Loco developement ex Tornado thread

Re: Tornado

Utter tosh!

 

Re: Tornado

And yet it is on record that the SR board reckoned they got there money's worth of of him, expensive to produce or not.

 

Re: Tornado

As I said, awkward truths.

 

Re: Tornado

True. Though I didn't say Porta was "anti-compounding" he just wasn't a slave to it like Chapelon. As I've a foot in both (or even all three) camps on this thread I'm not going to get too involved in the debate for fear of shooting myself in the foot at some point, but I look on with interest!

 

Re: Tornado

So to summarise:

(*) The objective of the Tornado project, and the desire of most of their supporters, was to build a representative example of a British Steam Locomotive of the late 1940s; it wasn't to try to improve on the breed in significant ways nor to try to create the "ultimate" steam locomotive.

(*) Increasingly from the 1930s onwards, on pure technological grounds, British Locomotive design was falling behind other countries (notably France) in its use of devices to improve the power output and thermal efficiency of the steam locomotive; however, that failure has to be set in context with the relative financial constraints that designers in different countries worked under and

(*) Current efforts to try to build a new generation of "ultimate" steam locomotives are divisive, with some people being very fervent supporters, but equally some people believeing them to lack the drama and nostalgia of "old" designs (even "new build old designs", like Tornado) and reckoning that they are essentially irrelevant as a practical transport solution or as a means of prolonging the life of mainline steam.

Is that about it?

Tom

 

Re: Tornado

Nail on head, Tom.

However, we've gone seriously OT, interesting as it is. Perhaps now is a good time to move this fascinating debate to its own thread?

FWIW, I for one am pleased that we have Tornado as she is; she is indeed the 50th Peppercorn A1.

Mark

 

Re: Tornado

There is nothing awkward or true about your statement "Anecdotes are about all we have about events seventy years ago.". It is just wrong.

Extensive technical records and reports exist for many technologies from the Victorian period onwards.

As an example apposite to the discussion.

From p11 of the TECHNICAL REPORT OF THE AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE FOR THE YEAR 1929 HMSO

"The enquiry into the single sleeve valve type of petrol engine
gained in value by the co-operation of the aircraft engine manu-
facturing firms, representatives of whom gave evidence before
a specially constituted Panel of the Sub-Committee. Some mention
was made in the previous Annual Report of Messrs. Ricardo's
investigation into this type of engine. After full consideration of
the results of these investigations, and of all evidence from other
sources, the Panel reported that single sleeve valve engines offered
now the greatest scope for advance in the production of engines
of low weight per horsepower. They based this conclusion mainly
on the proved capacity of such engines to withstand heavy super-
charging without the overheating and loss of power due to pre-ignition
and detonation, which occur in engines with hot exhaust valves.
The Panel also considers that the single sleeve valve engine was
likely to prove, in practice, more economical in fuel, and no less
reliable, than the standard type of poppet valve engines."

 

To stir the pot even further, surely one has to admit that the primary problem with compounding is that of loading gauge. Surely you only have to look at the cylinder dimensions used on marine engines to appreciate that anything you can sling alongside or between the frames of any British (or even west European) steam engine is going to be a horrendous compromise.
And that in turn, of course, leads us to another conclusion: Brunel was right. Just think of the low pressure cylinders one could get between the frames of a 7' gauge locomotive...

 

Re: Tornado

Which foot? Who do you think you are? Rolf Harris? :crazy:


Foxy

 

Re: Tornado

Yet for all that it still suffered the same problem as the GWR 'King' and LMS 'Princes Royal' classes, to wit, cylinders working loose. Hence today 232U1 can be seen with lumps of metal fore and aft of the cylinders, welded both to them and the frames to stop them moving.

 

Re: Tornado

Bristols spent an enormous amount of money in developing their sleeve valve engines and small wonder that Bulleid had trouble with the sleeves on Leader and the Atlantic test bed. I am interested to hear of the Centaurus problems because in the 50s British European Airways operated a fleet of Viking airliners powered by Bristol Hercules engines which though smaller than a Centaurus gave no trouble with the sleeve valves.
With the gas turbine looming in the future some American engine builders were considering using sleeve valves though the rapid development of the gas turbine put paid to that idea.

 

Re: Tornado

From what little I've read on the matter, the problems arose in the early days of Bristol sleeve valve engines but once sorted, they became quite reliable pieces of kit. AFAIK the modern day warbird community consider the Centaurus as very reliable indeed.

 

Re: Tornado

Damn - cover blown.

 

Re: Tornado

One cannot compare sleeve valved aircraft engines with an attempt to use the sleeve valve principle on a locomotive.

Spamcan is quite correct about Bristol engine development. The early problems with the sleeve valve engine programme were overcome by improvements to machine tooling and advances in metallurgy.

Have you heard of Centaurus problems from other than the quote attributed to an anonymous RN Commander (E) Retd. previously?

There is a fairly interesting comparison of the advanced poppet and sleeve valve aircraft engines here: http://tinyurl.com/bw7yfed

 

In defence of Mr Riddles and his team - that in the real world in post ww11 britain steam super power really was not on the agenda.
Riddles was not without ambition but he was probably selected on his performance in an austerity environment. His team we're similarly conservative and traditional and worked to a brief of maximum availability, reliability and economy in that order. some might say they evenwandered off this breif
To suggest that they we're incapable of producing anything better ( against what yardstick) than Tornado (which was also designed to meet specific levels of performance and does exactly what it says on the tin) is ludicrous
To suggest that the simple expedient of appointing Chapeleon and/or Bulleid (as simple as that) or similar to the executive was beyond Riddles is stupid - this wasnt wghat was asked.
As a what if - who knows what might have appeared. Whether it would have been as useful as a 9F, or even ran at all is another matter.

