9F With Giesl ejector

Point to note is that the Giesl fitted to 34092 ( Personally supervised by Herr Giesl ) is not necessarily the same as the one fitted to 34064... whilst generally speaking any multiple orifice ejector is going to outperform a single where overall height does not permit the ideal chimney dimensions, the exception that proves the rule ( Flying Pig) amply demonstrates that one size does not fit all and a well proportioned single can and will perform better than a poorly proportioned double/ multi. Analogy:
3 comparable runners
1 has a comfortable pair of old boots
2 has state of the art trainers
3 has professional running spikes
Which one wins ? well if number twos trainers are Clown shoe size and number threes spikes are so tight he can barely walk its probably number one ...

 

In day to day traffic, was there really any significant difference between single and double chimney 9Fs? As far as I can see they were used indiscrimantly on exactly the same work.

Peter

 

The claim that the giesel equipped BoB was considered the equivalent of an MN doesn't seem to be supported by its own "facts".

Giesel ejector improved the overall fuel consumption. That we can evidence because we have some comparable statistics to play with for a few locos including said BoB. The perceived difference in power output seems questionable: and without proper comparative data recorded at the time, is simply the supposition of drivers.

Could they be right? Logic dictates a freer steaming front end and less back pressure provides a better steaming locomotive; but my understanding is that it's a combination of cylinder diameter/wheel size/adhesion/steaming capacity that all factors in to the question of actual power, which the statement "equivalent of an MN" seems to imply.

If you really want to get scientific on it, you'd question the validity of the statement and try to offer supporting evidence. Anecdotal stuff in the form of engineman's views are good to have, they indicate that 34064 probably was a better BoB for the fitting of said device, but without any data or evidence (such as matching MN timed turns and train weights) I'm not sure you can lend much weight to the idea that you could replace an MN with a giesel fitted BoB on any given turn.

 

Where some NCB Austerity 0-6-0 saddle tanks fitted with giesel ejectors?

 

Yes, the Giesel ejector found its way into industrial use. Some NCB examples are preserved.

 

Not just Austerities, at least one of the 0-6-0 side tanks at Polkemmet, *edited Barclay 1296 built 1912, had a Giesl fitted.. I think there were others too in Cumbria.

Dredging the depths of my memory I have a recollection of a Railway Magazine article about 34064 and the Giesl, probably in the 60s or 70s. Does anyone have access to the online archive to look ?

 

What you need though is a decent sized sample & stats, which Fighter Commands installation didnt provide

 

In line with people's sensitivites about the correct spelling of Bulleid it would seem that the correct spelling of Giesl is not Giesel.

Sorry for being pedantic.

Peter

 

Apologies all!

 

Yes, 'Repulse' on the Lakeside and Haverthwaite is so fitted.

'Repulse' goes well, I know from the time I spent at Haverthwaite the guys who had driven/fired both her and 'Cumbria' from the Furness Trust reckoned that 'Repulse' steamed much better.

Chris

 

There are a significant number of logs/timing sheets involving 34064 post the fitting of Doctor Giesl’s ejector.
They appear to show no discernible difference in performance levels ( I.e power outputs ) to that off other
Bulleid light Pacifics.

Messrs C.Hudson and G.Bloxham both timed 34064 several times during the summer of1962.
In Mr Hudson’s case most of the timings/0bservations were from the footplate. (He was at the time
seconded to Eastleigh as part of his management training ). His notes indicate no enthusiasm
( or lack of) for the fitment. He did ‘footplate’ from Waterloo to Weymouth on the 08.10 Waterloo
Channel Islands Boat Train ( with the normal 12 coach consist ) when there were ‘steaming’
difficulties throughout with both sets of crews, although he noted the coal had a lot of fines.

Geoff Bloxham, amongs other runs, timed two on the 10.30 from Waterloo two hour Bournemouth.
Yes, this was a rostered Merchant Navy turn but light Pacifics were regularly employed on these
duties. ( as an aside when the two hour schedules were introduced in 1957 Merchant Navys were
the norm. Over the years whether WC/BB/MN were used indiscriminately. The light pacifics,
could comfortably keep time, they simply had less in reserve than the MNs.). On one of Geoff
Bloxam’s timings Driver Letchford, seldom known to hold back, was at the regulator. The
performance was good but no different to one Geoff timed with 34050 two weeks later, and one
I timed with Driver Varney and 34044. i.e in all cases with a well filled. 12 coach train 65mph over
MP31.

As ever one cannot prove a negative but I suggest there is no data to suggest that the ejector
increased the power. ( I am not aware of any data that suggests boiler evaporation was increased
only reports from Eastleigh that coal consumption was less, ie more lbs of steam per lb of
coal, enthalpy unchanged ,

Regarding references to 2,000 HP with 34092, are we talking EDHP or IHP ?

As noted previously the West Country achieved some high power outputs in the 1948 loco exchanges.
On the ex GCR route, an EDHP of 1,962 on Annesley bank at 46mph. BP245psi, SCP 225, cut off 30%
and 2010 EDHP at 68mph BP 260, SCP 240 cut off 27%. ( the slight increase attributable to the
higher BP, 280psi working pressure, and therefore higher saturation temperature leading to higher
final S/H ?)
Note these are EDHPs, the IHPs at least 2200 and 2400.

I am sure Mike Johns (who was involved with 34064 and Dr Giesl) stated the ejector reduced wasted fuel.
At the time it was also suggested that it would reduce the number of call outs to the Hampshire fire
brigade for line side fires twixt Winchester and Roundwood.

Michael Rowe

 

And of course Edward Thomas on the TR.

The other interesting experiment with Austerities is the L.D.Porta one.

https://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/austerity/portaausterity.htm

 

Likewise !

 

This is it, it could just have been the case that in drivers opinion 34064 was a 'good un' ejector or not.

There are plenty of tales from GWR footplate men suggesting that certain loco's were good or in fact bad even after they had gone through the shops and had everything replaced, likewise there is the anecdotal stories (and I may have got these the wrong way round) that 5051 is a bit of a plodder but will literally pull anything whereas 5029 is less powerful but a flyer!

Without a dynamometer car I suspect we will never know.

Anyway, as you were

 

IIRC, the ejector ex-No.4 (now displayed in the NGRM) also had a spell on FfR Alco Mountaineer where, being TR No.4 sized, it looked decidedly odd. No clue as to what they were trying to prove, though the persistent fire-throwing problem back then seems a likely reason, or if any conclusions were reached, beyond noting it was worn out!

 

and Peter Sam on Sodor.

 

I photographed 92250 at Severn Tunnel Jct MPD on 3 August 1964, when it just had 17 months left - what a waste!

Dave

 

When Bagnalls 3059 and 3061 were together, I never heard any comments about one being any better or worse.

 

I wonder if subjectivity and subconscious bias is at work here?
Crews might have thought the engines fitted with a different exhaust system were better without objective proof eg dynamometer testing.
Didn't Tuplin (not the most objective writer, I know) talk about painting a chimney blue and getting better figures?
We call it the 'backside dyno' in the bike world. Just look at the popularity of loud pipes.
'Well it's louder. so it's faster innit?'
Also are Giesl ejectors quieter than other types? We drive by ear a lot and a quieter exhaust might have been compensated for by driving the engine somewhat harder.
Just a thought.