Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers
Journal No. 105
Graham, E. (Paper No. 284)
Progressive methods applied to a modern overhaul shop for electric rolling
stock. 4-62. Disc.: 62-7.
Account of the highly organized and productive workshops at Acton
enjoyed by London Transport. In the discussion Gresley (62-3)
was very impressed by the high mileages achieved by the rolling stock, but
was informed that tyre life (70,000 miles) was short. He also noted the very
hard tyres and that it was possible to employ Ferodo brake blocks because
of the high mileage in tunnel. J. Clayton (64) noted how labour was reduced
at Acton Works and H. Chambers noted the belt system adopted by the LMS for
locomotive repairs..
Sanders, T.H.
Chairman's Address: rival traction systems. 91-103. Disc: 104-10.
Consideration of the export markets for steam and electric traction. Considered that the United Kingdom lacked many of the factors which drove electrification elesewhere, such as lack of domestic coal reserves, lack of long gradients and long tunnels. No gains could be made through regenerative braking. Noted the Weir report, the increasing imports of fuel oil for road vehicles, the possible use of diesel electric locomotives, and within the same context mentioned the Heilman steam electric locomotives. J. Blundell (104-6) mentioned the problem of flooding and the vulnerability of overhead systems to damage in war. H.I. Andrews noted that in Italy overhead electrics coped well with floods, and considered that there was a trend towards electric traction. E. Windle (110) contributed.
Collins, F.R. (Paper No. 285)
The relationship of loading gauge to running gauge and the effect of both
on speeds round curves. 121-41. Disc.: 141-54.
NEW goods tank locomotives, class "W" on the Southern Railway. 155-6. illus., diagr. (s. & f. els.)
Journal No. 106
Blundell, J. (Paper No. 287)
Locomotive delays and their causes. 186-209, Disc.: 209-23. 1933, 33,
287-90.
Although not stated explicitly, it is obvious that this paper was
based on experience gained at a motive power depot on the former GNR lines
in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The locomotive stock included: B6 4-6-0s,
J39, J2, J1, J3/7, O1 and O4 tender classes and N1, N2, C12, J50 and J55
tank engines. The water was regarded as being of good quality but the gradients
were severe (1 in 45). Only short mileages were run. Slipping was the most
serious problem encountered in service and the author blamed the sanding
gear where 50% was dry (98 incidents) and the other 50% steam (81 incidents).
Neither system was effective on snow. The Lambert system was good but was
liable to excessive waste and to freezing. One major advantage was that it
did not need dry sand. The author sought a method not based upon sand.
The failure to steam properly led to considerable delays to passenger trains
(representing 500 minutes out of a total of 1800 minutes lost) and this was
attributed to strange engines and smokebox problems. Blast pipes out of alignment
was a problem mentioned. There were two brick arch failures and these stemmed
from poor construction. Water leakage from tanks led to hot boxes. In the
discussion at Leeds C.O. Becker (210-11) suggested locating the sandboxes
on top of the boiler and considered that compressed air was better than steam
for delivering sand, leaking tubes could be cured by welding and the Japanese
had eliminated broken couplings by using automatic couplers. D.C. Stuart
suggested that compressed air (80 psi) tests on boilers showed up blowing
in smokeboxes. He had experienced no problems with injector steam cones.
Thackeray mentioned axlebox heating. Manchester Meeting 8 January 1932:
Whitelegg (216-17) mentioned tubes, injectors, jointing materials and compressed
air sanding as adopted by the GER. Attock (217-18) noted that the use of
dry sand led to track circuit problems. He considered that the addition of
limestone to the firebox helped to eliminate clinker. Doherty (218) commented
on tender feedwater cocks. Bond (218-20) requested a definition of how casualties
were assessed on the LNER. He considered that there were an excessive number
of crank-pin washer faults. He considered that the arrangement of trimmings
for axlebox lubrication was unsatisfactory. Caldwell (220) discussed his
own experience with broken coupling rod crank pins. Mercer (220-1) discussed
jointing materials. Meeting at Newcastle-on-Tyne on 31 January 1933.C.C.
