If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by gwr4090, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. MrDibbs

    MrDibbs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2019
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    York
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Talking to one of the reps, the alterations to the smoke-box to reduce the chimney height actually made it worse, back pressure greatly increased.
    It was using 2500-3500 gallons per 18 miles at the NYMR, not really ideal.
     
    ghost likes this.
  2. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,072
    Likes Received:
    20,781
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Really? That is ridiculous, if true.
     
  3. keith6233

    keith6233 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    150
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Manchester
    If it can boil that much water in 18 miles there is nothing wrong with the boiler .
     
    jnc likes this.
  4. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    2500 is probably an exaggeration but it was using a lot. 2500gallons is a more normal figure for a return trip (36 miles). I think it was struggling to boil that much, at times. Crew or loco, I can't tell you because I don't know.
     
  5. Maunsell907

    Maunsell907 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Unless there are water leaks from the tender, injectors or elsewhere this suggests a boiler evaporation of
    25,000-35, 000 lbs/hr. With only 2500 gallons used and only 180 psi maintained an IHP of at
    least 1500 ( perhaps required on the 1-49 from Grosmont to Goatland, but continuously for the
    18 miles with eight coaches at 25mph no.) If this water.consumption figure is correct there
    must be something very seriously wrong from the steam chest onwards ?

    As for an evaporation of 35,000lb/hr from the King boiler, I think that even with a very
    high calorific value coal no.

    A high coal consumption ie a low boiler efficiency coupled with low front end efficiency.
    makes more sense ? Coal consumption per mile ( without lighting up etc ) would
    perhaps be more meaningful ?

    I thought when 6023 was tested and then used on the P&D overall efficiencies were
    good ?

    Michael Rowe
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  6. GWR4707

    GWR4707 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,046
    Likes Received:
    15,736
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    As she is unlikely to ever go mainline now due to width issues (hence 6024's slimline cylinders) is there any reason not to reinstate the standard chimney and bonnet?
     
    michaelh likes this.
  7. torgormaig

    torgormaig Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    4,445
    Likes Received:
    6,548
    I did one trip to Pickering and back with it on Mon. morning 28/10. We used aprox 2500 gals on the up and 1500 on the down leg. The difference between the two can be attributed to the provision of train heat. On the outward leg we heated the train for about 45 minutes prior to departure on a very cold morning (and even stationary you could see the boiler water level falling noticeably). On the return run there was no way to heat the train so water consumption was understandably less. None of this was helped by a seemingly very worn front end (as photographs show) and leaking tender water valves. A colleague aptly summed the situation up by saying that despite all its issues she felt that underneath there was a good engine somewhere trying to get out.

    Peter
     
    Steve, longdogs, MikeParkin65 and 2 others like this.
  8. Mr Valentine

    Mr Valentine Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2018
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    815
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Titfield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I would have thought that the new blastpipe with its greater surface area would've reduced back pressure?

    I know that when the engine was restored and the valves were being set, one of the [original] valve liners was found to err somewhat from the drawings. I do have the figures stashed away somewhere but from memory the error in the port was a good 1/4" if not more. This obviously caused issues when trying to set the valves, and the engine certainly sounds somewhat 'off' when running in back gear, but whether this is enough to explain the water consumption I wouldn't like to say.

    Personally I've always been intrigued as to how the engine would perform if the original draughting arrangement was installed, i.e. with the jumper top and without the chimney sleeve. I believe the primary objective of the 1950's arrangement previously carried by 6023 was to burn coal, not necessarily to be economical.
     
  9. Andy B

    Andy B Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    585
    Location:
    Bristol
    Basically, The front end needs attention amongst other things. compared to last year she’s much More thirsty which means more use of the injector and hence more coal.
     
    ghost likes this.
  10. Maunsell907

    Maunsell907 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Steve, "]2500 is probably an exaggeration but it was using a lot. 2500gallons is a more normal figure for a return trip (36 miles). I think it was struggling to boil that much, at times. Crew or loco, I can't tell you"

    2500 gallons for 36 miles still suggests 100lbs/coal per mile ?

    Even including lighting up etc ie from shed out to shed back at day's end after 80 miles,
    consumption is I believe significantly less than this on the WSR. I appreciate gradients
    are more severe on the NYMR ( although actual heights climbed are similar)
    ( and there will be variation dependent on load, loco class etc ) although the WSR
    has more frequent station stops.

    Michael Rowe
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  11. D1039

    D1039 Guest

    Companies House beta has the last confirmation statement on 17 May 2019 at £ 2,327,084. The confirmation statement made on 17 May 2018 was £2,262,014, so £65k issued 2018-19. In the bit inbetween were four statements of capital following an allotment of shares (one four months after the allotment, I'm no expert but I thought the time limit was a month?). https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01010188/filing-history?page=1

    The directors can allot up to £3.5m so in theory someone could turn up with a cheque for £.99m and own 29.9%, but that presumes they both have £1m to spare and want effective shareholder control (and the grief that would bring with the minority shareholders and other stakeholders).

    Unless someone knows different the absence of further statements since May 2019 suggests people weren't buying new shares, nor existing ones?

