6023 King Edward 11

I simply can't wait to hear this bad boy in the roof I've been waiting a long time for it.... 5051 & 5029 have the award for bark so far - can't wait to hear the Spud II

 

The double chimney from 23 disapeered long before she arrived at Didcot, the fact that there wasnt one gave the perfect excuse to try something a little differant. Nothing has been done that would prevent her returning to double chimney very quickly if things do not work out.

She is carrying the much tested and proven sleeved chimney arrangement that the class carried from around 1952 until the double chimney was added. Yes the fire will be lifted by the harsh exhaust and I am sure the fireman will be kept very busy trying to get a bit down the front? As with every engine a differant teqhnique will be developed (lets not forget an engine is only as good as the crew). The only real unknown will be the affect of the reduced height chimney though every attempt has been made to replicate the full height version in relation to oriface sizes etc.

Lets also not forget that there is no 80+ mph running required these days so the issues regarding problems at speed should not come into the fore.

At the end of the day we will only know how well it goes when its goes, I for one cannot wait.

 

I'm not an expert here, but I don't think that the loss of two or three inches from the top of the chimney (with the "main line" chimney) would have any effect on the steaming of the loco. They might need some kind of screens and self-cleaning arrangement in the smokebox similar to the arrangement fitted to 5043, which apparently is proving successful. I seem to recall reading that the sleeved chimneyed Kings tended to be fire-throwers when worked hard. With "improved draughting", I guess that could be the case.

 

I would imagine that in today's climate, other than the coal bill, there'll be little appreciable difference. The double chimneys made the engines more freer running at high speed. The test runs with 6001 have already been alluded to, when it took a 700+ ton train and ran up to 70mph. If that is 'no-where near as good' as what 6024 is capable of, then the 6024 Society must have one hell of a machine on their hands!

Yes there'll be times when it won't able able to match 6024's performance, but I very much doubt that it's going to be the vastly inferior machine that some seem to think.

Not long now anyway!

 

Just a reminder, that whilst the double chimneys of the Kings and Castles undoubtedly and quite markedly improved performance, Staniers Princesses managed quite capably with just one chimney throughout their existence, and their exhaust system had to cope with somewhat greater quantities of combustion gases coming from a much larger grate area, which was around 35% greater than the Kings. The Kings appear to have coped quite well with one chimney for around 75% of their existence, so given reasonable quality coal 6023 will doubtless perform equally as well, if not better than engines such as 5029 on the days when they are running well.

 

I think 6023 should perform quite a lot better than 5029 (low superheat, single chimney) and probably slightly better than 5043 (high superheat, double chimney). It is after all a bigger loco than a Castle with a larger grate area. If history repeats itself, it will probably not be quite as free running as its double-chimneyed sister 6024 at speeds over 75mph, due to back-pressure. Unless they raise the speed limit to 90mph, we probably won't find out.

 

Slightly off topic. But on the subject of GW enigines' exhaust barks, it's often said that double chimneys soften the blast of locos. I think that with ex-GW locos, that just isn't true. Bob Meanley said some time ago that double chimney Castles are definately louder than single chimney ones, although I think the single chimney version may have a deeper bark. The 280psi single chimney Counties are thought to be possibly the loudest of all GW locos, but I've read that the final modified 250psi double chimney development still had a ferocious "stamping" bark when worked hard. It's quite a few years away, but when the Didcot County appears, it might even take the honours for the loudest exhaust.

 

Cant see why the fireman would be kept any busier if as busy as he would on 6024... There seems to have been a lot of myth created about double chimneys softening the blast.. These engines were fitted with double chimneys to further improve the draughting (ie the draw on the fire) in order to maintain a high steaming rate whilst burning poor quality coal, and an even higher steaming rate with good coal... With the fact that the double blastpipe reduced the back pressure in the exhaust passages, they improved the performance considerably..... As the fact that BR converted all the kings and were working their way through the castles would suggest!

 

Interesting. In terms of performance, whilst 6024 may have peaked at a higher IHP on a couple of runs than 5043 (has so far), I cant find a run with 6024 where it has put up such a sustained high output as that of 5043 on its run from crewe to carlisle and return over shap last june?????

 

I think that a lot of this is down to the way the loco is handled. The crew on 5043 over Shap last June were totally on top of the job. Everything seems to have been right, as a result the loco sustained a tremendous output. Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but I would have thought that with 6024 in the same finely tuned mechanical condition as 5043, with a crew who knew exactly how to drive and fire a King and everything else right (coal, weather etc), 6024 should be capable of a higher sustained output than 5043.

 

I think it's pretty safe to say a King will always be more powerful than a Castle with it's higher boiler pressure, smaller wheels and bigger cylinders. I'm not sure why the likes of 5029 and 5043 are being compared with 6024 and 6023.

 

Just out of interest where were the tests with 6001 carried out?

 

It did indeed

 

You missed a good day out with 7802 & 7812 on Friday, Andrew

 

I would agree, a king in good order should be able to put up a better performance than a castle.... however king cylinders in later years due to reducing wear and tear were fitted with liners that bought the diameter down from 16 1/4inches to 16 inches, the same size as a castle (although a king has longer stroke), this is still the case on 6024(not sure about 6023). So the only advantage a king has is the extra pressure and smaller wheel dia. 5043 though is on minimum size tyres so the difference between that and a king on new tyres is next to nothing, so the only real benefit is the extra 25 psi boiler pressure And bigger grate, if the fireman can keep the boiler up!!

 

Mike... So I see from the wonderful pics and a vid I watched on Eardington - looks like the weather was great for you all too. I am totally gutted I missed this one. It clashed with the WSR gala which i wasn't going to miss either but sadly couldn't be in 2 places at once and had already committed to WSR (accommodation booked & paid for etc) by the time the charter was announced.

Manors are by far my fav locos and they too can sing loudly with the best of them. Glad you had a good day and thanks for sharing your pics.

 

I'm fond of Manors too. Here is some roaring from 7827: http://www.youtube.com/user/6024kingedward1#p/u/7/VZPExhFykPU

And a nice bit of Castle thunder at the same location for comparison: http://www.youtube.com/user/6024kingedward1#p/u/1/6mJ_Fg2b9Ow

And a King for good measure! : http://www.youtube.com/user/6024kingedward1#p/u/5/cBFULDWCcyI

 

Yes, but that extra 25psi means over 5,000lbs extra thrust on each piston, ie 20,000lbs per wheel revolution, so that's nearly 10 tons extra thrust per rev. before you take wheel diameter, or anything else, into consideration. A King will eat a Castle any way you slice it.

 

After all the technical info on this thread about the superiority of the Kings over the Castles. Could someone please explain why the GWR and latterly BR Western Region substituted Castles for Kings on most of their prestigious trains?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the Kings, one of if not the best class of steam engine ever built in Britain.
But were they just too powerful for the routes they were built for?
Heresy I know but I believe that if Stannier had built them at Crewe they would be more appreciated than they are now.

 

Wasn't it because the Castles, with their larger wheels, were considered to be faster for lighter loaded trains (eg. Bristolian), while the Kings were better for heavier trains like the Cornish Riviera?
I'm sure I've read or heard that the normal weekday Bristolian was Castle hauled, but the Friday, heavier, train was usually a King.
Also with only 30 of them the GWR/WR probably preferred to use Castles were they didn't need the pulling power.