Jarvis noted the problem of slipping, even with sanding gear in good order,
on poor track, such as sidings. Pargitter (288-9) considered that better
design of sanding gear was required. J.W. Hobson (287-8) noted that Lens
joints introduced to Hawthorn Leslie & Co. from the USA had reduced pipe
fractures..
Poole, A.J. (Paper No. 288)
Locomotive smokeboxes. 281-98. Disc.: 298-318.
The design of a smokebox should aim at the folloeing general principles:
Poole considered the conditions contained in the original smokebox of The Rocket and observed that criteria Nos. 1 and 2 were well met, but No. 6 (simplicity): "a more inaccessible arrangement is hard to imagine" The blast-pipe nozzle was well up the chimney: an arrangement which may called a "suction" principle as distinct from the type in which the nozzle is well below the chimney throat (classified as the "impulse" type). The eddy space, by which is meant space outside the direct line of flow from tubes to chimney, is practically nil, while the draught on the outlying tubes, owing to the curved form of box, is practically as good as on those in the centre. These features may have contributed in no little extent to the signal success of the Rocket at the Rainhill trials, and it seems a pity that in later engines the normal box form with front doors was developed.
The presence of the nozzle in the throat of the chimney led to the "impulse type" where the tendency of the gases is to take a direct path from each tube to this point. It is obvious in this case that the tubes nearest the nozzle, that is the middle tubes of the top rows will obtain all the benefit while the outer tubes of the lower rows may suffer to the extent of having a return draught to the firebox induced in them, especially if working with a heavy fire. The eddy space has made its appearance too in the lower front corner especially, while the tendency to excessive spark throwing is obvious. The entraining cone, too, is very short. It is probable that with a firebox having a very limited heating surface intense draught through the top tubes is, beneficial in that it lifts the flame into contact with the most valuable part of the heating surface, i.e., the flat roof.
If the nozzle is lowered, the eddy space is hardly affected, but a greater number of tubes in the middle zone are brought into direct draught line and the spark throwing becomes far worse than with the original impulse type and this led to the extended smokebox, which in combination with a high nozzle is an excellent spark preventer. A low nozzle under the same conditions retains the disabilities associated with it, except that a greater storage space for cinders is available. An immense eddy space is created by this extension, but the theory that the draught is more equalised over the tubes is untenable as after the first few exhausts a relative equilibrium is established and the gases still take the shortest path. The energy for maintaining a vacuum in this large space is considerable.
Experiments with various forms of deflector plate eventually led to the American front end where a certain amount of equalisation was gained by lengthening the path of the gases, and by tending this path forward, a great saving of eddy space was attained. At the same time as the cinders impinged at the several deflection points they were broken so small that by the time they had filtered through a wire netting diaphragm they were quite harmless. But it was found that 35% more energy was required to draw the gases past this complicated system of baffles.
Except on the Great Western Railway the extended smokebox did not meet with any great favour. On the LNWR. Webb divided his smokeboxes into two compartments by means of an horizontal plate and provided a chimney and blast-pipe to each. Unfortunately he used a separate exhaust for each cylinder without any junction, so that the very intermittent effect rather nullified the experiment .
