82045 The way ahead?

The lack of sparkle will be made up by being very new and very shiny with lovely shiny paint! Thanks for your good wishes.

 

The latest news on 82045 is now posted at http://www.82045.org.uk/news/82045_news-june10.html

 

Thank you. Nice update.

 

Two years on and I stumbled on this valid explanation, holding exactly the same views. A project well worth supporting and in a small way I would like to do the same. I will be in touch with the group shortly.

 

Thanks for reminding me Engineer! Since writing those words I feel that I definitely backed the right horse so to speak! Progress on this excellent loco is very good indeed and let us hope that it continues in the next few years. It will be an ideal type for heritage railways in the forthcoming austerity years.

 

I am a supporter and member as well, but as we all know the big ticket items will be the stumbling blocks.

 

Most Heritage Projects have a surplus of Stumbling Blocks, so you might be able to borrow some >>> (heave, groan....)

 

Whilst I think this is a great project building "dozens" I think may be a bit optimistic.
Sadly there's a few prariries still not rebuilt from Barry, which are equally useful, but also an indicator that not all are needed.

There's a 41xx in Barry condition for sale (according to Steam Railway).. maybe take the boiler for this, give the spare wheel to didcot (so they have a full set for the 47xx) ?

 

Not knowing a great deal about this particular project yet, but from reading coments about it and their web pages . It seemed to me that whilst your observation is valid , the core management have taken the move to start construction, and the path of construction seems well proportioned , they have made vital components and are assembling the frames they apear outwardly to be honest and committed .

Someone had to start the actual engineering aspect and start somewhere, they promote a sense that they can do it and will do it , in fairness that is the best we can expect.

Some of the items may be expensive and be stumbling blocks, but with good negotiating and purchasing manager skills on board and engineering expertee's some of these items may not be as expensive as possibly anticipated.

I understand they were offered a suitable adaptable No 2 boiler but chose the new route. They are looking potentially at a good and well appointed provider, for the boiler. More and more boiler repair and manufacture facilities are comming on line, it is quite feasable that any of these can produce equally good work, at possibly a more reasonable price, although in boiler work you tend to get what you pay for and have to be very selective and hard nosed, to get the job as you want it. Time for good contract documents.

I think if I was doing the boiler I would have considered the validity of the copper box making a steel box a manufacturing preference, for several reasons. But hey they want to build an original design, lets not criticise it, it worked well for its short life on the 82xxx, its just a lot more tedious and expensive to make as a one off.

Possibly the same applies to the wheels and associated heavy work surrounding them . To me it seems they have most aspects of it pretty much in hand a lot of patterns are comming on and some of the castings are in evidence.What is needed is a few more of us making continuous contribution even if its only a few quid a month, most of us seem to be in agreement on the policy so lets support it.

 

Completely irrelelevant question but as we have a few Engineers on this post, would somehow 'rifling' the boiler tubes make them better by a) forcing hot gases against the sides rather than shooting straight through the middle and b) making the tubes ' self cleaning.
Just a thought - One guesses that even if the answer is yes the added manufacturing cost suggests not worth it...

 

A good question not realy sure how much would be gained in terms of heat transfer from the fire gasses, the rifling would need to be fairly pronounced and cleaning debris from it would not be easy, and the whole idea of cleaning tubes is to keep flow area clear and good surface conductivity. First if the gas can be made to spin in the tubes this would be usefull mixing it well as it cools,heating the tube as it goes, but there is not much pressure to draw the gas through, not like in a gun where the pressure is created from the charge and the lead bullet is in mechanical contact.

I have seen a flat twisted strip fitted in the tubes of oil fired boilers ( alan Ingis) to do just what you are talking about, they thought it appropriate obviously, but the boilers are only about 4' long and are flame down the centre returning through tubes on the outside ( reverse flow). Because of the amount of solids in coal burning I suspect if this was tried the tubes would become blocked within an hour or two the gas flow would have reduced substantially causing all sorts of problems.

 

Hmm... Quite apart from the cost of rifling the inner surface of the tubes, this act would in turn thin the tubes within the grooves so reducing their hoop strength. In turn, this would require an initially thicker walled tube, leading to problems of further cost, heat transfer rates at the thicker sections, and difficulties in expanding the tube ends into the tube plates.

Other issues are that unless the gases at the smokebox end are normally well above the temperature of the water inside the boiler, increased heat transfer at the firebox end and middle will merely lead to reduced heat transfer at the smokebox end, and possibly none at all. There is only so much heat energy contained within the flue gases, and boilers are generally pretty efficient, even in standard form, of extracting it.

 

I would agree whole heartedly with your second paragraph.

A lot of tallented men spent a great deal of time perfecting the loco boiler design investigating technical aspects of it and its about as good as it can get, even with modern technology, most aspects of its design and performance are fairly set.

As I understand it. The only real debate is how much value does a copper box bring over the life of the boiler , is there realy a reduction in fuel used by having it, does that outweigh the cost of manufacturing the boilerto a complex design. When using a steel box there is less firebox wall thickness, which off sets the thermal conductivity with the copper but the copper has to be thicker than its equivalent steel, to get the mechanical integrity reqd . Copper invariably fails in the stay pattern, or where streses arise weld repairs to copper are not simple. It has a different thermal expansion rate to the steel surrounding it and this does not help in its life.

