Bagnall 4-4-0 Sir George Newnes (WB2891 formerly Charles Wytock)

It's not the veracity of his CW report, but the fact that the railway asked people not to post that news yet ....

 

Great to hear Charles is sticking around, I always thought it looked pretty well suited to the railway, a good size and more then able to handle the L&B's heavier trains going forward. Thought that of Isaac too for a time, but now with the train length up to 5 coaches, it had started to look a tad small somewhat.

Personally I never liked Charles Wytock's current chimney all that much, preferring it had the type of chimney it's classmate has at Staffold Barn. But that's just my own opinion there. Still a handsome machine.

I'm curious about the alterations proposed for the engine though, moving the bunker back that far would imply the need for a trailing wheel set at the rear ideally, wouldn't it? And is there any other ideas on altering the engine to best suit the railway? Perhaps a change of livery to something similar to the L&B's original Holy Green perhaps? Bet that livery would suit it pretty well, if not entirely historically accurate.

 

More cab room is great news for the crews, but it doesn't address the fundamental design problem of this engine which is the marine firebox. I doubt it will be an issue on the current line to Killington Lane, but experience with the Heywood engines at Ravenglass in the 1910s/20s suggest it could be an issue on a longer run. Whether the frames could be lengthened enough to accommodate a locomotive firebox without making the wheelbase too long for the railways curves, I don't know.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

An alternative expedient may be oil or gas firing.

 

So this loco won't be a success based on the exploits of 3 engines of a totally different gauge and design, being used for a task for which they were never intended over 90 years ago?

Tim

 

If the design permits then ash tubes might be considered.

 

Convert it to an oil-fired 4-4-0 and then it should be OK for longer runs. As far as I'm aware, Bagnall boilers steam very freely but the ashpan capacity is an issue - not a problem with oil and it would give the railway an engine for times of high fire risk.

 

Well presumably as they kept ordering updated versions of basically the same design, the Natal sugar cane lines must have been satisfied with their steaming capabilities as some of the systems involved long runs on heavy trains (Although admittedly not at passenger speeds)

Maybe during the rebuild they could also consider new nameplates which reinstate the "h" that went missing from "Whytock" when it was initially restored in the UK!

Chris

 

No - because of the three-letter rule, it has to be 'Wyt' on one side and 'ock' on the other

 

An interesting and potentially useful proposition, but would today's oil prices permit it to be feasible?

 

Propane?

 

So one problem is the capacity of the ashpan or rather the lack of one with this type of boiler, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to arrange a method of clearing it out regularly during the day - its a bit of a pain but not impossible although disposal of those hot ashes will need a bit of thought if its not to cause other issues (fires and heaps of random piles of ash).Oil is OK but its expensive and not many are using it for that reason alone.

I've never been on a loco with such a firebox design but does such a design allow for a thick fire or are you into the realms of little and often (which is ok unless of course you have a lazy fireman!?).

 

I'll admit that I'm no engineer, but my understanding is that a marine type boiler has less heating surface than a locomotive boiler of the same diameter. Surviving accounts suggested that the Heywood engines tended to get "out of breath" on the R&E; they were fine on estate railways where their work involved frequent stops which allowed the boiler to rebuild pressure, but they struggled with long, continuous runs. Hence those infamous occasions where passengers got out to pick wildflowers while Katie caught her breath!

I seem to recall Monarch had similar troubles on the W&L, and again, oil firing was suggested as a possible remedy. Indeed, that was partly why the FfR were interested in acquiring her; it was a shame they got a chance to put the idea into practice.

Of course, oil is now prohibitively expensive for most railways, and not a sustainable fuel source in any case. Biofuel, perhaps?!

 

Yes they have less heating surface but you can just make the firebox bigger because it doesn't project below the frames. Heywood deliberately didn't do that because he wanted the engines to be compact and because he expected them to be stood for long periods doing nothing.

Monarch was very successful at Bowaters and very worn by the time it got to Welshpool. Among other things the blastpipe was misalinged which wouldn't have helped steaming at all. I suspect with a comprehensive overhaul it would make a much better show of itself. The sister locos seemed to have fared well in Africa.

The main issues with marine fireboxes are small ashpans and slow steam raising from cold. Providing they are well matched with the rest of the engine they can be perfectly good on the run.

You can have a conventional boiler that is rubbish too. The one in Lyd for example has a huge grate but seems to use lots of coal for not much steam.

Tim

 

I believe problems with Monarch on the W&L were as much related to the effects of the line's switchback gradients on water levels in a fairly long boiler as to anything else.

Whilst the geometry of a 'marine' (aka 'bullhead') firebox may dictate a smaller grate than usual in a loco, the real issue is below the grate, where accumulated ash becomes more of a problem more quickly.

 

I doubt that you could use propane without starting with a clean sheet of paper. Gas burners require the combustion air to be mixed with the gas before the point of combustion. The blast from the exhaust steam would create havoc with flame stability and propane isn’t exactly the most stable of flames to start with.

 

Thanks Tim, I see what you are saying. Of course, one of the African locos is now under restoration in Colorado so it will be interesting to see how it performs once it is up and running.

I'm afraid I can't offer any explanation for your difficulties with Lyd!

 

A simple check on Rightmove would reveal that the cottage currently owned by Isaac's owner is still up for sale. Please review your 'source'.

 

Gas fired miniature locos have a large hole in the bottom of the smokebox so the draft does not affect the flame. I made a vertical boiler which is propane fired and made the burner for it with a ceramic plate which gives radiant heat. Unfortunately one day the gas flame popped back below the ceramic plate and burned in the brass box below. Consequently it melted the box. It certainly took some experimentation to get the burner working properly but the boiler is essentially the same as a coal fired one. However I think the boiler produces much less steam than if it was coal fired

 

Having had many happy days on "Isibutu", I'm surprised that there are issues with the size of the cab. "Isi" has no back plate though which may give the illusion of more space. Although you don't have the distance on site, the HL road at Statfold gives even the Bagnall something to think about with the gradient profile and she has always been a free-steaming and gutsy machine. The boiler is very forgiving with the only drawback I can see being the inability to fire on the run (against the regulator) without causing harm, perhaps making the design unsuitable for applications with long duration at high output