The next move came. with the introduction of the modern large diameter boiler, which had the effect of shortening the external portion of the chimney, and to compensate for this an internal extension was frequently used (Fig. 8). This, unfortunately, had the effect of giving a *****
D.W. Sanford (428-9) noted that a front damper caused the draught under the grate to be increased, whereas a back damper tended to impair the draught; if so would it not be better to use the front damper, and if this creates too much draught, then to bore out the blast-pipe and reduce the back pressure on the pistons? Why is it that on certain lines the practice of running the back damper is adopted? Regarding the chart showing the temperature of the gas entering the tubes and the temperature of the gas leaving the tubes at the other end, he questionned whether they were calculated temperatures, or whetncr they were observed by some form of pyrometer? McDermid noted that they were calculated. Sanford asked if according Lawford Fry's formula? and then made observations on the proportion of the chimney diameter to the blast-pipe: if we take the figure of 24½ pounds of products of combustion, to one pound of coal burnt, and if we assume the ordinary temperatures for the gases and steam coming away from the cylinders, he considered that the area of the chimney should be roughly nine times the area of the blast-pipe, irrespective of the quantity of steam which is passing up the blast-pipe — that is to say, whether the engine is working heavily or lightly — and that means to say that the diameter of the chimney, in their experience, had to be roughly three times the diameter of the blast-pipe. He wondered whether the Author agreed with those proportions, which were found satisfactory There is a rule given later on proportioning blast-pipe diameter on the grate area. The rather curious thing is that we have got chimneys and blast-pipes of the same diameter, some of them on main line engines which may be doing anything up to 1,200 horse-power, and we have got the same size chimney and blast-pipe on little shunting engines which probably never do more than about 400 horse-power, and they work quite satisfactorily in both cases, though I admit that on the bigger engines everybody would like to get a bigger chimney if possible.
Sanford described a "rather interesting case a little time back" where they linered down the cylinders of an engine, for a special experiment, so that the cylinder volume was reduced to almost exactly half what it had been before the liners were put in, and they had sufficient confidence in their ideas about blastpipes and chimneys to do nothing whatever to the blastpipe or the chimney-that is to say, this engine, which was made half its original capacity, went out with the same blast-pipe and chimney, and it steamed perfectly satisfactorily, which seems to show that the blast-pipe orifice has nothing to do with the size of the cylinder, and seems to depend on the size of the chimney. As regards the method of fixing the relative position of the chimney and blast-pipe orifice, one quite satisfactory method is to draw lines from the inside bore of the blast-pipe orifice to the inside of the chimney at the top, and so arrange the relative positions that the angle between these two lines has a definite value.
That is one method of fixing the relative position, and that is what stops you getting a big enough chimney, because if you want to get a big chimney, it means that your blastpipe cap, to keep the correct angle, gets so low that it would be buried in ashes, I wonder whether the Author agrees with this method of keeping the angle constant, and what angle, in his experience, is the best. If, of course, we could get a bigger chimney we should turn out the products of combustion at a lower velocity, and therefore saye some of the kinetic energy which we now throwaway.
Sanford on main line engines you may throwaway 50 or 60 horse-power in kinetic energy, which means quite a lot going to waste. I wonder whether the Author will teII us his opinion of a very ingenious device which is being used in Belgium just now—that is, the double chimney and the double blast-pipe, because if you cannot get one big chimney you can get the same thing by putting in two little ones, stilI keeping the same angle and the same ratio between each individual blast-pipe and its individual chimney, under 'which, of course, it is correctly set. Another old friend which was at one time thought a lot of is the Adams vortex. There again you increase the outside diameter of a blastpipe cap by putting up an annular space in the middle, which would enable you to get a bigger chimney, and you cou1d also increase the area of the jet and alIow it to entrain some more gases up the middle and the outside surface. Can the Author tell us why this type, which was so highly thought of at one time, has now fallen out of use? Is it because with the bigger engines you have not got room to put the air passages in?
In reply to Sanford, Poole did not know, but had been told, that if one leaves the front damper wide open travelling at speed one will get large holes through the fire, and that explains why so many locomotive operators prefer to use the back damper. In America, for instance, where sometimes there is a lot of snow they have to depend on the back damper otherwise they may get the ashpan full of snow.
