Hi everyone...

Any more news on the Green Arrow Damage?

Is it back at York/NRM yet?

David.

"David French"  wrote in message 
news:42f24b82$1_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...

> Hi everyone...
>
> Any more news on the Green Arrow Damage?
>
> Is it back at York/NRM yet?
>
> David.
>

According to Railway Magazine, repairs are in hand using a spare part 
acquired from a former railwayman. Cylinder damage not serious.

Sean

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:15:43 +0100, "Sean Marshall"
 wrote:


>
>"David French"  wrote in message 
>news:42f24b82$1_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>> Hi everyone...
>>
>> Any more news on the Green Arrow Damage?
>>
>> Is it back at York/NRM yet?
>>
>> David.
>>
>According to Railway Magazine, repairs are in hand using a spare part 
>acquired from a former railwayman. Cylinder damage not serious.
>

Someone else can do the variety of possible "spare part" jokes. ;-)

What bit of locomotive ironmongery was it that this chap happened to
have lurking in his shed ?
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

>> Hi everyone...
>>
>> Any more news on the Green Arrow Damage?
>>
>> Is it back at York/NRM yet?
>>
>> David.
>>
> According to Railway Magazine, repairs are in hand using a spare part acquired 
> from a former railwayman. Cylinder damage not serious.
>
> Sean


Thanks Sean, I really hope it's not the 'end of the line' for this great Engine!

David.

In article ,
   Charles Ellson  wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:15:43 +0100, "Sean Marshall"
>  wrote:

> >
> >"David French"  wrote in message 
> >news:42f24b82$1_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >> Hi everyone...
> >>
> >> Any more news on the Green Arrow Damage?
> >>
> >> Is it back at York/NRM yet?
> >>
> >> David.
> >>
> >According to Railway Magazine, repairs are in hand using a spare part 
> >acquired from a former railwayman. Cylinder damage not serious.
> >
> Someone else can do the variety of possible "spare part" jokes. ;-)

> What bit of locomotive ironmongery was it that this chap happened to
> have lurking in his shed ?


Part of the center motion, reputed to be the connecting rod, but I can't
imagine why he would want something of that size sitting in his shed. And
it was the only bit he had !

David

And will the NRM now maintain it in accordance with Doncaster methods?

"David French"  wrote in message
news:42f24b82$1_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...

>

<Snip>

What a stupid subject line to use in a NEWSgroup.

-- 
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

> And will the NRM now maintain it in accordance with Doncaster methods?
>


Well, it is a bit of a double-edged sword situation, but I think a working
Steam Engine, whether 'all original' or not, is far better than a static display
in any case!

David.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:41:24 +0100, David Randles wrote:


> I can't imagine why he would want something of that size sitting in
> his shed. And it was the only bit he had !


Perhaps he was getting a whole locomotive in 600 weekly parts.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632956.html
(43 084 at Basingstoke, May 1995)

> What a stupid subject line to use in a NEWSgroup.
>
> -- 
> John Rowland - Spamtrapped>



Maybe....  but there's (almost) nothing else being posted here, is there!

David.

David French said the following on 06/08/2005 18:27:

>>What a stupid subject line to use in a NEWSgroup.
>>
>>-- 
>>John Rowland - Spamtrapped>
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe....  but there's (almost) nothing else being posted here, is there!
> 
> David.
> 
> 
> 

No news is good news?    <G>

"Roy"  wrote in message news:dd5dl6$ih8$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> David French said the following on 06/08/2005 18:27:
>>>What a stupid subject line to use in a NEWSgroup.
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>John Rowland - Spamtrapped>
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe....  but there's (almost) nothing else being posted here, is there!
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>>
> No news is good news?    <G>


Touche!!

The question "And will the NRM now maintain it in accordance with
Doncaster methods" was raised because this design weakness was
recognised many many years ago.

It was a regular routine for this type of big end to be dismantled and
NDT to be applied before re-assembly. I have no problem with the NRM
wanting to operate heritage traction so long as they maintain it in a
"fit to run" state.

To acheive such fitness to run with these historic artifacts require a
regeim of inspection and maintenance greater than that applied during
its regular working life.

It means replacing suspect parts with known good replacements as and
where necessary. If such components are not readily available it is
encumbent upon the maintainer to manufacture said parts to a
satisfactory standard.