The basis of the anti british design argument seems to be ' we turbocharged some old locos and some basic american designs, you didn't ... arent we clever'

Whether through lack of desire or need, preservation steam has never taken this step ( ok we did stick a geisl on Wells ) it feels ' anti-Heritage' in a Heritage environment, but there are plenty of 5mt's out there that would go a good way towards being 5-AT's with only relatively minor surgery.

 

Chapelon as torch bearer? True developments have moved on substantially since his day but since no British locomotive equalled the standards of efficiency and power to weight ratio achieved by his designs it might be a starting point.

Porta worked on improving every aspect of the steam locomotive. He spent a great deal of time improving simple expansion engines. But his metre gauge 4-8-0 was a compound capable of 2120dbhp and a minimum specific fuel consumption of 1.78lb per d.b.h.p. hr (this producing 1000dbhp at 31mph). He proposed a 2-8-0 design, a two cylinder compound suitable for use on track gauges ranging from 3ft. to 5ft. 6in. with a working pressure of 285psi and a calculated output of 1800dbhp. Frames could be inside or outside depending on requirements. But regardless of simple or compound he tackled weak component design, poor exhaust systems, inadequate frame design and more.

I wonder how many preserved lines are looking at their annual coal bill? Maintenance and overhaul costs? How many, over the past few years, have travelled on what is advertised as a steam hauled tour only to find it regularly assisted in order to achieve high enough acceleration or a sufficiently rapid and sure footed ascent of an incline or to deal with poor steaming?

I do not particularly want to modify existing preserved designs but if some internal changes, like for example better piston valve design and improved valve liner specification would lead to greater ecconomy and higher reliability with lower running costs I don't have a problem It isn't as if the changes are irreversible.

I have probably mentioned this before. Years ago someone asked if I might be interested in getting involved with modifying a 5mt. I didn't or a number of reasons, one of these being that there would be precious little of the original remaining by the time the job was done. Then there was also the issue of cost since raising funding for such a project would be very difficult in the face of the attitudes of a significant part of the enthusiast community.

Riddles may not have had need of a 160 A1 but my point was that he couldn't have designed one if he did need to.

If steam does get "gated" enthusiasts will only have themselves to blame.

 

1. How do you know?

2. Utter rubbish. Even if the future of steam on the main line depended solely on making it ultra efficient, how many owners could afford to rebuild their locos along the lines that have been suggested?

 

That's very largely irrelevant.

I haven't got the annual accounts in front of me, but to take on example as probably typical, as I recall the annual turnover of the Bluebell Railway is about £3million, and the annual coal bill about £150k.

Now, let's assume we fully "Porta'd up" all of our locos. Never mind the capital cost. What would we save in fuel efficiency - maybe 10%? That would represent 0.5% of our annual turnover: it's within the error margin of our annual budget setting. Moreover, I'd venture that there is more than 10% variation between the best and worst firemen firing the same engine on the same duty, so actually there is a bigger saving to be made just in better training. Also, and I've made the point before, many railways use locos that are really too big for the duties they perform - class 8 pacifics pulling five coach trains, that sort of thing. If annual coal bill was really a worry for most railways, they'd concentrate on smaller engines; but in fact the bigger engines actually have something of a draw to enthusiasts that at least partly outweigh the extra running expense.

So were I the finance director of a railway, there are lots of places I'd be looking for efficiency savings without much capital expenditure well before I started to worry about Portarising locos at who knows what capital expense. A railway of comparable size to the Bluebell (and others in proportion to their size) could make way more than 0.5% budget saving by really thinking about catering, shop sales or really looking at their service offering etc well before looking at the coal bill.

Tom

 

Nail on head james x james. From an operational point of view unless you could 'refit' half your fleet. and then do the other half as they we're overhauled. ( a fair bit of cash) you have a aproblem of odd locos with alien handling techniques, which if not operated correctly dont make the best use of all the Mods made.The full 'treatment' including crew retraining would undoubtedly improve the locomotives concerned but under the circumstances this is not going to happen.

When even a Kyllchap splitter in isolation can actually make an improvement to steaming then suggesting that chucking out the cylinders, valves and firebox and exhaust is absoloutely neccessary isnt going to have people falling overthemselves is it...

Theres a couple of Lempors, which is brilliantly simple, been fitted to Std Guage locos recently and im intested to know what difference is made, both to performance and 'sound' on these locos.

Disappointing though this is Monsr 4-8-4 think you are just going to have to be very patient indeed, or win the Euromillions and DIY, id love you to see what youd get out of a 9F though

Not sure you understand the role of an English CME, but whatever Riddles wanted to produce would have been possible if there had been a need. Just a question of setting the design brief and employing the designers and the draughtsmen with the correct experience. I suggested Bulleid earlier to head up his design team because he was a french speaker and well connected with french railways.
Unfortunately further development along the lines of the classic stephensonian Steam locomotive didnt appeal to Bulleid, perhaps because he knew that he could only emulate Chapeleon, maybe this drove desire to strike out in another direction entirely

 

Is there not a Lempor fitted loco on the Snowdon line and at least one more on the Welshpool?