Having a boiler of only one base component material means that modern fabrication techniques can produce the boiler at a much less cost as with all welded boilers. If the 82xxx project is a projection forward in time which it promotes itself as possibly, ( austerity) then the cost of replacement boilers, their rapid avilibility, and simpler accreditation ,with life time repairs to them, will seriously affect base cost and operating cost of the loco which is a very important issue.

I conclude from other work and narrow gauge engines. This is not a criticism of the 82xxx project but that the modern world has moved to welded and fabricated items with 20 or 30 year life expectancy for cost reasons. Insurers are happier because they get to look at a new item more frequently, costs are much lower overall. Its not only about how good a Swindon No 2 design is, its about who will accept it as it gets older and the copper gives issues, all these items that thermally cycle have a life, with water treatment the all welded boiler seems to last well, at the end of the day its all out of sight, it gets hot with a fire and makes steam, once a year the dreaded comes when he fails it, money starts being spent possibly unwisely.Any work on rivited boilers is expensive and cannot usually be forward projected, it is easy to pass the cost of a new boiler trying to save an old one, for another 10 years of use or less.People find it hard to decide, this is past it time. lets re evaluare and just get a new one , if a new conventional boiler lapped and rivited etc was say £150 k then I would be supprised if a welded one to do the same duty was £75k once the design was approved as in reproductions of the existing welded boiler.With this view it is important to consider what is financial efficiency.

Recirculation and absorbtion of waste heat discharged at the chimney is in my mind the only area of improvement and insulation around the boiler and steam passages and cylnders is important, but is not in the scope of inclusion when building a new 82xxx.

 

All this talk of improvements to locos both on here and on the MHR thread are all very interesting but they seem to ignore one fundamental thing and that is the fact that those involved want to build (82045) or restore (80150) as was, warts and all, not turn them into 21st century machines. By all means have a topic on the possible ways that a new design and build could be improved with roller bearings and heat recovery systems but lets not clutter up the existing threads with things that are not relevant to them.

 

Yes I asked admin for a path to do as you suggest, but as yet I have had no reply or response.

I respect that the two locos you refer to and their respective groups, of which this is one, just want to build the design as drawn in 1950, however by having some debate on these threads , it brings readers to the threads, which surely must be good ? , to see whats going on.

No its not strictly about the theme subject, I accept that and its not just me posting, but it shows visitors, who probably otherwise would not have read this thread, that important aspects are being aired and that the project is progressing , in the direction the project management want it to progress.They need money most of all.

I think an active thread such as this one is, is advertising the good aspects of what's going on and may attract one or two sponsors in the process, for which I would think the group would be very gratefull.

Maybe you don't see it that way. I am not asking anyone to change their path however as a result of debate and finance they may themselves revisit some of their fixed ideas in the process of completing their project although I do not believe they will.

As for 80150 and the MHR thread, whilst we were discussing all sorts of aspects, the visitors to that thread were high now it has been fairly quiet ,with no significant feed of information to attract visitors.I believe 80150 is the domain of the people at MHR , I wanted to see the build up of personalities that would comment and how they interacted. It generated some very usefull information for me that I needed.

 

Why don't you just create a new topic called 'Steam loco development'? You don't need Admin to give you approval to create new topics!


Keith

 

Thanks to the engineer and all the other engineers for their consideration. Pity mr Dyson isnt on the thread.

Any thread concerning something being new built or restored is going to attract opinion and thus debate (look up the defn of forum) as to the best ways of so doing. If i was building a new steam loco. i would want every informed mind in the country chucking their tuppence worth in just in case amongst the hot gases there was something really useful i hadnt thought of

Thanks also to Keith who is also right, i am a bit of a Roger irrelevant sometimes... but to explain myself...

82045 is potentially unique by being potentially not: its unlikely anyone is going to build another, Brighton atlantic, Patriot,
A1, P2 etc but a new standard 3 and 4 Tank is on most mpd wish lists ?... and therefore the ongoing development of the design is very much a hot topic. The ultimate answers to what if anything gets developed will come from performance in service but that doent make for good conversation in the meantime.

 

This is an interesting project and many people visit this thread to update or see what is being debated . I posted a few ideas on here and many were quick enough to come out of the woods to have something to say about what I said .

Today I am posting not to suggest new ideas, but to ask how much those of you who visit the thread are prepared to contribute to the construction costs. I will make the first move by making a standing order, because I believe like kingham branch that its worthy of investment.

There are no management costs, no machining costs on many of the parts because Tony and his team are doing it all, so all the funds contributed go into the real bits you see, and the construction.

So my question is how many of you readers are willing to match my contribution that I am prepared to make.

I will ask Barbara in 4 weeks time how many have signed up to a standing order or sent a donation, so if you do send in , mention you were inspired to contribute by the thread 82045 on the forum.Then we can see the benifit of good threads and the NP site in particular. I will post the findings just to show if there has been an up take to funding the loco build as a result of this thread.

Thank you readers in anticipation, that you will help make this project happen.To those who already contribute a big thank you

 

Just to follow "The Engineers" appeal.........if any potential supporters have any doubt about how to get in touch, visit our website at http://www.82045.org.uk/82045_how-to-help.html

The latest update for June can also be found on the news page and the sales page also includes a new shower-proof windcheater jacket which folds away neatly in a carry bag-just the job for linesiders!