Draughting arrangements for Bulleid Pacifics including the Giesl ejector

I've been watching a few videos of 34092 in action and it certainly sounds different to a standard rebuilt but does it actually alter the performance? I assume it was originally fitted to improve the steaming and as it has been retained following its rebuilding, it must be considered a success. If it has improved performance, why aren't other Bulleids fitted with them?

 

Another claim for the Giesl ejector is that it reduces the tendency of the smoke to cling to the side of the loco and so give the crew better forward vision. If this has proved to be true in daily use, then it would be worth considering. If not, then it's probably not worth the difficulty and expense. It's not as though any steam loco owner is short of difficulties and expenses!

 

You're not wrong there.

 

If my memory serves, the Geisel was fitted on the insistence of BR, purely to lift the exhaust to improve forward vision, the other benefit, ie fuel saving is said to be marginal, but this, coupled with the damper fitted ashpan may become more significant and should show a greater water saving.

 

Are you sure about the BR connection? Why would they insist on a Giesl ejector on 34092 but not on any other main line Bulleid?

 

Because it was the first in preservation, as far as I am aware 'Tangmere' came after the demise of BR, I will ask Richard Greenwood tho and check.

 

That is precisely why BR insisted on it, simply because of its efficacy, I doubt people would believe the difficulties the owners had to overcome and the hoops they had to jump through to get her on the main line, but with various 'friends' like the great Dick Hardy and others, we eventually did the Engine & coach test run, Carnforth, Hellifield return on that bloody awful, windy day, think it was November '81.

 

Do you think they would insist on on putting a Giesl on one of their own rebuilds ?

 

Any improved exhaust system is worth considering particularly in light of the vacuum loss due to spark arresters. After all you want your locomotive to steam freely. Then you have the power bonus. You have to remember that 34092 was far and away the first Bulleid to return to the mainline from the scrap lines. The fitting of this ejector was judged to give the locomotive a valuable extra haulage capacity, worth two extra coaches if memory serves. It would be interesting to see if a double Lempor might be fitted one day.

 

I remember 34064 getting hers fitted and the sound was quite unique on BR at the time. I also talked to her crew on three different occasions and they were impressed with her performance. A pity it came too late in the day to warrant the expense of fitting out more Loco's. However; if there had been ten more years of steam to come i think the remaining originals would have all been rebuilt and then we wouldn't have Tanger's, 34007 et al running in original form today and 34092 with ejector fitted. Personally i'm happy with the way things turned out as steam ended and Dai Woodham became a hero, albeit an unintentional one !

 

An excellent article was published during the late 80's in Railway World covering the modifications made to City of Wells. This article was an in-depth study of the fitment of the Giesl ejector to 34092 and the enhanced performance that was achieved. IFRC, analysis was made of runs on the mainline pre-fitment of the ejector and after, which showed a significant improvement in the locos performance up the banks and over the hills of the North. Apologies, but being a far from home at present, I haven't access to my magazine collection to refer directly to it, however, if someone reading this can perhaps dig it up, it will provide most of the answers to the questions above.

Cheers

Alan

 

As far as I can remember! 34092 only ran few mainline tours prior to fitting, I do remember helicoiling the threads in the smokebox saddle for the multiple nozzle blastpipe, but can't remember when. dammit?

 

iirc The Le maitre system dimensions for Merchant Navy and the WC/BB's are the same, but given the different exhaust volumes for the two classes the effectiveness of the system differs , with the blast considered too soft on the smaller locos. The fact that any of these ' Proprietry' exhaust systems has to be tailored to fit the individual class of Locomotive, and also what you want it to achieve Draught/backpressure wise seems to have gone over the heads of BR and 'Big 4' CME'S. I do think its a good show that at least one (potentially) mainline standard gauge loco is carrying a correctly proportioned closed ejector systems

 

Just joined this forum. As far as I am concerned the original Bulleid-Lemaitre front-end
is incorrectly proportioned. A redesign would give practically identical performance to
the Giesl without the external change and related costs.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans