GWR four-cylinder arrangement?

Well no, it rather suggests that you have reached the limits of gigantism in steam locos and need to think of diesels or electrics if you want to increase power! The only places which seemed to be able to make giant steam locos work was where coal was cheap. That tells you something.

My wider point is that there seems to be a cult of Chapelonism which is vey partial to quoting selected statistics about locos, without considering the whole picture. So you get magic power outputs from the cylinders, but much less discussion of how the steam was to be supplied, or whether the mechanical structure of the loco could deal with those power outputs. My feeling is that once you get above about 2,500hp with a coal-fired steam loco, you have to start accepting much reduced efficiency, from a machine that is already inefficient. At that point the rationale for moving away from steam starts to become inevitable.

Tom

 

The phenomenon of carryover was and remains a serious issue. It was addressed but needed further development work. It achieved the result of reducing lineside fires and the cost of associated insurance claims which was the leverage to get the ideas applied. Fuel consumption was reduced for a given power output and as an extension of this power output went up which was what the creators of the system wanted to test.

 

25%? It's powered by a small steam engine! You will find that the figure is somewhere between 3 and 5%.

 

Two firemen?