there was someone who was operating the foundry and employed apprentices to train them in the trade, but there was talk some time ago that he was being evicted for another latte`shop. its a real pity to see the facilities under utilised. Not only that surely there is room in one of the roads for the primary operating carriages to be stored along with the operating locomotives rather then having to run empty cars each time a trip is organised and/or scheduled at each end of the working.

Whether steam is to have a future will very much depend on having qualified maintenance staff to continue to keep them running, and far easier to get them at a central location where Public transport is readily available then how things a done now.

The other aspect with the boiler debacle is that Transport Heritage should also be canvassing local builders that can build boilers to the specs needed, again it helps the workforce into the future.
  allambee Chief Train Controller


I'm told that the boiler does not meet Australian Standards.

It may have been possible to get an exemption from some Australian Standards since the boiler presumably met the standards required in Germany, and would have been pressure tested and steam tested in Germany and the appropriate documentation would have been available.

M636C
M636C
NSW is one of the few states (east coast) where AS codes are written into Legislation which was done years ago to protect local fabricators some who also have the ASME certification. I cannot use the more globally recognized standard ASME code in NSW. Not entry true, its a real pain to find a qualified engineer (with professional indemnity insurance) who is experienced enough to sign off on compliance here.  It's the bane of my life, not just pressure vessels, but tendering on anything with "NSW Transport" stamped on it costs considerably more when compared with other comparable transport project in similar 1st world country standards. If the boiler was used in Western Australia it would be all okay. The lawyers have probably put it in the too hard basket to claw money back from the consultant involved under their Professional Indemnity Insurance and the engineer responsible has gone back to the UK where his experience was in 2ft gauge locomotive boilers on UK preserved railways. But to take it thru the arbitration or the courts would have revealed skeletons in the closet with the "competitive tendering approach" of original tender. I lay the blame solely here. No 3rd party inspection services hired (despite the overseas travel junkets enjoyed by some here) , and seemingly they did not tell the Germans about the requirement AS codes. If they had, the Germans would surely declined to tender or if they did it would have been very easy to see their offer that was technically non conforming as a properly written tender work package would have requested compliance as part of the offer. As for the recent spin by the rail heritage mob about re-tendering and award to the company in Goulburn, I cannot find any mention of the tender award advertised (even to select prequalified tenderers) on the tendersnsw register.
  M636C Minister for Railways

NSW is one of the few states (east coast) where AS codes are written into Legislation which was done years ago to protect local fabricators some who also have the ASME certification. I cannot use the more globally recognized standard ASME code in NSW. Not entry true, its a real pain to find a qualified engineer (with professional indemnity insurance) who is experienced enough to sign off on compliance here.  It's the bane of my life, not just pressure vessels, but tendering on anything with "NSW Transport" stamped on it costs considerably more when compared with other comparable transport project in similar 1st world country standards. If the boiler was used in Western Australia it would be all okay. The lawyers have probably put it in the too hard basket to claw money back from the consultant involved under their Professional Indemnity Insurance and the engineer responsible has gone back to the UK where his experience was in 2ft gauge locomotive boilers on UK preserved railways. But to take it thru the arbitration or the courts would have revealed skeletons in the closet with the "competitive tendering approach" of original tender. I lay the blame solely here. No 3rd party inspection services hired (despite the overseas travel junkets enjoyed by some here) , and seemingly they did not tell the Germans about the requirement AS codes. If they had, the Germans would surely declined to tender or if they did it would have been very easy to see their offer that was technically non conforming as a properly written tender work package would have requested compliance as part of the offer. As for the recent spin by the rail heritage mob about re-tendering and award to the company in Goulburn, I cannot find any mention of the tender award advertised (even to select prequalified tenderers) on the tendersnsw register.
allambee

So in a quick summary:

We have a fully serviceable boiler which can't be used because it was built to a design that does not meet legal requirements.

But this was only discovered after the boiler was delivered and lowered on to the frame?

Quite apart from third party inspection, did anyone inspect it at all (other than the Germans who found that it met the non AS compliant requirements to which it was built...?)

Was all of this even known when the boiler was uselessly and expensively returned to Germany and left there for years with no prospect of anything happening to it?

And we even brought it back at considerable expense knowing that it could never be used....

If there was a Nobel Prize for incompetence these guys would be up there in line for an award.

If the companies in line to repair the previous 3801 boiler knew this, they would have been brave to tender.

