Warning: Tour Promoters Can Die in Hot Summers

Don't keep us all in suspense. What's the solution to which you are alluding?

 

Gas producer system? As in the "Red Devil" and proposed 5AT?

Steven

 

well as confirmed elsewhere on this site, you'll not need to be traveling to woking for this.

 

Correct sir. Not just used on the Class 26 but in a number of other cases too, the modified SAR 19D, the Rio Turbeo 2-10-2s which are possibly the best known, to name two. The system can still be caught out by variations in fuel quality and could be viewed as a work in progress. But it has given good results. The bigger but in the UK is who would be prepared to try it? And what on? Converting one of the remaining unrestored 9f class to a 2-8-2 would allow the firebox to be modified since firebed depth is an important part of the system. You would go for a welded steel box and if you are doing that might as well throw every modern trick in the book at the job using Tross-Henschel stays, power stoker, thermic syphons etc. The flangeless driving wheel problem would be dead and buried. It would not be cheap. There are further modifications you could include but you would have to design with those in mind, get the combustion system working first. People want instant results. Phasing the stages of development would help to keep the impatient less stressed. Nothing will happen though.

 

I did indeed, perhaps not the best word to use. On an NG16 it's referred to as the 'drench' which gives a good idea about what it does.

 

I guess we have lost the VSOE on Wednesday, the Canterbury Bell on Thursday and the Jolly Fisherman on Saturday as well then.

 

That is my understanding, too. Ironically, the only operation left at the moment, in England at least, is The Fellsman tomorrow hauled by 48151, which probably has the poorest record for starting lineside fires of the current mainline fleet. Let's hope her recent maintenance included a thorough overhaul of her spark arresters, and that all goes well.

 

Thought that was what you were on about. Some NCB Austerities were so fitted and some entered preservation but not sure if any of these are still runners. The big question will be cost of installation versus loss of revenue due to tours cancelled by fire ban, is it worth it? I certainly don't have an answer.

Edit : Should have been a reply to 242A1 and not Bean-counter.

 

Not quite, as the Coast to Coast on Saturday is still scheduled for 46115 as far as Milford. But this a rapidly moving situation, and I think an awful lot hangs on 48151's performance tomorrow.

 

Possibly due to cost? As per my other post, it's question of cost of installation versus loss of revenue to to fire bans. Plus it would seem that if it only suits a wide firebox loco than all the 2-6-0s,
4-6-0s, 2-8-0s and 0-6-0PTs on the main line roster wouldn't be suitable and that's an awful lot of the current fleet.

 

Wide or deep? Or both? I think the point about a 9F needing to be rebuilt as a 2-8-2 is to allow the firebox to be extended down to give the required depth of firebed, or have I got that muddled? If gas-producing can work in a deep but narrow firebox, then I wonder if the owners of an unrestored Castle, or one awaiting major overhaul, would consider such a modification? Thornbury Castle or Defiant, perhaps?

How does the firing technique for a gas-producing firebox differ from a conventional one? I imagine it would be more sensitive to uneven firing...

 

That is the $64,000 question!

I also wonder how the cost of doing that compares with the costs of a couple or more of the "steam fleet" becoming oil fired. Again the comparison between the two components: capital cost of conversion and then running costs.

And with my zero mechanical knowledge I wonder which involves the least change to the basic loco infrastructure? We are dealing with heritage machines here. And at the end of the day that may be the deciding factor: loco owners may want to keep their locos as close to they were when built. And just accept the downtime in hot spells to achieve that. Although that doesn't help the Tour Promoters, except to run box hauled trains in hot spells.

 

I'd feel a bit more comfortable if Carnforth subbed 46115 or 45699 for that one, to be blunt, I woulden't want to trust 48151 if a ban further north could be the result.

 

According to my understanding, the essence of the gas producer system is that you mix some steam with the primary air, thus producing a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (which then burn with the secondary air supply) rather than just CO (plus volatiles). One result is that the firebed temperature stays lower and you avoid generating clinker.

Does it also allow a reduced blast through the firebed, and therefore less tendency for burning particles of coal to be dragged off the fire and out through the chimney? If so, that does add to the desirability of trying it on at least one main line loco in Britain, whether a restoration or a new build.

I think anyway it's a great shame that no money has been found for the 5AT when a remarkable amount is being found for loads of other projects: but that's off topic for this thread.

 

when SVR was involved in mainline steam engines would be rigorously tested at night by the authorities, working them very hard to see if significant sparks were produced, if nothing significant was found they were OK to work on the mainline.

