Well-tanks

Re-reading Tuplin's 'British Steam Since 1900' alongside studying some of the latest views of Brighton Atlantic 'Beachy Head's exquisite, almost-complete bottom-end has suddenly made me realise there's a big gap in my understanding of basic nuts and bolts locomotive engineering: when a CME opted for a well-tank, either from new or as part of a redesign (e.g. a LBSCR 'L' class 4-6-4 WT, as discussed by Tuplin), how was it possible to find space between the frames for that tank, when such relatively lithe and ethereal items as adequate valve gear, lubrication, ash-pans and brake-rodding seem to have created major headaches? And is servicing made more difficult?

Apologies if this has been chewed over previously.

 

Do not believe everything Tuplin wrote!

So far as the LBSCR 'L' class locos were concerned, they had only a small well tank (450 gallons). The bulk of the water was held in the rear bunker (1350 gallons). The side tanks held 450 gallons each. (See A.C. Perryman 'When Steam was King at Brighton' p.109).

Cheers,
Julian

 

I've read the odd Tuplin tome and he seemed to me to be very opinionated, possibly to the point of stretching facts a bit to suit his argument.

Am I misjudging him?

 

Haydock Collieries solved this problem on Bellerophon and her sisters by putting all the motion outside.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/38136824@N08/14624408989 (not my picture - just one that shows the motion fairly well).

I've heard her described fairly aptly as like a swan in motion - from above the waterline (or running board) she glides about smoothly and effortlessly, but if you watch below the surface, you see much frantic paddling going on!

 

I can write from personal experience of the Beattie 2-4-0T which not only has a well tank but also two sets of Allan straight-link valve gear all crammed in between the frames. To say that space for attending to the valve gear is very restricted is something of an understatement, to say the least. Why on earth normal side tanks couldn't have been fitted remains a mystery. Obviously the word 'ergonomics' hadn't been invented then.

 

I think they spelt ergonomics differently in those days. I believe it was spelt aesthetics

 

There's a subject for another thread: who, amongst all of the tall-hatted, 19th century CMEs reinterpreted 'aesthetics' as 'the art of hiding everything behind everything else'? As 'Talyllyn' isn't noted for falling over on corners when compared to 'Dolgoch', for example, is it safe to assume there are no real centre-of-gravity arguments?

Thanks for the insight re: Beattie well-tanks; the reality is probably even more nightmarish than one's imagination - and that's a design that was as Nature (and the LSWR) intended from the outset.