M636C
  allambee Chief Train Controller


So in a quick summary:

We have a fully serviceable boiler which can't be used because it was built to a design that does not meet legal requirements.

But this was only discovered after the boiler was delivered and lowered on to the frame?

Quite apart from third party inspection, did anyone inspect it at all (other than the Germans who found that it met the non AS compliant requirements to which it was built...?)

Was all of this even known when the boiler was uselessly and expensively returned to Germany and left there for years with no prospect of anything happening to it?

And we even brought it back at considerable expense knowing that it could never be used....

If there was a Nobel Prize for incompetence these guys would be up there in line for an award.

If the companies in line to repair the previous 3801 boiler knew this, they would have been brave to tender.

M636C
M636C
I understand there were some dimensional issues too.
I also understand the Germans submitted their tender proposal late after tenders had closed.
Even with the dimensional issues, I cannot blame the Germans, no competent inspection by the client to ensure the boiler conformed to the specifications set down in the contract. Such mistakes should have been uncovered even before it left the yard in Germany. If I have procurement and project engineer people purchase a heat exchanger, boiler or pressure pipework, we'll send our own inspectors on a regular basis to visit the fabricators facility or engage a inspection company if overseas during the fabrication, and we'll want to see paperwork such as welder certification to the code, mill certificates for the plate, NDT reports, dimensional checks etc. And all workshop fabrication drawings, welding procedures etc done by the fabricator have to be approved by us BEFORE fabrication.
A competent transport minister or a director in the private sector would would be saying, "fella's you blew it, no more cash, go raise your own money from existing budgets or fundraise it".
Unfortunately as many would know, the control of heritage railways have become highly politicized in NSW. It was back when the ALP was in power with the LES and developers and is more so now. Go looking thru the Herald and on LinkedIn and you will see what I mean. Rent seeking individuals connected to the current LNP in government getting a guernsey for positions related to the running of heritage trains in NSW.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
To date, I have not heard one good reason for having the boiler fabricated in Germany.
  Spinner5711 Train Controller

To all talking about modifying 3801's cast bed or stating that the boiler is serviceable etc, the answer, in German ist nein und nein.

The 'foreign' boiler does not fit at either end, that is, the smokebox tubeplate is not perpendicular to the boiler centreline and the firebox is too large.  To paraphrase a certain science fiction tv series: "She cannae take it."

The boiler is not serviceable.  In its present condition it cannot be certified as fit for rail service.  The front tubeplate place uneven stresses on itself, the boiler barrel and every tube.  There is an internal girder stay, at the firebox end, which is made of seemingly 'mystery metal.'  Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements without separation of inner & outer fireboxes.

The whole idea of future plans is to have the 'foreign boiler' modified to suit our standards and just as importantly, to make it dimensionally (external) identical with the other four 38 Class Boilers, so any of the currently five 38 Class boilers can be fitted to any of the four currently surviving 38 Class frames, at any time (not right now of course!!)

To modify 3801's cast bed would be to make it an orphan. which is not what THNSW or any other organisation should be supporting.  Similarly, to modify the cast frame introduces a whole lot of other problems such as design certification etc which is trouble that is just not necessary.

Let us let 'Rivets' (not GG1 4800) be repaired and then we'll have 3801 roaming the rails again, shouting its defiance at our hills etc.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
The 'foreign' boiler does not fit at either end, that is, the smokebox tubeplate is not perpendicular to the boiler centreline and the firebox is too large.  To paraphrase a certain science fiction tv series: "She cannae take it."

The boiler is not serviceable.  In its present condition it cannot be certified as fit for rail service.  The front tubeplate place uneven stresses on itself, the boiler barrel and every tube.  There is an internal girder stay, at the firebox end, which is made of seemingly 'mystery metal.'  Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements without separation of inner & outer fireboxes.
Spinner5711
So, who is responsible for this complete and utter stuff up and will they be held accountable?
  a6et Minister for Railways

The 'foreign' boiler does not fit at either end, that is, the smokebox tubeplate is not perpendicular to the boiler centreline and the firebox is too large.  To paraphrase a certain science fiction tv series: "She cannae take it."

