Bluebell Motive Power

I'm not sure whether the thermic syphons were a bonus or a cause of the steel firebox, but I think it's likely that the steel firebox was a design decision independent of the wartime economic conditions. Look at the Q1, the most austere design Bulleid did and yet there's a copper firebox. Now of course that allowed re-use of the Lord Nelson flanging blocks, so maybe that skews the economics a little, but then the Pacifics also had solid bronze axleboxes as built; again, if you're looking to save every scrap of copper that's not what you'd do.

With the high pressure of the Bulleid boilers as built, a steel firebox very quickly becomes just a sensible design choice - it can (and needs to be) thinner than a copper box, which combined with the all-welded firebox saves a useful chunk of weight. The thermic syphons then add weight back in, but recent experience on the LMS among others had shown that radiant heating surface was all-important in giving a free steaming boiler and Chapelon was using steel fireboxes and thermic syphons on his locomotives, of which Bulleid was probably more aware than most British CMEs.

I am of course speculating...

 

I'd love to see today's computer modelling applied to thermic syphons. From what I've seen, they all tend to fail in the same place (the outside obtuse angle). Even with Porta's work on GP systems, it strikes me that there remains work to do within the firebox. Add to this my personal peccadillo (torrified biomass) and there's scope for some serious research. "Fenchurch" on pellets? Effit, why not?

Am I raving? Check it out and see what you think:

http://csrail.org/torrefied-biomass

 

I'm sure it would be an interesting discussion on another thread ...

Tom

 

I too was puzzling over the Bulleid Society Chairman's precis of the reasons behind the choice of steel. I attach the relevant extract from Bulleid's paper to the ILoco E (1946), in which he prioritises weight saving. He ranks the use of steel v. copper as desirable in connection with material availability, and the pressure factor is mentioned, although slightly obliquely. Cost does not appear. Neither is the ability to repair fireboxes at sheds mentioned (I assume that comment is aimed at repair of plates rather than stays, as stay changing must have been routine). Now it is possible a more thorough exegesis of available material would support cost as a factor, but it does not seem to have been uppermost in Bulleid's mind at the time.

 

That is technically correct - copper welding was not possible at that time. I do not know if this was Gresley's reasoning for the design on the V4, however.

It would be fun to see one of the Bulleids pulling the Golden Arrow one day

 

To my knowledge The Bulleid Pacifics and the one V4 were the only locos in the UK to use thermic syphons and they all had wide steel fireboxes at a time when copper boxes were the norm in this country. Another type that used a wide steel firebox was the WD 2-10-0 and these incorporated a simpler version of the thermic syphon, namely welded arch tubes. The narrow firebox WD 2-8-0 version on the other hand I think stuck to a conventional copper firebox. Happy to be proved wrong on any of this if others know more than I do.

Peter

 

Can someone please explain why thermic syphons were used in locos with a steel firebox but not in copper ones? Thanks.

 

See post #2885 (above), but if your question was aimed at syphons formed from copper, I'd be interested to know too (even if I end up feeling a bit daft, should the answer be glaringly obvious!).

 

Bruce (The Steam Locomotive in America) actually covers Arch tubes, Syphons and Circulators (e.g. as in the SAR Class 25) in one diagram titled "Three methods of fire-brick arch support" i.e. focusing on this rather than their circulating characteristics. Arch tubes seem very common in wide boxes (other than in the UK).

 

That's because most parts of the world used steel fireboxes. I'm sure we would have seen far wider use of such devices here if the technology of the day had permitted their construction in copper boxes.

Peter

 

When a very experienced Bulleid fitter (preservation era): 35027, 34072, 34028, 34070; looked into 60163s firebox, he said “what holds up the roof?”

You had to know Frank to appreciate his sense of humour!

 

A couple of Project27 updates:

Work begins on erecting the replacement frames: http://wainrightsfinestsecr27.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/frames-update.html

And - the new cylinders have been cast: http://wainrightsfinestsecr27.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/news-just-in.html

Tom

 

First view of the newly cast cylinders:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=860590234117844&id=597593080417562

Tom

 

Update on 73082 from FB.

On Tuesday 17th April, whilst heading north on its second trip of the day out of Kingscote, 73082 Camelot failed due to an issue with the left-hand rear cylinder cover. The service train was reversed back into Kingscote Station and terminated there.
Initial inspection of the locomotive revealed that the left-hand rear cylinder cover had cracked/fractured.
Camelot remained at Kingscote overnight and on Wednesday the connecting rod was taken down and she was towed back to Sheffield Park by the 09 shunter. Closer inspection at the Locomotive Workshop revealed that both the left and right front cylinder covers were cracked and the left-hand piston head was broken. At this point a visual check has not shown the cylinders to be damaged but a more detailed inspection will be undertaken.
Whilst the cause of the problem is still to be determined, the focus is to get the repairs underway as a matter of priority. Patterns are not available for the cylinder covers (these are unique to the Fives) so these will have to be made.The piston head casting can be obtained from an external supplier.
Based on the current findings we expect Camelot to be back in service in two to three months time.

 

From the want of a pattern and with several standard 5s both preserved and run it seems a cylinder cover failure like this
- three together - is something new. The right hand cover might just be a coincidence. Both cylinder covers and the piston between them
on the left side could obviously be a result of a loose chunk of the piston. All the failures could have a common root cause though.

Given it hasn't been very long in traffic since a major overhaul might it be worth checking the relief valves on the cylinder covers?

Doubt the piston is out yet but it would be interesting to see a good photograph of the fracture where it has broken.

 

The WD 2-10-0s had their arch tubes expanded in as I can recall reading somewhere of a case where due to expansion and contraction one of the tubes blew out of the firebox throat plate. This happened on one of the BR ones based in Scotland.

 

That’s a lot of incompressible water!!!!!!

 

Destroyed in the fire?

 

Going back to the impact this might have on the fleet, does this leave just four locomotives capable of hauling some of the more decent length trains (e.g. Arrow / Rambler and up)? As in the S15, Q, H and O1? That's...tight.