Tyseley Single Wheeler.

Bob -

Re your #152 above, while I drew the layout for the numberplates and the tender numerals, it was not my idea to give the Bloomer the number 670. You told me that 670 was to be the number, as ordained by someone (name forgotten) at Tyseley.

At that time - 28 years ago - so much important and basic stuff was being discussed: boiler outline, cylinder layout etc., with the imminent and really exciting prospect of seeing an 1860 express locomotive in steam, that a daft engine number seemed hardly worth arguing about, and certainly not worth upsetting Mr --- for.

But this '670' has always seemed silly to me. The Tyseley Bloomer was meant to be a historically accurate representation of the type as in 1860: hence its much-debated green livery. In 1860 the L&NWR Southern Division had only about 350 engines, so giving this engine a post-1862 number in the 600+ series was wrong and misleading.

My reason for mentioning the number in #149 above is that there is more than enough nonsense in railway books already, without anyone else producing illustrations of Bloomers with 6xx numbers on the chimney. Perhaps Hamilton Ellis may be excused for painting an inaccurate bright-red engine absurdly numbered '607', emerging from Shugborough tunnel; after all, it was painted in 1949 when he was making a whole series of coloured pictures of old trains to decorate British Railways compartments. And he was working to a deadline.

In the case of the Bloomer, Tyseley isn't working to a deadline. So it would be sensible to get the job done as accurately as possible.

I suggest you should renumber your 670. Make it 270; that this number wasn't actually carried by a Bloomer hardly matters, at least it is within the possible range of numbers used at the period intended. And, as with No 1009 Wolverton, it has the advantage that, many years from now, photographs of the Tyseley replica won't be mistaken for photos of the real thing.

The present 670 numberplates are slightly too small (my fault, I know, but research keeps turning up new stuff) so should be replaced. Anyway, the engine's date of construction engraved on these plates is "Sept. 1988". Daft, or what?

A Good New Year to you -
Cheers!

Harry.

 

Tom -

As with most railways, coke was the fuel originally used on the LNWR, but from 1850 some attempts were made to burn coal efficiently. During 1857 the increase in the use of coal was dramatic, rising from 7% to 30% of loco fuel used on the LNWR Southern Division; by 1862 the use of coke was almost extinct.

The original Bloomers of 1851-3 had crosshead-driven feed pumps, but Giffard's recently invented injectors were authorised for LNWR engines in February 1861.

Harry.

 

While that would be good, it doesn't seem essential. Them as wants to contribute cash, labour or both should step forward to do so, them as doesn't can go on muttering if it gives them any pleasure. When the job's finished, there can be grateful acknowledgment of the work and cash contributed by all parties, whether years ago or recently.

 

Thanks for that - interesting. So if the intention is to produce a loco in mid-1860s form, coal burning and injectors would be appropriate?

My tastes are more southern, but I've often thought it would be interesting to fire a loco with feed pumps rather than injectors. Would teach you a lot about boiler control, I suspect, though I don't suppose it isn't going to happen any time soon!

Tom

 

Come and have a day on Rocket. No injectors there...

 

The early types of axle driven feed pumps which only pump when needed can be quite challenging at times when trying to prime it with the pet-cocks and I'm glad to have had an injector available as standby. Middleton's Sentinel has a twin ram pump which pumps continually and the output is simply pumped back to tank when not required and that is much easier and reliable. Having such a pump enables the water level to be kept fairly constant unless you blow off a lot.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but where would the bloomer run?

 

Tyseley yard or any heritage railway line interested in hiring it presumably, has similar mainline prospects to Cadbury's No 1.

 

Furness Railway 20 never seems to be short of work, and I'd have thought the Bloomer would be similar in capability - though it would be interesting on some if the steeper lines in the country!

Tom

 

Well that's something to look forward to!

Tom

 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=366458&nseq=203

The Swiss have a more liberal attitude to steam on the mainline.

 

(Slightly OT)

A while back, I came across this 5" model of a Beattie Well tank as originally constructed (see below), and discussed the feed water arrangements with the builder, who had researched them thoroughly to make his model.

As I recall, on the left hand side (not shown in the photo) there was a donkey pump, which could be controlled from the footplate and would pump water from the tank direct to the boiler via a clack valve on the left hand side. Thus the boiler could be fed even when the loco was stationery.

On the right hand side (shown), there was a crosshead feed pump. This would pump water from the tank either direct into the boiler using one of the visible clack valves, or recirculate it back to the tank - the adjustment was made using the thin control black rod just visible running back to the cab. By adjustment of a lever (that as I recall required stopping at a station, or crawling along the footplate framing), the crosshead pump could instead pump water through the feed water heater (a water pipe jacketed with an exhaust steam supply from the cylinders - it's the black pipe running along the boiler). The hot water could in turn either enter the boiler through the third clack valve, or else be recirculated to the tank.

Thus the fireman had the option of pumping water to the boiler using a steam pump - useful when stationery - or pumping either hot or cold water either into the boiler or back to the tank (thus gradually raising its temperature) using the feed pump. All of which required juggling of various cocks and valves from the cab. Makes trying to get the injectors of a Terrier to pick up cleanly seem child's play in comparison! Beattie was, of course, like several engineers of his era on railways in the south, interested in ways to reduce the coal bill, since, away from the main mining areas, coal was always a relatively expensive commodity in the south.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamessquared/8221411133/lightbox/

Tom

 

thanks tom for posting the above! a lovely miniature loco! (Hotspur's design in EIM) havent seen one in original condition before.
crosshead pumps (as tom will know) lasted on the LBSCR into the 20thC thanks to Stroudley's feed water heating (injectors wouldnt work at the temperature of LBSCR loco's feed water on the Stroudley system). see Holcroft Locomotive Adventure Vol 2 in the General Strike of 1926 when he had to run a D1 up and down the yard to fill the boiler coz no injectors fitted.
cheers,
julian

 

McConnell Patent 2-2-2 anyone?

 

Crank driven feed pumps actually make a lot of sense if set up correctly and operated by someone who knows what they are doing. They don't need much effort to run them, use no extra steam, and if set up like on the Beattie tank, can be used in conjunction with a feed water heater that brings the water temperature well up. The result is no loss of steam from using an injector (which is a hungry consumer), a flow of heated water into the boiler, and the ability to very finely control the amount being fed. of course, the ideal situation is a very long run at constant speed, which isn't that common on railways, but is still common in historic marine applications where engine driven feed pumps are still common. Having feed pumps for running, and injectors for stationary use is the ideal, hence my steam launch having that set up.
Daniel

 

It's a real shame that so much of the work has been done and it's sitting in a really great location for the work to be done. Bob have you considered a 'sponsor a part' to help raise some of the 100k?