Flying Scotsman

Can confirm, it can be quite a pain to uncouple and recouple a tender each time, especially on a tight turnaround. During Black Prince's stay in summer, the last couple of test runs were completed with River Mites old tender to make the process easier.

 

Patents, licences and litigation.

James Watt was very active in dissuading people who he judged to be infringing his patents and his actions delayed the advancement of steam technology. He was able to afford recourse to the law which other, lesser known, but more able and inventive people could not. Using money to undermine potential competition is nothing new.

Wilhelm Schmidt invented a superheater which proved to be very beneficial but the cost associated with applying the system made companies look elsewhere. Engineers looked to designing their own superheaters, Gresley produced some but Robinson also produced his own and the LNER used the Robinson system to avoid paying the Superheater Steam Company. Understandable considering the financial conditions on that railway.

Schmidt invented the superheater in around 1890 and the Kylchap exhaust was developed in 1926 and it was its application to 3566 which really brought it to notice. The Vortex blastpipe produced by Henry and William Adams was first fitted to LSWR locomotives in 1885 and it is highly thought of in that it is felt to be the reason why Adam's locomotives gave such good performances given the modest size of their boilers. It was in all probability the first attempt at a scientific approach to produce a good steady draught through fire and boiler while producing minimal back pressure. But it did evidently suffer from carbonisation.

The exhaust system of a locomotive is its key component and by the time that Gresley was looking at the exhaust system on his Pacifics in a serious way the Kylchap was the best available. It would have been beneficial to install the system on all engines that could benefit from it but the Company again was concerned about the costs. When the A3s were fitted with the Double Kylchap system they were considered to have repaid for the costs of the conversion quite quickly, of course the licencing fees no longer applied but it might be worth trying to calculate what the benefit might have been if the Pacific fleet had received a program of conversion in LNER days.

On the subject of Flying Scotsman and returning it to single chimney form there are people on this forum who could look into what might be achieved within the lines of the original because a new set of components will be needed.

 

I've often wondered about the water carrier. Will increase distance between water stops of course but at the cost of a carriage full of paying passengers? No doubt VT think the trade off is worthwhile.

 

Probably more than a carriage of passengers. I'm struggling to find a definitive source for the weight, but 56 tons was quoted on this forum, so you are getting towards two carriages in weight, certainly anywhere were the gradients mean the total weight becomes the limiting factor on train length. On flat routes you would indeed lose one carriage by hauling it; on a hilly route possibly two.

Tom

 

But saving the cost of a road tanker.

 

Indeed, plus the time saved not needing water stops cuts the length of the day and often removes the need and expense of a second loco and train crew......

 

That makes sense up to a point, but why is a second tender treated differently from VT's GUV? For that matter why is it different from a support coach that remains attached to a loco and is propelled when the loco is detached from the rest of the train for servicing and turning? Those vehicles aren't required to have TPWS fitted.

 

I knew some bugger would pick up on the tender…

Less ridiculous than when I demanded Dad scratch built an RHDR style tender (he declined).

Simon

 

It’s an odd one because arguably the V2s should have had them from the start, given the work with Humorist, the P2s, and the W1, but as you say, the patent was an issue for Gresley - but not Thompson, as the patent had run out...

 

Because it is a tender and as such is considered to be part of the loco. I guess it could be converted to be used as an independent vehicle but that has not happened in the over 50 years that it has been with in its present guise. It is still set up to be part of the loco when attached and cannot be detached very easily when in traffic.

Turning and servicing moves are considered to be shunt movements. As a general rule if you are propelling any vehicle, be it a support coach or a whole train, you are generally not permitted to pass more than one running signal during that shunt move. This is why it is so handy to have another loco on the rear of the train.There are of course limited exceptions to this and these are noted in the relevant Sectional Appendices. In the case of York you are permitted to propel no more than two support coaches within the confines of Holgate to Skelton Junction.

Peter

 

In the case of Vintage Trains, do they use a water carrier because many of their trains are hauled by GWR locos which have around a 4000gal water capacity, compared to 5000-6000 on the larger LMS/LNER locos?

 

Peter,

Did they also have problems with the tender wheels locking, as the water load diminished, under braking, or was that a load of tosh!!!
Thanks for your informative answers, their is always a decent reason things dont happen any more.

 

Sorry Guy, that is a question that I cannot answer. It is not something I have heard about, but it may be true.

Peter

 

That was certanily was the case with wagons .The 26 ton vac fitted Iron Ore Tipplers had two vac brake cylinders,a lever in he centre of the wagon could be moved (if I rememer right.) left for empty ,one cylinder working , and right for loaded both working).

 

If it was a problem then surely it would apply to a single tender when it got a bit low in coal and water

 

Especially if you consider planning your operation to always leave a reserve. If for example you plan never to use the last 1000 gallons as a contingency, then the difference in useable range between 4000 and 5000 gallons is 33% extra, not the apparent 25%.

Tom

 

This discussion about water leads on to something else.

How many locomotive owners have conducted leakage tests? Because once you are aware of the results of these tests it can be little short of alarming how much of your water is being used to achieve nothing.

 

It was said as the water level got lower, the braking force required to slow the tender could not be compensated, leading to wheel locking, together with internal baffling not being sufficent, and water transferring, leading to wheelsets not having the same weight on them. That was used as a reason for its retirement.

 

Tornado does this really well, you very rarely see a leak or sizzle, leading to waste, also having a larger water tank helps with mainline stops for water.

 

Remember that some "leakages" are intentional. Some, mainly ex LMS, locos have continious blow down valves. Then these days many locos are fitted with ashpan sprays, which can be invaluable at time of fire risk, but can also use a significant amount of water. Tender water sprays are useful in keeping dust down, although not now allowed under the wires, which is why you see so many blacked faced firemen on main line trips. In a similar vein there are some firemen who are more enthusiastic with the slacker pipe than others are. Being used to achieve nothing? - I don't think so. It is all part of operating the inherently inefficient machine that is the steam locomotive that we love so dearly.

Peter