6023

Would one care to elaborate?

 

Jos Koopmans is not only a very clever guy who has dragged steam locomotive draughting into a new scientific era, but an incredibly nice guy and so incredibly helpful to very many enthusiasts. I am sure that the 6023 lads owe Jos a considerable debt of gratitude.

Jos has published his work and is available for all to read and consider. It considerably refines the work of Sam Ell, applying new principles and a new revolutionary take on what happens in the chimney.

I have been very privileged to have benefitted from Jos's generous help.

Cheers,
Julian

 

So what will the new exhaust system be known as? The LemKoop, KoopPor, KylKoop? Jos deserves recognition for his efforts.

Richard.

 

"Koopmans' multiple blast nozzle" would suffice I think.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Somewhat over dramatic.

 

No I dont think so. Jos does deserve significant recognition for his work. I dont know If you have noticed, but steam engines dont command a great deal of high quality scientific research with the implementation of engineering
solutions to back it up!

Please remind the audience of your comperable contribution to steam development?

Hats off to you Jos. Its an elegant solution to a difficult problem.

 

"Shame" does seem a rather perjorative term for those loco owners and owning groups who choose not to continually develop their charges.

When all is said and done, by far the most efficient coal-powered steam engines on today's railway are the big power stations providing traction current for the electric trains. By contrast, continuing to run decades old technology is simply an indulgent hobby. As such, I don't see why those owners - of Bulleids or otherwise - who choose to stay true to the original technology, warts and all, deserve criticism for so doing. You might as well say a Mk 1 Spitfire is worthless because a Griffin engined one would run rings round it in speed and firepower - it's true, but a Eurofighter would run rings round both of them. Better to enjoy historic objects for what they are, rather than what they will never be.

Tom

 

The intention, as we know, is to run 6023 on the main line, hence the lowered boiler mountings. Main line running appears to be under the microscope at the moment. To venture into the national network, a loco has to run well and reliably. With Jos Koopman's brilliant new blast pipe, the signs are that 6023 will do just that. There is nothing wrong with improving existing designs, especially to meet current requirements. After all, that's precisely what Sam Ell did in the 1950's. I find the aim to improve existing steam designs, by way of more efficient draughting fascinating. Surely if 6023's new smokebox arrangement proves to be a great success, an owner of one of the many Bulleid pacific's could produce a fabrication of Jos's Bulleid pacific design and try it in their loco? 6201 Princess Elizabeth is basically an enlarged single chimney King, the owning group would probably not be in favour, but I have a strong feeling that Jos could free-up the front end of that loco and enhance its performance. I have a feeling that Jos's work with 6023 could be just the start and hope that similar work on other locos will follow. If so, there could be exciting times ahead.

 

No one has said that Jos should not be recognised for his work, merely that Bulleid owners should not feel shamed about sticking to the original draughting arrangements.


Keith

 

Especially as most of the said locomotives are trundling along a rural branch line and will never get anywhere near their rated capacity – mainline that’s a bit different.
This is why I brought up the possibility of improving the humble Austerity 0-6-0 a loco which are worked much nearer their rated capacity up and down the land and can have improved steaming as shown with a Giesel fitment without the disadvantages on a slower lighting up time in the morning with such bits of gear . . . .

 

I am not intending to participate in this discussion, however the good people of GWS were really with their "backs to the wall" so to speak. It was this solution or a dead locomotive. As for other designs, I have a deep respect for all these "old ladies" and want to treat them according to their age. So a change of the front-end might diminish their thermodynamic loads and save on expensive and scarce proper coal and water, let alone the CO2 discussion. But it is up to the owners of course!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

You've completely misunderstood my post. Nothing about not recognising what Jos has achieved but simply suggesting that no loco owner should feel ashamed for sticking to an original design, warts and all, especially if the loco will never work anywhere near full capacity on a heritage line. It's on the main mine where any improvements will reveal themselves and prove their worth. I will pass on your comment to my colleagues though who will no doubt have a good chortle.

 

Some smaller tank locos have already had their front ends tweaked. I recall Brussels on the KWVR. When it arrived it made a lot of noise and not much else. Had modifications done to the front end and the loco was transformed.

 

Is this about the modified versions with a Lempor type chimney extension into the smokebox?
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Where locos on heritage lines are concerned, it's the host railway that picks up the coal and water bills so it's they who would probably be interested in more efficient locos. From a loco owner's point of view, why spend a lot of money modifying your front end only to save money for somebody else? Main line is a different kettle of fish though.

 

I believe that the intention is to re-fit the original taller sleeved single chimney and taller safety valve cover to 6023 in between periods of main line running, when in use on heritage railways. I hope this happens, as I prefer the original appearance. If and when this is done, will the loco have the Sam Ell early 1950's blast pipe arrangement reinstated, or would the Jos Koopmans blast pipe be retained and work correctly with the 4" taller chimney?

 

Given the 350 GBP that the present blast pipe costs, depending on the situation a clever heritage line would pick up the bill. After all, what is the coal price these days? Is the change equivalent to 2 to 3 tons?
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

The taller chimney would give a slightly better result. Full retrofit would mean a 5 in diam blastcap in place if the 6 in. equivalent diam.
From what I saw in the past, given the amount of smoke, that arrangement was just coping.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

I think you need to put on your salesman's hat and start selling your idea to the heritage lines. Who knows what interest there will be?