The boiler is not serviceable.  In its present condition it cannot be certified as fit for rail service.  The front tubeplate place uneven stresses on itself, the boiler barrel and every tube.  There is an internal girder stay, at the firebox end, which is made of seemingly 'mystery metal.'  Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements without separation of inner & outer fireboxes.
So, who is responsible for this complete and utter stuff up and will they be held accountable?
Graham4405
Would say a government appointment to the head role at the time who basically knew nothing about real heritage despite some sort of Uni training degree, said the right things in the right places and got the job, knowing nothing about the requirements didn't help but the tenderer must have put in a convincing arguement especially the amount of new steam stuff they were producing, some of dubious standards aside, the government is accountable to no one so no worries about forking out a nice amount of money for publicity to see such an icon of the rails back in service before the next election, better believe it wont hit the newspapers, as the person responsible has been replaced.
  M636C Minister for Railways

The 'foreign' boiler does not fit at either end, that is, the smokebox tubeplate is not perpendicular to the boiler centreline and the firebox is too large.  To paraphrase a certain science fiction tv series: "She cannae take it."

The boiler is not serviceable.  In its present condition it cannot be certified as fit for rail service.  The front tubeplate place uneven stresses on itself, the boiler barrel and every tube.  There is an internal girder stay, at the firebox end, which is made of seemingly 'mystery metal.'  Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements without separation of inner & outer fireboxes.
Spinner5711
"the firebox is too large?"

By how much? In which directions?

A boiler is normally fixed at the smokebox end and sits on slides at the firebox end to account for expansion and contraction between hot and cold. Its width isn't very important until it gets to the limits of the loading gauge. I'd expect that ir could be maybe 100mm too long without affecting the locomotive too much. You might need to adjust the coupling to the tender but that's about it. But if the firebox is too deep, and the foundation ring is too low that's a problem. So I guess that's it. I'd think it would have to be more than 20mm too deep or it could be taken into account.

We shouldn't overestimate the problems of uneven stresses. The sort of stresses in a round top firebox with conventional staying, such as that of the 36 class after the 1934 firebox reconstruction are pretty spectacularly uneven. The question is not whether the stresses are "even" but whether they are within safe limits. I'd be very surprised if they were not within safe limits.

What is of interest here is that the German boiler must have been built to the specification provided, within acceptable tolerances or they would have been required to alter the boiler to meet the specification. After all the Germans admitted that many firebox stays were not up to specification and they replaced them. So it is clear they were happy to make changes that could be shown to be out of specification.

As to the girder stay...   "Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements.." So we have a German specification that hasn't been translated? Or does nobody remember what they used? Or is it just a steel that has no acceptable equivalent in the AS field...

But if the firebox does need to be "made smaller", pulling the inner firebox out would seem to be necessary anyway so a new girder stay could be fitted at that stage.

But it still sounds as though a lot of work is necessary to get the German boiler to meet Australian Standards and it is possible that it would be cheaper to start from scratch. It is likely that whatever happens, the boiler that results will be said to be the German boiler rebuilt, to avoid questions about how the whole project went so far astray.

M636C
  allambee Chief Train Controller

Would say a government appointment to the head role at the time who basically knew nothing about real heritage despite some sort of Uni training degree, said the right things in the right places and got the job, knowing nothing about the requirements didn't help but the tenderer must have put in a convincing arguement especially the amount of new steam stuff they were producing, some of dubious standards aside, the government is accountable to no one so no worries about forking out a nice amount of money for publicity to see such an icon of the rails back in service before the next election, better believe it wont hit the newspapers, as the person responsible has been replaced.
a6et
Oh, that person has been replaced, but that person could not have come to the decision made without the advice of "experts". Some of "fellow travelers" still remain. Failure seems to be rewarded.
  NSWGR 3827 Deputy Commissioner

Location: South of the Border
To all talking about modifying 3801's cast bed or stating that the boiler is serviceable etc, the answer, in German ist nein und nein.

The 'foreign' boiler does not fit at either end, that is, the smokebox tubeplate is not perpendicular to the boiler centreline and the firebox is too large.  To paraphrase a certain science fiction tv series: "She cannae take it."

The boiler is not serviceable.  In its present condition it cannot be certified as fit for rail service.  The front tubeplate place uneven stresses on itself, the boiler barrel and every tube.  There is an internal girder stay, at the firebox end, which is made of seemingly 'mystery metal.'  Its form and metallurgic composition cannot be known/understood to AS requirements without separation of inner & outer fireboxes.