With regard to proportions of blast-pipe and chimney it is fairly obvious to me [Poole] that these two items must naturally be correlated in the matter of areas of opening. Acting together, they form a jet instrument the parts of which must necessarily, I think, be made to some relative proportion and be placed at a distance apart conforming with some law, not yet defined. With regard to the angle made by the steam jet, I have had no personal experience. Mr. Gresley, however, when discussing the matter some years ago, told me that, I think it was, Mr. Hughes made some experiments with a window in the front of the smokebox, and he found that the natural angle of the steam jet was a cone tapering about one in six. That statement is more or less confirmed by illustrations which I have been looking at recently, for instance, Professor Goss's books. The steam jet appears to be merely an inverted cone with a taper of about one in six on the diameter. What the angle is in degrees I cannot say Mr. Sanford, and others, mentioned the Adams vortex blast-pipe. I believe the Adams blast-pipe was also an ash ejector. We have had a more recent example of much the same sort of thing, 'Stone's blast-pipe, in which a petticoat around the blast-pipe came down to near the bottom of the smokebox and cleared the ash out by blast action.
H. Chambers: noted Sanford's mention of the Adams type Vortex blast-pipe, . My recollection of that blast-pipe is that there were two side openings provided low down on the blast-pipe by means of which the lower boiler tubes would get a fair share of draught, and then give, a uniform draught over the whole tube area. With regard to the vanous types of blast-pIpes that have be used with varying success, I remember on the old London-Tilbury engines there was provided in the blast-pipe orifice a double inverted cone which was hollow. That cone was filled with common salt. The position of the cone controlled by means of a centre spindle which ran down through the bottom of the blast-pipe, and was connected through a bell crank to the reversing shaft and was therefore automatically controlled by the notch position so arranged that the best orifice was provided for steaming purposes. That, I may say, has been long defunct, and the normal type of blast-pipe cap is now used. I also remember those years ago a driver never went out without a bucket hanging or wire to fit across the blast-pipe cap to improve steaming. That, of course, was not recognised officially, but it is interesting bearing in mind that the Author mentioned the provision of a bar which had the effect of cutting the blast and increasing the periphery for engaging with the products of combustion passing into the chimney. It must be remembered, however, that any alteration made to sharpening the blast may, if other factors are neglected, adversely affect the coal consumption.
There is one point with regard to chimneys in which I have been very interested, and I think all will appreciated when I mention that on the various railway companies' locomotives the position of the chimney with relation to the smokebox tube plate varies very considerably. My expereience has been that it is desirable to keep the chimney and the blast-pipe position well back. When I. say well back, I mean within the limits allowed by the design of the modern locomotive smokebox. The theory I have always had in mind is that the products of combustion escape from .the tubes at a very high velocity and they pass by the blast-pipe before they are fully under the influence of the escaping blast of steam up the chimney and thereby the sparks which are carried forward strike the front of the smokebox door and drop into the bottom of the smokebox and in effect is a very efficient spark arrestor. On the other hand, locomotives in many cases have the chimney fitted well forward from the smokebox tube-plate. I would hke to ask the Author whether in the course of his investigations he has found any marked influence on the efficient steaming of the engine.
Mr. H. Holcroft: Like many others, I have looked forward to hearing this Paper very much indeed. The blast-pipe and chimney together form one of the most important parts the locomotive, which comprises two distinct units — the boiler, complete with the smokebox, ashpan, and so on, and the engine part with the cylinders, motion, frames and wheels. There is no connection whatever between these two units, except the jet of steam which escapes from the cylinders, through the blast pipe, and that is the one connection between the two that makes the locomotive a single unit and everything depends on the efficiency of the apparatus through which that exhaust jet passes. For intance, an engine may have a very high tractive effort, but unless the boiler generates enough steam it cannot sustain a high tractive effort when running. On the other hand, if there is plenty of steam, it may be that through excessive back pressure the locomotive cannot develop its full horse-power, due to choking by a restricted blast-pipe orifice to get the necessary draughts.
