Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[oldiron]

Hi Martin,

Yes that is the very same loco JC was firing on Top Gear.

Just a thought on triple expansion locos- considering compound engines have a volume of expansion of roughly 35-45% that of simple cylinders, meaning in laymans terms a high pressure cylinder @ 20" X 30" would step down to a cylinder roughly 32" X 30"- thats hard enough to fit into a loco- but imagine then having to step down to a third expansive cylinder (giving you triple expansion) using a rather conservative volume of expansion of 30% would give you a cylinder of roughly 40" X 30-  even to a non steam person i'm sure that seems stupid! 


Greg

  Don't forget, the Norfolk and Western Y class  articulated compound locomotives used 39 x 32" low pressure cylinders.

John

Hi John,

Yes your absolutely right about that, but thats a COMPOUND, not a TRIPLE EXPANSION- a third phase expansive cylinder on that loco would be roughly 5ft Dia.!!! Thats wider than the tracks on GB rails!

Greg

  I agree if you were to extrapolate the 39 x 32 to a third expansion, however, you stated the 40 x 30 would be stupid. I'm pointing out that a 39 x 32 was produced in quantity, as a final size you related to. This was not meant to be taken to a third expansion.

John

[gondolier88]

Hi John,

Sorry, I mistook your point- I meant that on a triple expansion to have at least 3 cylinders with at least one at 40" X 30" would be stupid, not the size of the cylinder.

The cylinder arrangement would be thus;

3 Cylinder-

Intermediate Expansion - Second Expansion - High Pressure

As you can see this would give a very hard to manage engine and uneven power spread, the other options of 5 and 6 cylinders would improve on this point, but imagine trying to fit them onto the front of a loco!

Greg

[oldiron]

Hi John,

Sorry, I mistook your point- I meant that on a triple expansion to have at least 3 cylinders with at least one at 40" X 30" would be stupid, not the size of the cylinder.

The cylinder arrangement would be thus;

3 Cylinder-

Intermediate Expansion - Second Expansion - High Pressure

As you can see this would give a very hard to manage engine and uneven power spread, the other options of 5 and 6 cylinders would improve on this point, but imagine trying to fit them onto the front of a loco!

Greg

  Yes, I agree. Tie that in with the continuously changing loads of a steam locomotive and the driver would be booking off in short order, when trying to run the beast.
   A hard enough tme wa had trying to fit compounding into locos, especially within British loading gauges.

John

[farrow]

HI ,
I am only a decky, but did not the Midland Railway have a successful 3 cylinder compound 4-4-0 loco class 1000 in BR numbers 41000. Of which I believe No 41000 is in the National Collection. Perhaps it is another type of compound system, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
David.

[oldiron]

HI ,
I am only a decky, but did not the Midland Railway have a successful 3 cylinder compound 4-4-0 loco class 1000 in BR numbers 41000. Of which I believe No 41000 is in the National Collection. Perhaps it is another type of compound system, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
David.

  You're right, it had a compound and not a multiple expansion (triple or more). The outside cylinders were high pressure and the center low pressure. There were numerous compound locomotives built, but as fas I know, no triples.

John

[298]

HI ,
I am only a decky, but did not the Midland Railway have a successful 3 cylinder compound 4-4-0 loco class 1000 in BR numbers 41000. Of which I believe No 41000 is in the National Collection. Perhaps it is another type of compound system, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
David.

  You're right, it had a compound and not a multiple expansion (triple or more). The outside cylinders were high pressure and the center low pressure. There were numerous compound locomotives built, but as fas I know, no triples.

John

There was the unsucessful Delaware & Hudson triple expansion compound:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/USAhp/USAhp.htm#l

[gondolier88]

Hi 298,

I had forgotten about those- fantastic boilers in them, I know of a steam launch which has the sam design, only 45' long but good for 18mph!

As we said, triple expansion is pretty much useless in locos, it just doesn't work!

In the words of Aleksander, the founder of compare the meerkat.com; "simples"!