    Patrick
     
    jnc likes this.
  12. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I reckon on a Black 5 needing to produce about 950 IHP to drag 7 full coaches up the 1 in 49 to Goathland at the 17 mph required by the WTT. My rule of thumb figure for coal is 1¼ tons/round trip (ignoring going to Whitby), which sits reasonably well with 2,500 gallons of water used if you work on 1 lb coal/gallon water. There are obviously variations between locos and crews. Last year the NYMR burned about 2500 tons of coal and did a recorded 60,399 steam miles. If you take say 10% for lighting up, staff coal, etc that gives 2250 tons for hauling trains, which then gives 27 miles/ton or 1.34 tons for a round trip. For a non-scientific fag packet analysis, the figures all seem to sit well together.
     
    jnc and Jamessquared like this.
  13. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,106
    Likes Received:
    57,443
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I seem to recall a figure, from the dim and distant past on this thread, of 70lb/mile on the WSR, derived by taking the annual coal usage and dividing by the annual loco mileage - so that figure is inclusive of lighting up, what’s left on the grate at the end of the day, usage for steam heating while stationary, and any purloined by station fireplaces(!) Obviously that is an average across all loco sizes and train weights.

    Tom
     
    Aberdare and Steve like this.
  14. Maunsell907

    Maunsell907 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    1,965
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I was thinking 60-80 lbs/mile depending on loco/duty/ crew. 'Aberdare' will have chapter and verse.

    Steve, I think between 7-8 lbs steam from one pound of coal ( obviously effected by level of
    superheat ), with nearer 7 than 8 being the norm. I suggest (at the risk of being a pedant )
    1.25 tons equates to approx evap of 20,000lbs.

    Interesting your 17mph on 1/49 to maintain schedule ie with a 7 coach 240 ton gross train
    c.550DBHP.

    The WSR Timetable requires 25mph on 1/92 ie with 7/240 a DBHP of c.450.

    (As I wrote before in the UP direction WSR locos in total climb a similar height
    overall to NYMR ones, a slightly higher number in the Up, less Down, albeit over 20
    miles rather than 18. AFAIK Grosmont and Pickering have similar altitudes,
    Bishops Lydeard is higher than Minehead. )

    I use DBHP ( I agree with Mr Wardale ) as a comparator since it is this figure
    of course that generates revenue.
    ( As an anorak I like EDHP and IHP as measures of how hard the loco is working.)

    IMHO I think the NYMR and the WSR, in terms of locomotive working (P&P) are the
    most interesting UK 'Heritage' Railways.

    Michael Rowe
     
    jnc likes this.
  15. paulhitch

    paulhitch Guest

    i.e. the most expensive to operate.
     
    michaelh likes this.
  16. Black Jim

    Black Jim Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    166
    [

    2500 gallons for 36 miles still suggests 100lbs/coal per mile ?

    Even including lighting up etc ie from shed out to shed back at day's end after 80 miles,
    consumption is I believe significantly less than this on the WSR. I appreciate gradients
    are more severe on the NYMR ( although actual heights climbed are similar)
    ( and there will be variation dependent on load, loco class etc ) although the WSR
    has more frequent station stops.

    Michael Rowe[/QUOTE]
    That will make a difference.
     
  17. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Although not a follower of performance logs I do find it interesting to compare actual figures with theoretical in the context of NYMR footplate work. As you say, it is DBHP that actually generates the revenue but the loco providing that DBHP also requires horsepower to drag it up the gradient and that cant be ignored. In fact, it provides an interesting statistic that, in terms of loco suitability, it is a fact that a less powerful Standard Cl.4 tank is a better bet than a Black .5 because it doesn't have a tender to drag around and therefore requires less tractive effort and less coal to do the work of hauling the same train, everything else being equal. For this reason, IHP and TE are more important than DBHP and Drawbar pull. In terms of NYMR loco work, I'd say that tractive effort is the most important consideration.
    You are probably right in saying that one pound of coal will produce 7-8 pounds of steam in practice but theoretically 1 gallon of water requires 11656 BTU's to get it up to 225 psi and a bit more to superheat it so 1 lb of coal with a CV of say 12600 BTU will do the job nicely. That doesn't allow for any heat losses, etc, which will reduce the heat transfer to 70-75% of the heat input.
     
  18. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,072
    Likes Received:
    20,781
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Digression, as this is not really WSR business, but for comparison, when the Pullmans go around the Surrey Hills circuit of 80 miles then the MN will use 4000 gallons - 50 gallons a mile - I am told.
     
  19. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,106
    Likes Received:
    57,443
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Heritage running tends to be somewhat inefficient, for a variety of reasons - more stopping and starting relative to mainline running; generally running at low speed with part-open regulator and long cut off (to avoid causing shocks from too much lead steam, especially on Stephenson valve gear engines); also having a large part of the duty cycle stationary or coasting (with standby losses); potentially low utilisation (for example weekends only, or part weeks) so relatively more coal used heating from cold etc. Hence what sound like relative large coal per mile figures against pre-preservation standards, especially if you work them out on a "total annual coal divided by total annual mileage" basis - which is the most sensible for doing whole season costing.

    Ultimately, in heritage running, starting from given train weights to be hauled, intelligent diagramming (both within the day and across a whole period in traffic) and good crew training make more difference to coal consumption IMHO than the specific motive power. Locomotive condition also plays a part, which reading between the lines seems to be the issue with the King. A front end approaching a P&V exam will tend to use more water (and coal) to do the same work than one fresh out of the works.

    Tom
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  20. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    There's also a significant difference in terms of superheat. A long run with a short cut off is going to make the best use of this. Even a superheated loco is not going to gain much in economy if it is only going a couple of miles between stops and doesn't get really warm. 60007 has a pyrometer in the steam circuit and it is interesting to see how the steam gets hottest when running non-stop uphill between Levisham and Summit (8½ miles). I think the most I've had has been 320°C. It's a good indicator of how well it is being fired, as well. It's also interesting to see how rapidly it drops if it starts to pick up the water, often as the first sign of the problem. I'm surprised more locos didn't have this facility in BR days.
     

Share This Page