9F With Giesl ejector

So I believe, but what is to say that it would not have done so had it not been equiped with a Giesl Ejector. I think the crew's enthusiasm played a far bigger role in that feat than the Giesl did. Many locos in the preservation era are producing feats of performance that would never have been attempted back in the day. I seem to recall that 46229 also generated a record output on Saunderton on a 1980s Marylebone job.

Peter

 

The light Pacifics achieved that figure in the 1948 exchange trials without a Giesel ejector.

 

My theory is that the BR Standard exhaust was a better design than the Bulleid-Lemaitte, in particular regarding back pressure on the pistons.
Replacing the BL with a Giesl gave an improvement, but didn't make much difference on the 9Fs.

Does anyone know what the difference in performance was between the single chimney 9F and the double chimney version?

I'm looking forward to seeing what General Steam Navigation can do with the exhaust system that Steve Rapley comes up with.
https://national-preservation.com/threads/35011-general-steam-navigation.491795/page-43#post-2698773

 

Lets just say that I'm sceptical about these claims rather than disagree with them. Given that Bulleid Pacifics were such free running and free steaming locos in the first place I suspect that any improvement gained by fitting a Giesl Ejector would at very best be marginal. But there is no evidence either way that I'm aware of to back up your view or mine. Thats why I'm happy to wait and see what our @S.A.C. Martin finds when he is researching his next book.

Peter

 

I think a more relevant question would be whether there was any reduction in coal and water consumption after fitting the Giesl.

 

I always understood that the prime purpose of fitting the Giesl ejector to 34064 was to reduce spark emissions and improve exhaust clearance and this was the same reason it was fitted to 34092. Happy to be told that's incorrect, though. There's some interesting information here: https://www.svsfilm.com/nineelms/giesl.htm

As a matter of interest, how does 34067 fare? It must have adequate spark arresting equipment in the smokebox to be allowed out to play on the big railway.

 

Wasn't the draughting of light pacifics discussed extensively in a thread previously with relation to the changes to 6023?

found it. https://national-preservation.com/t...-pacifics-including-the-giesl-ejector.364598/

 

I seem to recall that the Southern's people, knowing full well they hadn't a snowball in hell's chance of topping the economy table, went full tilt for performance during the exchanges.

 

Unless arrangements could be agreed for the use of the GCR's double-track main line with is 60 mph authorisation as required.

 

Yeah! I know, the Giesl had the lowest backpressure, then the double chimney and the single had the highest.
I had some comparative graphs which I cannot find now and unlikely to reproduce. If you need further information look at
the articles " On the calculation of steam locomotive front-ends ..." on the web.
kind regards
Jos

 

Fireman’s evidence is supportive: it would steam on the “dreaded ovoids”.

The BR internal case for fitting the ejector was indeed to lesson lineside fires. The sole one was a trial before them being fitted generally and had that happened the rest of the injectors would have been made at British Railway’s works It would have been interesting with Geisel personally involved wether any might have been put on Merchant Navies and wether those would have had any different dimensions in their internals.

 

Fuel and water economy was not high on the agenda of the Southern crews that's for sure.

 

Probably too little too late but interesting to wonder what the widespread installation of Giesel Ejectors might have done for steam in the UK

 

Frankly I do think not very much. I reconstructed the 9F graph with the Rugby test data showing little difference between the effect of the single, double and Giesl. At the time little attention was given to any explanation of the functionality of a multiple exhaust
and S.O. Ell never had a Kylchap equipped locomotive on the test stand.
Kind regards
Jos

 

Perhaps look at overseas experience. Specifically, to NSW, Australia, where 3616 was the only Giesel equipped locomotive in the country. There were 74 others in the 36 Class to compare it with.

It was sent out west, to Parkes, where it became the only 36 that could run the Western Mail to time. In 1964, when diesels took over, it was transferred north to Broadmeadow, whereit became a favourite on the North Mail.

Here's a picture from Mike Morrant's collection along with various (contemporary) reports published about it.

In summary, don't be too dismissive of the claims made for 34064 and 34092.

 

To my mind there is one big difference between the BR experience and that of the NSWGR. The 36 class were well known as fickle steamers and therefore stood to gain significantly from the application of a Giesl Ejector. Whereas both the 9F and the Bulleid locos were among the best steaming and free running types ever produced on BR with little to gain from the application. The Giesl Ejector certainly did neither type any harm but might have more beneficial to a less successful loco type. If you want to go down the road of speculation, it would have been interesting to see if a Giesl would have benefited "Combe Martin" (34043) which seems to have been the black sheep of the Bulleid family.

Peter

 

Remember reading somewhere ( Bond ? Cox ? Stevens ?) that BR were dead set against the Giesl ( Royalty Payments !) and had Ell and his team come up with the double chimney for 9f's in advance of the scheduled trial - against a single chimney 9f the Giesl would have looked favourable, but not much of an improvement over the Double to justify adoption