Greg

[oldiron]

 The D&H did produce some interesting water tube boiler designs. Got to give them A for effort in the R&D department. I think they got more power out of the 2-8-0 and 4-8-0 design than anyone. Not bad since the 2-8-0 was an obsolete design, in North America,  by the thirties.
  Its also interesting that a large number of railways jumped into water tube boiler design and experimentation during the thirties. None were particularly successful in a railway application because of the rapidly varying loads which isn't too friendly to water tube construction. However, I suspect the D&H were among the leaders in that technology in its application to a railway use environment.

John

[peter.dwight]

Greetings friends. I hope I may be allowed to add a little more to the discussion on the end of the steam locomotive. I have been involved in the railway preservation movement for many years. There are lots of issues regarding the development and demise of the steam engine. One of which is they are the dirtiest, fillthiest and most awkward and uncomfortable machines ever devised by man but we love them. At 5.30 am on a freezing December morning when you crawl underneath to rake out the ash pan and do the lubricating you can understand why it became ever more difficult to recruite young strong men to do such work.
From the technical stand point you could fill a library with the whys and wherefores of locomotive design and development. ( As indeed has been done. O.S.NOCK makes most interesting reading.) When the four feet eight and a half inch track guage and the height and width guages were established as the standard, the die was cast to limit future development. The difference with marine development of course was there were no such constraints. Ship size grew to exploit engine development.
We must remember that railways were built originly to carry coal. The carriage of people and general goods was not part of the original scheme of things. The steam engine whilst undergoing continious development did not develop out its original form by very much. It did its job very well.

[gondolier88]

Hi PD,

I find your comment

One of which is they are the dirtiest, fillthiest and most awkward and uncomfortable machines ever devised by man but we love them. At 5.30 am on a freezing December morning when you crawl underneath to rake out the ash pan and do the lubricating you can understand why it became ever more difficult to recruite young strong men to do such work.

Very interesting- just imagine if development had continued until an LPG fired, compartmental (ie. half load on the boiler means only half of it in steam) boiler design, with high pressure steam, say 500-600psi and 40%-50% superheat running through a cast aluminium cylinder block with spheroidal graphite sleeves- easily removable of course- a true compound of three cylinders- the centre being a combined LP from the other two HP cylinders, contolled by an algerithmic computer program- similar to modern IC engine turbo computers- monitering the performance of the engine say every .5 sec interval- the steam instead of being used as a forced draft- because it is LPG fired and a compartmental boiler- could be condensed back using an extra large surface area tender mounted condenser- a super-insulated cabin with doors and cushioned seats- a forced lubrication system to all bearings- which would of course be all needle rollers- oh and a button to start it- no it's not steam engines as we like to think of them- I prefer the ash and smell of hot oil and the plume of steam 100ft high- but I see that as were steam would have ended up had research been allowed to continue- who knows....?

[peter.dwight]

Ah yes indeed. The trouble is that the likes of Stannier, Gresley, Riddles and even O.S.V.Bulleid and the like only had the mark 1 brain which was connected to the AO drawing sheet via a slide rule. Added to which others were hard at work with the brain child of Heir Diesel which even at its earliest stage gave the kind of performance and returns of fuel consumption that the steam men could only dream of.
However, you are quite right that given modern computing power, materials and the rest, a computer managed, gas fired steam locomotive would be thermally very efficient. I have seen one in the USA at one of the theme parks. Its the ugliest thing you ever saw, it works beautifully but it is a thing of little charm and very little chuff which tells you its very efficient. Its a sort of blob on wheels wrapped up in aluminium foil over fibre glass held together with chicken wire. British Rail in its hey day owned and operated about 20.000 locomotives. I wonder if the R&D costs could be recovered by the savings in efficiency. I doubt that given the modern craving for all things electric that the computer comtrolled all electric loco ie cl 91 and that which is to follow could be improved on. Added to which the GM cl 66 Diesels have I think probably nailed finally the commercial redevelopment of the much loved steam locomotive.

[gondolier88]

Hi PD,

Unfortunately I have to agree- we just have to make sure ALL our steam heritage which is alive is looked after- although with 'Tornado' completed, Great Northern Steam are building 3 designs of full size size traction engine and the steamboat assosciation are well on the way to offering a standard steam launch design, with a fully fabricated engine design we are well on the way to having the 'Great' put back into Britain's steam engineering future so I suppose no hard feelings eh?!?