It is not acceptable to clog up todays railways with a fun run unless
every effort is made and documented to prove these machines are
rail-worthy.

Perhaps the NRM should go back to looking after their charges in the
safe and cosseted environment indoors at York?

On 8 Aug 2005 02:07:45 -0700, 1501 wrote:


> To acheive such fitness to run with these historic artifacts require a
> regeim of inspection and maintenance greater than that applied during
> its regular working life.


I can't see why. In revenue earning service, many locomotives will have
been examined daily, and gone through works on a regular basis. In
preservation, they might run only a handful of times a year. That's got
to mean less work than previously, surely?
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683655.html
(52050 (Class 108) at Stockport, Jun 1985)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> On 8 Aug 2005 02:07:45 -0700, 1501 wrote:
>
> > To acheive such fitness to run with these historic artifacts require a
> > regeim of inspection and maintenance greater than that applied during
> > its regular working life.
>
> I can't see why.


These machines were never built to last this long. In regular service
many of the highly stressed components were inspected and replaced at
regular intervals. Without adequate stock of spares preservationists
can only keep these machines running for so long.

Simply put, they are well past their "sell by" date.


> In preservation, they might run only a handful of times a year.


But deterioration takes place to a greater of lesser extent whether
steamed ten or one hundred times a year.

I remain unconvinced that the NRM carrys out adequate inspection of
these components.

For those locomotives in even more regular use on the busier heritage
railways even non-ferrous fittings such as brake valves and injectors
are now having to be replaced.

> I can't see why.


Whether steamed ten or one hundred days a year these components
deteriorate.

I remain unconvinced that the NRM have carried out the necessary
inspections these machines require. The harsh reality is they are well
past their "sell by" date.

Operators of the busier heritage railways are now finding non-ferrous
components like injectors and lubricators etc. are needing to be
replaced.

On 10 Aug 2005 06:11:02 -0700, 1501 wrote, in response to my...

>> I can't see why.
> Whether steamed ten or one hundred days a year these components
> deteriorate. I remain unconvinced that the NRM have carried out the
> necessary inspections these machines require. The harsh reality is
> they are well past their "sell by" date. 

Rubbish. When some of the locos under consideration were being built in
the mid 20th century, the companies building them were still operating
stuff 80-100 years old. These things were built to last. Our culture of
obsolescence is a more recent thing.
 

> Operators of the busier heritage railways are now finding non-ferrous
> components like injectors and lubricators etc. are needing to be
> replaced.

So? That's the same as it always would have been. Your claim was *more*
maintenance than before. You haven't made your case.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683797.html (153 310 at Man Vic)

> So? That's the same as it always would have been. Your claim was *more*
> maintenance than before. You haven't made your case.


I'm sorry to disagree with you Chris but being active in the
preservation movement (not just a photographer (no critism of railway
photographers implied) from practical experience I can assure you these
old machines need continual maintenance. Even more if they are to let
loose on the big railway.

I might refer you back to my main original question based around my
original questioning of how rigourously the NRM follows the maintenance
regime set by Doncaster works.

If such National treasures are to be used on the NR mainlines, rather
than amble up and down a heritage line at 25 mph or be stuffed in a
museum, it is imperative that every effort is made to ensure they
function flawlessly.

Clearly the marine big-end let go because of a flaw. Nowadays such
flaws are easily detected using one or more of the range of NDT
techniques available today. These techniques are far more sensitive
than what was available to the LNER's works at Doncaster. Failure to
avail oneself of the use of such techniques to ensure defects occuring
whilst on NR's metals is tantamount to neglect.

If operators want to run these historic machines without carrying out
such stringent tests the best (least worse) place is to run them on
heritage railways where such failures will not disrupt parts of the
national transport system.

On 12 Aug 2005 02:19:20 -0700, 1501 wrote:

>> So? That's the same as it always would have been. Your claim was *more*
>> maintenance than before. You haven't made your case.
> I'm sorry to disagree with you Chris but being active in the
> preservation movement (not just a photographer...  [much snipped]

Well, 1501, you haven't added anything either new or of interest there.
Your claim was that locos in preservation need more maintenance than
they did in regular service. All you appear to be able to offer to
support that claim is that locos in preservation may need more
maintenance than they are currently getting, and that components need to
be replaced as they wear out. Those points are (a) entirely different,
and (b) entirely uncontroversial. 

