6023

Sorry, to me this is more an opinion than based on experience!
A) Just before the SVR tests with King 6023, febr 2018, I was told that the King was more economical on coal and water with the new blastpipe. At that moment she had a trundling history.
B) Since May this year we are testing a heavy duty 0-6-0 shunting engine modified the same way as the King, 4-orifices. Right away I was told that the locomotive was 20% more economical
on the SHM heritage line from Hoorn to Medemblik in the Netherlands. Advantages mentioned were the improved accelleration, larger loads and the like. Biocoal was also tested and gave proper results.
And yes, the crew is very important, but now they have a front-end which allows them to fire properly.
Coal may only be a smaller part of the cost picture, but one should realize what the lesser load on the boiler means for the boiler life, by far the most expensive item of a steam locomotive.
I am now in my 80 'st year and am of the opinion that those still advocating single orifice front-ends are very close to being fools and throwing away the future of steam locomotives.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

There was a discussion (on the West Somerset thread) that suggested quite the opposite: that 6023 was currently consuming a lot of coal and water for the work done. See here and the next page or so. West Somerset Railway Operations A worn front end seemed to be part of the problem.

Boilers are the most expensive part to overhaul: I’ve often wondered whether, for locos like a 9F or a King that are overpowered for heritage lines and have copper fireboxes and high working pressure, whether there would be a worthwhile enhancement in firebox life by reducing the working pressure to say 225psi. With the possible exception of the NYMR, it would make negligible difference to the ability to haul a viable load, since on most railways, train weight is dictated by platform length, not loco power, and certainly is when talking of large engines.

Tom

 

60007 ran for a short period at 225 psi on its previous boiler ticket and this did not create a problem on the NYMR. I'm sure that a 9F would not suffer from such a reduction, either. Things start to get more marginal when you get down to the class 4 & 5 locos and I wouldn't like to think of a Black 5 or B1 not having the full 225 psi available for dragging the diner around.

 

Indeed - my thought was primarily for locos (such as 9F, King, and I guess A4) that had 250psi boilers.

Tom

 

Just out of interest how do you reduce a boilers PSI?

 

Adjust the safety valves to lift at lower pressure I guess
.

 

Only if the owning group is prepared to pay the heavy costs of fitting the necessary equipment for main line duty.

 

I believe its owner has already paid for reduced width cylinders. A bit like myself 6024 has lost a bit of weight!

 

And draw a new red line on the pressure gauge

 

Surely as blowing off represents a waste of energy just drawing the new Red line is the most important bit !
Seems to be the done thing on the KWVR to always fire up to blowing off at Keighley but it is a notoriously difficult start.

 

You do wonder if the return has had an effect on 6023.

However, wherever she goes, she is popular.

 

The point of musing about a reduction in boiler pressure isn’t about testing the fireman’s skill; it is about enhancing the life of the firebox by reducing the water temperature. I’m not aware of any British loco with a copper firebox that successfully ran at > 250psi (the Hawksworth Counties had the pressure reduced after a short period in traffic). Even 250psi is probably a bit marginal on firebox life with a copper box, something that BR and three of the big four were prepared to accept - as they pushed the limits of power within a constrained loading gauge - given access to considerable boiler maintenance resources, but something that could perhaps be profitably looked at in heritage use, especially for non-mainline use. Probably of most relevance to the owners of 9F locos.

Tom

 

As I am in a position to ask the staff at GWS for verification, I received a heavy denial! "Some crews could not cope with the grate size and were moaning."
I am wondering whether coal consumption is really metered or only based on impressions.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Yes Tom quite correct and of course any thing that is subject to repeated changes in pressure and temperature is better off if the range of that change is reduced. My point being that operating a boiler at less than its full pressure should be quite possible as a directive without adjusting the safety valves...

 

All I know is that she was a lot better on water last year as against this year. Using more water requires more use of the injector and ultimately more coal.

 

I can not comment on 6023s performance this year or indeed the last few years since the blastpipe was changed. I can however say that in its original configuration it was a horrifically inefficient machine.

At the MNR we have had a Jub, Scot, Duchess and A4 visit, but the King used double the coal of any them. It had a visible impact on the railways account as the annual coal budget was destroyed.

 

I know it has a double chimney, so it's a slightly different ballgame, but does 6024 have a similar reputation for coal?

Keith

 

Was it the right type of coal? GWR locos can be a bit finicky when it comes to coal in the tender.