The whole idea of future plans is to have the 'foreign boiler' modified to suit our standards and just as importantly, to make it dimensionally (external) identical with the other four 38 Class Boilers, so any of the currently five 38 Class boilers can be fitted to any of the four currently surviving 38 Class frames, at any time (not right now of course!!)

To modify 3801's cast bed would be to make it an orphan. which is not what THNSW or any other organisation should be supporting.  Similarly, to modify the cast frame introduces a whole lot of other problems such as design certification etc which is trouble that is just not necessary.

Let us let 'Rivets' (not GG1 4800) be repaired and then we'll have 3801 roaming the rails again, shouting its defiance at our hills etc.
Spinner5711
Question, is this Girder Stay on the Water side of the backhead, taking the place of conventional longditudinal or diagonal/gusset Stays?
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
Showtime
The bloody boiler should fit and had the project been properly handled from day 1 it would have.

If you really want to wreck things forever try modifying the IRREPLACEABLE cast steel loco frame. Sad

It's not a question of being game to 'change something' it''s a case of being wise/smart enough not to fiddle with the frame at least.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
The bloody boiler should fit and had the project been properly handled from day 1 it would have.

If you really want to wreck things forever try modifying the IRREPLACEABLE cast steel loco frame. Sad

It's not a question of being game to 'change something' it''s a case of being wise/smart enough not to fiddle with the frame at least.
YM-Mundrabilla

I note a thread regarding the tenth anniversary of 3801's return to service.

Not only won't there be a thirtieth anniversary run but it hasn't run much since the twentieth anniversay...

So it has been unserviceable for one third of its time since restoration...

It is a while since they've cast a frame in Granite City Illinois. Not even Donald Trump will get that going again.

But it seems that the boiler wouldn't meet the required standards in NSW anyway.

The West Germans developed a nice design of welded plate frame that ended up being one piece when they finished. If we wanted to use the boiler, we could get such a frame from Germany to suit the boiler. They built a new narrow gauge 2-8-2 tank with such a frame fairly recently.

You might be able to run such a locomotive outside NSW where the boiler might meet regulations. It might be a bit late to build one for the Commonwealth Railways centenary, however.

M636C
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
Perhaps the errant boiler should go back to Germany for a complete refund plus reimbursement of all costs incurred. They can use the boiler there where it doesn't have to comply with Aus/NSW standards!
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

Anything can me modified, whether it is cast or not.
There is no point saying these locos have to remain true to their original plans, especially if it means they cannot be used at all because no one is game enough to change something.
The bloody boiler should fit and had the project been properly handled from day 1 it would have.

If you really want to wreck things forever try modifying the IRREPLACEABLE cast steel loco frame. Sad

It's not a question of being game to 'change something' it''s a case of being wise/smart enough not to fiddle with the frame at least.
YM-Mundrabilla
Why are people still harping on about a comment I made in regard to modifying the frame to suit the boiler.

Whilst I know it was never going to happen, and it would be the last option, I still wanted to make the point that it could have been done anyway, despite all the naysayers saying it can't.

If you had the last 38 frame in existence and the last 38 boiler that was ever going to be made, and they didn't fit, would you just throw your hands up in the air and walk away, or would you pull your finger out and start making changes?
  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
I have no education in engineering but I would have thought when the boiler and frame were designed, one has to compliment the other.
If the frame is too small to properly support the boiler, you simply just cannot grind a bit off here and there until it does, nor the reverse if the boiler was too small for the frame.
Not taking into account the stresses exerted on both parts when the fire is lit and has a head of steam, everyday running on the track with or without a train to haul  would imply constant stress's on every part which is why even when everything is built correctly, regular inspections need to be conducted to ensure it stays that way.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Why are people still harping on about a comment I made in regard to modifying the frame to suit the boiler.
"Showtime"
Simple - it is a stupid idea.

Whilst I know it was never going to happen, and it would be the last option, I still wanted to make the point that it could have been done anyway, despite all the naysayers saying it can't.
"Showtime"
Nobody said it can't; sensible people said that you don't stuff up a second thing to cope with the original fault - you fix the mistake. Your experience with modifying earth moving equipment is not even remotely close to altering a cast steel locomotive frame and all of the ancillary equipment that goes with it.

If you had the last 38 frame in existence and the last 38 boiler that was ever going to be made, and they didn't fit, would you just throw your hands up in the air and walk away, or would you pull your finger out and start making changes?
"Showtime"
I'd go and get you to fix it all.Rolling Eyes

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: