Journal Institution Locomotive Engineers Volume 16 (1926)

Back to main file

Journal No. 73

Case, Robert C. (Paper No. 188)
Statistics and coal consumption. 4-41.

Cochrane, J. (Paper No. 189)
Water: its occurrence on the Central Argentine Railway.  47-111.

Kimberley, R.E. (Paper No. 190)
Notes on the organisation and working of a running department. 124-89.

Reid, R.W. (Presidential Address)
Developments in coaching stock construction. 192-7. Disc.: 197-220; 277-94.
Mentioned the development of articulated rolling stock on LNER. Noted that demand for greater comford had led to increase weight. Noted use of steel in coach construction. Steam heating had added to the cost, and electric lightin placed a greater load on the locomotive. Unusual address for amount of discussion included. Kelway Bamber (198-9; 277-94) advocated bogie wagons which would lead to a 28% reduction in dead weight. S. Symes (204-5) noted the cost of carriage heating and commented on steam pressure employed; E.W. Selby (295-6) described the Bury electric rolling stock.

Journal No. 74

Haigh, J.H. (Paper No. 191)
Fractures of locomotive parts. 230-8. Disc.: 238-47. 4 illus.
Fractures caused by bending, torsion, shear and in tension are illustrated. A high proportion of failures in parts subject to shock takes place in the screwed portion, as in brake work and drawbars. Some spring hanger bolts are so designed and fitted that they are subject to slight but frequent bending stress, resulting in flaws commencing at the bottom of the thread from the two  oppositc sides extend until fracture take place. The stripping of threads either on the bolt or in the nut was occasionally a source of trouble.

Saunders, P.H. (Paper 192)
Principles and practice in the erecting shop. 248-67. Disc.:267-75; 662-74.

Bartram, J.H. (Paper No. 193)
Locomotive frames (a comparison of types). 299-308. Disc.: 309-12. 7 diagrs.
Frame evolution. The first locomotive had no frame, the boiler providing the attachment for the cylinders and wheels. Springs and brake gear were unknown, but independent frames were soon introduced and springs and brakes added. Built-up frames, of wood with wrought iron flitch plates, thin plates riveted together, cast iron frames, welded bar frames, forged, slab and double frames were used and gradually developed into the modern frame. An early defect in the design of the locomotive was the rigid connection of the frames to the smokebox and firebox, and it was also a common practice to couple the drawbar to the rear of the firebox. This system proved a permanent source of boiler trouble that was only remedied by making the frame self-contained and resting the boiler upon it so that it could expand freely. The slab plate frame, introduced by Beyer Peacock at an early stage in the history of the locomotive, provides an example which may be described as midway between  later British and American practice. The frames were of wrought iron, the hornblocks being forged solid with frame plates, thus entirely avoiding trouble with loose bolts or rivets and’giving a solid support to the axleboxes. American engineers adopted the bar frame which had been introduced by Stephenson in 1825, and subsequently developed
Plate frames
advantages:
very rigid vertically.
certain amount of lateral elasticity; gives slightly  on curves at speed
strong buffer beams and attachments.
stays, gussets and brackets easily attached.
deep firebox and efficient ashpan.
large coupled wheels can bc used under firebox.
good support to firebox, well above the grate.
Disadvantages:
axlebox guides and spring brackets offset
large number of bolts and rivets liable to work loose
cylinder bolts have to resist large shearing force.
Firebox inaccessible below frame for washing out.
Large number of cross stays necessary.
Bar frame
advantages
solid backing to axlebox guides and cheap and easily renewable shoes.
simple disposition of springs and compensating gear
f'ew bolts and no rivets to work loose.
cylinders easily fixed.
firebox accessible for washing out.
few cross stays required.
sections can bc proportioned to meet the varying stresses in different parts of the frame.
disdvantages
excessive lateral rigidity.
lack of vertical rigidity.
weak at front end at buffer beam and behind cylinders where bogics are used
boiler centre must be very high to allow of ample depth of firebox at tubeplate
ashpan narrow and inefficicnt.
very heavy.
large coupled wheels cannot he used under the wide firebox.

Shields, T.H. (Paper No.194).
The steam locomotive and its future in relation to electric traction. 315-27. Disc.: 327-52;  498-501.
Includes illustration of Riekie valve gear. Considered there was a need for a locomotive which would be acapable of running over steep gradients: electric traction showed less variation. The boiler was good manager of steaming capacity. A decrease in driving wheel diameter could assist: he postulated that the diameter of the driving wheel in inches equated with the maximum speed in mph. Argued for electric traction for short distances and that the Sentinel was suitable for light traffic. An Appendix (p. 338-41) gave details of test running with 4P compounds bewteen Glasgow Central and Carlisle. (also s. el of locomotive). Discussion: J.W. Cross (328) noted that in Germany the Knorr feedwater heater suffered from choked tubes. E.A. Phillipson (328) considered that exhaust steam injectors reduced coal consumption slightly, but increased maintenance cost. Cross (328) responded by noting that all GWR locomotives were fitted with exhaust steam injectors and suffered no problems. J. Clayton (329-31) observed that the SR successfully employed.exhaust steam injectors and achieved a 3-4% reduction in coal consumption. He argued that larger boilers were more efficient and repair costs were lower. Questioned Shield's reference to smokebox superheaters: all were then of the tube type, and dampers were no longer employed. He cited the success of compounding combined with superheating on the MR/LMS. Clayton favoured the condensation/displacement lubricator.E. Graham (331-2) noted that live ssteam was used for feedwater heating in power stations as it kep the boilers cleaner. Phillipson (332) noted that top feed reduces scale formation. Sight feed lubricators needed constant watching, whereas mecanical lubricators did not. Subsequently Phillipson (335-6) noted the rapid deceleration achieved by the Westinghouse brake; furthermore, the pump used less steam than the ejector. Phillipson (342-5) contributed more in writing where he commented upon the Chingford intensive suburban service; the advantage of multiple-cylinder designs, long water legs in the firebox, the over-stated advantages of short tubes, Carnot's formula .

Holcroft. H. (Paper No. 195)
Steam heating of trains 354-405.
R.W. Reid (381-3).considered that what Holcroft advocated would not cope with severe Scottish conditions. Refered to Plenum system and noted that the Wolverton system was only applied to former LNWR rolling stock. T. Barty (Wolverhampton 383-7) quoted an anecdote about frozen passengers travelling on a Southampton train; also critical of Wolverhampton system. E.D. Trask (394) made observations about the ground main systems employed at London termini.

Journal No. 75

Eborall, E.A.
Swiss railway electrification. 410-18.
This paper did not receive a Paper number

Geer, H.E. (Paper No. 196)
Modern locomotive superheating. Part 1. 419-450.
Author worked for Superheater Co. In Great Britain in 1925 only 7000 superheated locomotives, out of a total stock of 24,500. This part is concerned about demands placed upon piston valves and diagrams show Hughes' ball relief valves (Fig. 5); J.G. Robinson's compression release rings (Fig. 6); Beames' Trick ports (Fig. 7) and J.W.D. blast pipe valves (Fig. 9). Discussion H. Broscombe (442-6) discussing carbonization in piston valves: Noted that NER S3 4-6-0 No. 931 was fitted with patent rings supplied by ABC Coupler & Engineering Co. and these were claimed to lower friction; also noted the importance of running on the valve gear rather than on regulator to obviate wire drawing. G.F. Horne (446-7) spoke about the Hughes 4-6-0 and superheated 0-6-0 designs; leakage from superheater tubes and that Hughes type piston valves were fairly satisfactory, but after 20,000 miles it was necssary to remove carbon.

Rowntree, E.D.H.  
Pressed steel in railway rolling stock. 459-61.
This paper did not receive a Paper number

Thorrowgood, W.J. (Paper No. 197)
Signalling from a driver's point of view. 463-85. Disc.: 485-97. 18 illus., 1 diagr.
Mainly three and four colour light signalling on the Southern Railway. The principal advantages were:-

Noble, E.C. (Paper No. 198)
Ferry steamers and Garratt locomotives in use on the Entre Rios and North-Eastern Argentine Railways. 503-32.

Bell, A.M. (Paper No. 199)
Automatic mechanical couplers for railway rolling stock. 540-86.
Review. W.F. Pettigrew (577-8); G.M. Rickards (LNER 582) commented upon LNER experience with automatic couplers with Pullman vestibules and stated that passengers were not subject to shocks.

Grime, T. (Paper No.200)
Steam locomotive performance (theoretical and actual). 588-618. Disc.: 619-52.
On the theoretical side included compounding, the Uniflow (called Uniflaw in paper) cylinder system and an analysis of "Castle" tests. Discussion: J. Clayton (620-1) states that Churchward was responsible for introducing long travel valves to Britain. Dendy Marshall (623-4) advocated compounding; H. Holcroft (627-30) considered the difficulty of compounding in Britain due to restriction on cylinder size; advocated long lap valves rather than long travel valves; high boiler pressures did not lead to higher temperatures. J.W. Hobson (R&W Hawthorn, written commuinication 638-40) described work on three-cylinder tank engines for Argentina.. John Riekie (640-2) made observations on compounding. .

Journal No. 76

Urie, D.C. and Warden Henry (Paper No. 201)
Physical testing of iron and steel for commercial purposes. 675-700.

Robertson, James A. (Paper No. 202)
Spark prevention devices on locomotives. 703-26.
Mainly as applied in South America, but Fig. 3 shows a Caledonian Railway spark arrester.

Description of an eight-coupled turbine locomotive (Ljungstrom system) for the Argentine State Railways. 727-37.

Handley, J.J.
Report upon trials of Ljungstrom locomotive. 738-40.

Tritton, Sir Seymour B. (Presidential Address)
Advice to your engineers. proposed subjects for papers. 743-59.

Sedgfield, P. and Forrest F.W.A. (Paper No. 203)
Illumination of railway rolling stock by electricity. 850-91.

Journal No. 77

Rowland, W. and Shawcross, G.N. (Paper No. 204)
Locomotive built-up cranks. 892-918.

Robinson, C.H. (Paper No. 205)
Debatable features in the design of some locomotive details. 919-35. Disc.: 935-43; 1927, 17, 346-54. illus., 10 diagrs.
Considered pistons with bull rings, with and without tail rods and tail rod guides. The one-piece piston and rod of nickel-chrome steel as fitted to LNER 4-6-2 type engines is very light, and the reciprocating weights are reduced to a minimum, but its original cost is very much higher than the ordinary type of piston and rod due to expensive materials, extra machining operations, heat treatment, etc. The box type piston, with centre of steel casting with bull ring cast on, had been adopted as standard by the Indian State Railways. The production costs are again higher than those for ordinary types, due to machining the periphery of the steel centre to take the bull ring, and the extra cost of casting on the ring. The vexed question is, are tail rods and guides of any use?
The main features of plate and bar frames were compared. Plate were deep and flexible laterally, whilst bar were shallow with lateral strength whilst flexible in vertical plane. Staying plate frames is achieved by vertical and horizontal castings or flanged plates, secured by bolts and rivets. Bar frames relied mainly on boiler, to which they were connected by semi flexible stays at various points They were stayed by forged bars horizontally. Mountings, such as spring and brake carriers were attached by bolts or rivets to plate frames and via pins with collars put through the bar frame and secured by nuts. Spring gear was almost invariably under-hung on plate frames, whilst was almost invariably overhead on bar frames.
Reversing shafts could be: solid forged from steel billet; built-up from mild steel; smithed from Yorkshire iron, with levers welded on (by then obsolete); and steel casting (the last only being used for brake shafts at the time). Firebox foundation rings were forged from rectangular bars in Britain. In North America steel castings were used. Figure 5 showed a complex foundation ring manufactured from a mixture of cast and forged components. Five different methods of manufacturing smokebox saddles were considered, particularly in relation to differences in machining time.
Discussion: D.C. Urie chaired the meeting and opened the discussion (935-6) the idea behind piston tail rods was that of a floating piston, but experience had shown that the piston had the dual task of carrying not only its own mass, but that of the tail rod as well.
R.A. Thom (936-7) stated that when Schmidt superheaters had been introduced it had been mandated that tail rods were fitted. On the GCR it was found that tail rods led to wear in the centre of the cylinder barrels, and they were removed. A large number ol cast iron piston heads fractured, and piston heads made of hammered iron were substituted, but after a time showed signs of fracture, and as a result, cast steel piston heads were tried. It was found that these scored the bottom of the cylinder barrels, and mild steel piston heads were then fitted, with very satisfactory results. Bronze bull rings fitted to the nickel-chromium piston heads on the LNER I'acifics have proved very satisfactory. As regards the merits of bar frames compared with steel frames, the Author had evidently overlooked that the Great Central Railway had also imported twenty Baldwin locomotives. These were fitted with, bar frames, and a grcat deal more trouble was experienced with them than uith plate franics, as the bottom web of the bar frame adjoining the horn plates tended to break. At that time, there was no electric or oxy-acetylene appliances in use and the frame had to be taken down and welded in the smithy, which was a very costly operation. These engines proved so unsuitable for English requirements, that it was decided to scrap the lot after they hnd been in service for fifteen years. He could not agree that a built-up reversing shaft or brake shaft was not as reliable as a solid forged shaft. Casehardening the eyes of reversing shafts, motion details and brake shaltshad been displaced by bushing: it had been found that bushes are much more satisfactory, and repairs can be dealt with more readily. Bronze bushes were better than steel.
Irvine Kempt (LMS, 937-9) advocated the retention of tail rods until they had been fully evaluated. He noted that the circular bush could not be properly lubricated, and led to excessive wear. The cylindrical casing which surrounded the tail rods practically became a pump blowing out any lubricant to the bush. If the tail rod bushes are not kept properly adjusted, the piston rests on the bottom of the cylindcr, and the additional weight of the tail rod being carried made conditions worse. Experiencc with shrunk-on levers on shafts was limited to old Caledonian Railivay tender brake shafts. When they got loose thc shafts were sent to the smithy for the levers to be shrunk on again, and new set screws and keys were fitted: a crude method.
E.W. Selby (939-40) could not understand why many British railways retained the horseshoe front tubeplate bearing on the cylinders, instead of using a circular smokebox. With this latter type, resting on a saddle, it was possible to fit one type of boiler onto several classes of engine. The GWR had used the circular smokebox with saddle on all new and rebuilt engines since 1908. It makes a better job, and simplifies manufacture, if the top of the inside cylinders is machined to a simple rectangle forming the base for a steel saddle: steel is less liable to fracture, and saves  complicated machining, An alternative was to have two very much smaller steel castings to form the ends, and to use two bent plates to form the sides: a simple, cheap and strong arrangement.
W. Williamson (LNER, Cowlairs, 940) stated that cast steel piston heads, with cast iron rings supporting them in the cylinder, gave very good results. Dismissed tail rods and argued for simplicity. The keys on reversing shafts with levers shrunk on tended to become slack. A forged shaft was much better than a built-up shaft.
A. Hallam (LMS, St. Rollox, 940) had not found piston tail rods to be satisfactory. Shafts of the solid type were preferrred as considerable trouble was experienced with built-up shafts due to the various components hecoming loose.
In his reply (941) the Author noted that the North British Locomotive Company were compelled during WW1 to manufacture built-up crank axles, and had received no complaints of loose pins, due entirely to the great care taken in finding the essential shrinkage allowances, and to the production of first class pins and holes.

Kelway Bamber, H. and Bond, R.C. (Paper No. 206)
Braking of trains on electrically-operated railways. 945-57. Disc.: 957-80.

Alcock, E.
Some boiler details. 981-1002.
Address by the Chairman of the Leeds Centre: advocated Belpaire firebox on the basis that it was easier to stay; there is greater water above the hottest part; a continuous thread on both plates, and the base of the seatings is flat. Also commented upon water space stays; tube arrangements and crown stays..

Kelway-Bamber, H. (Paper No.207)
Modern British railway express passenger engines. 1004-17. Disc.:1017-29.
Examines the performance of a Castle class locomotive between London and Plymouth; the comparative running of Castle and A1 classes between King's Cross and Grantham, and the Lord Nelson class, T.S. Finlayson (1027) contributed to the discusaion with some rather sharp remarks which noted the importance of firebox volume and noted that superheating increased the volume of the steam. He considered that locomotive horsepower corresponded to 50 times the grate area and therefore expected 2000 hp from the A1, 1650 from the Lord Nelson and a mere 1500 hp from the Castle