Cheers Dave

 

You would face a bill, no doubt about that. Forget the experiments carried out in the UK in the past (most of them anyway) It is not just the costs of cancellation that ought to be considered there is also the fuel cost. To say nothing about insurance premiums. The Ffestiniog reverting to coal firing because of fuel cost - and it is not as if that line does not offer potential fire risks. There are other preserved lines that could make use of an ecconomical, modern steam locomotive that was not going to cause a significant conflagration every trip in a dry spell.

I selected a 9f as guinea pig because concerns have been expressed in the past about the viability of restoring them all. Could have chosen a Bulleid but was not quite so sure of obtaining sufficient depth of fire. The 2-8-2 option would be more useful I suspect. Would not want to convert anything already restored.

A total new build would be preferable in many ways but a nightmare to achieve given the conservative nature of the regulatory bodies.

Firing technique is different, David Wardale's book explains this (and a whole lot more). You need a thick stable firebed and are wanting to maximise the heat realised in the gas phase of combustion taking place in the secondary air. Thick fires form clinker more readily hence the use of steam being fed through the fire in order to keep its temperature below that of ash fusion.

 

Thanks for the post 242A1,
who has the technical high ground on this.
and whilst Mediation may result in the Mediocre the Heritage scenario and the second /third generatiion working steam scenario are different,

Nevertheless even before we get to Gas producer ( which is not suitable for every firebox design ie deep fire and secondary 'over the fire ' air needs a deep, not a wide firebox like a HALL perhaps) there are steps that can be taken
Having the right exhaust system in the first place would mitigate the need to work quite so hard though a more effective cylinder output...
Having the right exhaust system which delevers a strong but more even / less violent pull would again reduce the fuel carry over and /or over come the resistance presented by spark arrestors.
These modifications are not expensive, dont affect certification and the only down side is that the exhaust is not so loud and may require smoke deflectors depending on how far you go towards getting it right.

The best exhaust systems we have on mainline steam in the UK are on Gresley Pacifics *, '75 years old', things have moved on - there are solutions.
(* ok theres 1 Bulleid with a good one as well)

 

Oil firing etc may be the answer to steam bans due to fire risk if you already have a fleet of oil-fired steam locos already available, as in Germany. In Britain, we have no such fleet. So how many will have to be converted to oil firing to guarantee the the current level of mainline steam in this country during the peak of summer ... at a minimum you would need a couple in Fort William for the Jacobites, probably at least three at Crewe/Carnforth/York to cover the Scarborough Spa Express, the RTC operations in the north, the Fellsman etc, one at Tyseley for the Shakespeare Express, one at Bristol for the Torbay Express, two or three at Southall to cover the Steams Drreams and RTC operations in the soouth ... then add in a few more to cover for failures and 10 year overhauls - in short, it ain't going to happen. OK, maybe if a couple of locos were converted it may ease the situation slightly, but you could probably guarantee that said locos would not be available or would be in the wrong part of the country when needed. I would also have a worry that, if you do start oil-fired conversions, Network Rail might then insist that only oil-burners are allowed on the mainline in summer. The current situation is not good and I feel sorry for the passengers and promoters who are affected by the current ban, but we have this just about every year (with the same arguments re-appearing on these forums) and, so far, have always come through it.

 

Well Malc you are right about this situation becoming an annual occurance but there is no good reason just to accept it. The great thing about walking the path of second generation locomotives is that you do not need so many of them. Consider the propaganda used to justify the repacement of steam in the first place. Frequently the numbers concerning availability, repair costs and the rest were manipulated by including data from locomotives that were to say the least elderly. However in the case of the 141R it was found that one electric locomotive did not replace three of these, or two, or.........This American locomotive was mechanically superior to any engine working in the UK though thermodynamically it left a fair bit to be desired. In second generation the mechanical side would be improved by attention a number of details these would also drive improvement in thermodynamic performance. You would include much of this in the conversion.

All that is proposed has been tried before, there is no intention of experimenting with cyclonic GPCS. It is interesting that the best exhaust systems in the UK are fitted to narrow gauge locomotives.

The GPCS requires a level grate with a pin-hole or Hulson grate offering restricted free area possibly as low as 3%. The depth of fire is the imporant thing and all D.W.s conversion work was on wide box engines. The Mitsubishi 2-10-2s were wide box too. And who wants their stayed areas buried between the frames to say nothing of the secondary air inlets?

Who knows, one fine day. Pity the 5AT wasn't produced though - we could do with half a dozen.