As regards the theme park loco though- it's ugly- yes and were did you say you'd seen it...?... ah yes USA- probably going to stir the hornets nest but I bet GB could make something a bit prettier...!

Lets see what the future brings hey- you never know what research will come off the back of the steam car speed record- the only problem with that is that it's a 'puffer' and not a condenser- impossible on a vehicle that has to be as lightweight as possible, not the most efficient.

Greg

[tony52]

Glad to see the 'Tornado' on the tracks.

Found two more new build's under construction :-

6880 'Betton Grange' - the 81st GWR Grange - http://www.6880.co.uk/wp/
72010 'Clan Hengist' -- http://www.72010-hengist.org/

Anyone know of any more?

[298]

Glad to see the 'Tornado' on the tracks.

Found two more new build's under construction :-

6880 'Betton Grange' - the 81st GWR Grange - http://www.6880.co.uk/wp/
72010 'Clan Hengist' -- http://www.72010-hengist.org/

Anyone know of any more?

LMS Patriot: http://www.lms-patriot.org.uk/warrior.html

LNER G5: http://www.wrlpg.com/page14.htm

GWR 1014 "County of Glamorgan": http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/1014/1014.html

GWR 2999 "Lady of Legend": http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/locos/2999/2999.html

[peter.dwight]

Reply to No 61. Hi Greg.
Sorry for not replying sooner, I have been in hospital. I had Major heart surgery in 2007 which didn't go quite right, so I have been back for some running repairs.
 I think it is tremendous that the finance, resources and technical skills can still be harnessed to manufacture new steam powered vehicles as well as other machines from our industrial past. I am very keen on Tall Ships and to date have done 3 voyages. Now I'm working properly again I want to do some more. They are still being built using traditional materials and craftmanship of superb quality. It is not our ability to make these things that is the problem. The question is where they fit in the scheme of things. The problem is a psychological one in as much as the machine is fixed in the time scale and humans are constantly moving forward. Once something comes along which makes what we have done before easier or removes the drudgery of and unpleasant task no one wants to go back. Of course not. This is where the conflict arises. Putting traditional technology into the modern setting with modern attitudes doesn't work. Witness these TV shows that pitch people into the past. Its quite clear what the problem is they cant cope mentally being deprived of the things which provide there comfort and security.
It seems to me that this current recession is showing people that there is more to life that experiencing it through a TV screen of some sort. There is fun to be had as a family digging the garden or the allotment, keeping animals and growing their own food. Also they are having to cut back on luxuries and finding they can do very well with much less. I think that the environment will change to a more simple outlook and what served our elders well may well serve future generations again.

[gondolier88]

Hi PD,

Glad to hear your ticking proper again!

I couldn't agree more, however while I agree peoples outlook has changed- I really can't see it staying that way- I don't know your age, however going by the running repairs I would say you have a few years on me- perhaps your generation has re-learned something- but most people in my generation can't wait for the recession to be over so they can revert to ways of old!

Lets hope i'm wrong and everyone learns something- otherwise we could be having a thread on ' The end of the UK economy' nevermind the railways!

Greg

[peter.dwight]

 Hi Greg. Life is a lot better when your boiler pressure is sitting just under the red line. As to age I now have a bus pass! Re your comments.
Its the severn ages of man thing. I don't think that my generation has relearned something. Its just the normal and inevitable process of aging. My generation has lived through probably the most dynamic industrial revolution that the world has ever seen. In the 1940's and 50's the world was very definitely analogue. In my childhood the horse and cart brought the milk, the vegetables and took away the the rubbish. We listened to the wireless, played with Meccano and most boys had an interest in amateur radio and train spotting. We also expected to work for our living. We understood our world and Morse code was no more a problem for us that computer code is for young people today.
The problem is the passage of time and being unable to keep up with new ideas that are totally opposite from those around when we were children. A good example is :try learning a new language when you are 60+. When todays teenagers get into their retirement, they too will find the latest concepts and ways of doing things just as difficult as parents and grandparents do now.
Peter