If you'd like to have another go, feel free. Try sticking to the point,
rather than either hinting at esoteric knowledge that you will not
reveal or making throwaway remarks about whether the person offering a
critique is qualified to do so by virtue of not being "active in the
preservation movement, but just a photographer".

> Well, 1501, you haven't added anything either new or of interest there.


I have no need to add anything new. The fact you find it of little
interest is of your choice and you are not obliged to read it. I do not
claim to be an absolute expert on the running of steam locomotives but
I believe I have a lot more knowledge and information than many
posters. I am certainly no critic of arm-chair enthusiasts and gricers
so long as they realise restoration and running locomotives is a heck
of a lot more involved than a quick paint job on an ex-Barry wreck.
Perhaps they would even like to put the camera down once in a while and
help out at their local heritage line and gain a little more knowledge
of railway operations?

The facts speak for themselves. There was a flaw in the big-end. The
big-end design is know to be a high maintenance item and has been known
for many many years. Doncaster dropped the big-end on a regular basis
to carry out advanced (for the era) NDT. Available NDT techniques today
(X-Ray, Ultrasonic, MPI) are far more advanced and they should be used.
You may have missed the point that periodic inspection including NDT is
part and parcel of a maintenance regime. Clearly any detected defect on
a big-end of this design should result in immediate replacment with
new. And if new isn't available then new should be manufactured. (I
won't even ask if the footrest will be tested before fitting). Every
failure of a steam locomotive on NR's metals strengthens NR's case for
stopping mainline steam rail tours completely. A failure on a heritage
railway is an inconvenience but nowhere near as inconvenient as a
failure on a busy working railway. The average railway user wants to
get from point A to point B without some enthusiast's junket clogging
up the railway in front of them.

On 12 Aug 2005 03:40:05 -0700, 1501 wrote:

> I believe I have a lot more knowledge and information than many
> posters. 


I believe that as well. That's why I expected an informative answer from
you. But I'm still none the wiser why you assert that a preserved loco
running only a handful of days a year requires more maintenance than the
same locomotive did when in daily revenue-earning service. Perhaps you
meant more maintenance per hour of running time, which might make sense,
but more maintenance overall does not.


> Perhaps they would even like to put the camera down once in a while
> and help out at their local heritage line and gain a little more
> knowledge of railway operations?


Perhaps you should play the ball rather than the man.

>Perhaps you meant more maintenance per hour of running time, which might make sense,


Hurray, the penny has dropped. But try using your car only once a month
without even periodically starting it in between times. Whats more your
car's servicing interval will usually be every so many thousand miles
or every so many months, whichever come first.

If you care to re-read all my postings on this matter I have questioned
the standard of maintainence applied by the NRM. Questions which I
doubt will ever be answered.


> Perhaps you should play the ball rather than the man.


That remark hardly justifies a reply. If you get your rocks off
squinting through your Pentax and I get mine assisting in keeping the
blighters running, so be it.

I am of sufficient years that I no longer need to overdose on
testosterone.

On 15 Aug 2005 07:14:20 -0700, 1501 wrote:

> Hurray, the penny has dropped.

Pity you weren't clearer in the first place, and haven't clarified on
any of the last four opportunities I gave you.


>> Perhaps you should play the ball rather than the man.
> That remark hardly justifies a reply. If you get your rocks off
> squinting through your Pentax and I get mine assisting in keeping the
> blighters running, so be it.

You may have noticed that I haven't passed a single comment about your
pastime. You've done so about me in each of your last three replies.


> I am of sufficient years that I no longer need to overdose on
> testosterone.

Congratulations, but whatever your age, I'm among those who will be more
impressed when you demonstrate maturity by responding to perfectly
reasonable questions with perfectly reasonable answers rather than
tiresome and ill-informed snide remarks about the person asking them.

1501 wrote:


> If you care to re-read all my postings on this matter I have questioned
> the standard of maintainence applied by the NRM. Questions which I
> doubt will ever be answered.


I don't know about the standard of work at the NRM, but there has been
dodgy work performed durng restorations.

The incident involving a burst tube on a Bulleid pacific, resulting in
a blow back comes to mind.  Although not related to the orginal
incident, when the loco was examined it was found that the AWS had been
wired with domestic flex.

> Although not related to the orginal
> incident, when the loco was examined it was found that the AWS had been
> wired with domestic flex.


Wired by who?