With regard to ash pan and damper openings, Mr. Sanford called attention to the question of the use of front and back dampers, the idea being..that when the front dampers open an inrush of air is obtained which assists in the draught. I have tried on many occasions, with different locomotives, the effect of changing from front to back opening while running, and vice versa, but have never detected the slightest influence on the draught; as far as I can see, it does not make any difference at all. On the other hand, when running through a tunnel or a long, low bridge with only a small regulator opening it often happens that a sudden tongue of flame shoots out of the fire-hole, simply because the air is confined and there is no lateral spread of the air under the engine; it cannot get away, with the result that a sudden increase of pressure occurs in front of the ashpan and the air rushes in; but apparently in the ordinary course of running the air is dragged along with the locomotive, or projected out sideways, so that this increase of pressure that the Author rather relies on does not materialise in practice. .
Regarding air openings through the grate and fuel bed, Holcroft observed during one of the coal strikes when American coal of rather lower calorific value than the ordinary English was used, that the steaming was nevertheless very good. The reason attributed to this was that the screened coal was of more or less uniform size; hence the openings through the fuel were regular, and very much nearer to the ideal conditions for combustion. With a screened coal about the size road metal, combustion seems very efficient.
Holcroft's experience indicated that locomotives with oval or approximately oblong firehole doors are much better steamers than those with round openigs: with round fireholes and half-round deflectors there is a much greater bunching of cold air, which reaches the tubes in the middle of the tube plate. In the case of a wider and less deep opening with a more less level top the air gets spread out better. A device which firemen can often make a shy steaming engine steam well, is that of putting a piece of plate across the lower part of a round fire-hole and firing over the top of it. Apparently the air, in striking the sharp edge of the plate, is deflect downwards on to the fire instead of going direct towards the tube plate.
The position of the chimney on the smokebox had been referred to by Mr. Chambers, but it has been Holcroft's experience that it is better to situate the chimney well forward, because it brings about a better distribution the draught over the front tube plate and the gases do not have to take such an abrupt turn to reach the vertical. On the question of nibs, bars, corrugations, etc., near the blast-pipe orifice, to produce eddying and so entrain more gas, it is doubtful whether this is really anadvantageous because the result is to increase the contact area of the steam with the solid surfaces, and so reduce its velocity. Also there is the question of the carbonisation of the blast-pipe which becomes furred up with carbon deposit in a very short time, and this collects under any projections in the orifice: that was one of the reasons for the Adams vortex pipe being abandoned — the difficulty of removing the carbon deposit from the narrow annular orifice.
As regards the action of the exhaust steam in producing draught, nobody seems to have come to a definite conclusion as to what really takes place, but apparently several actions occur; there is a certain amount of ejector action due to surface contact of high velocity steam with .the gases, a small amount of entraining of the gases, and to some extent, perhaps, a piston-like action of plugs of steam in the chimney with each exhaust beat which sandwich the gases between them; and so it seems to be a mixture of those three in varying proportions. Another thing about the blast-pipe is that it is always assumed that the steam comes out of the blast orifice at equal pressure all over, but I was very much struck when travelling on the leading engine of a pair going through a long tunnel on an up-grade, in watching the sparks coming from the chimney of the second engine, which as an old saturated engine with the steam-chest between the cylinders. As the sparks came out they made a different angle of incidence with the sloping tunnel roof with each of the four beats in a perfectly rhythmical manner, showing hat the direction of the steam and gases took a slight change with each beat, and I put that down to the fact that possibly the direction from which the steam came from he cylinders made a difference. Perhaps through being a saturated engine a certain amount of moisture came up with the steam, and was projected to one side, and it evaporated at or near the blast-pipe orifice where pressure changed to velocity, so that there was a difference of density n the blast-pipe orifice itself which deflected the jet slightly. That may be an explanation as to why an engine with its valves badly out of beat is often a bad steamer, because the effect of the blast is more pronounced in one direction than another, and thus have the same effect as if the chimney and blast pipe were out of line.
Colonel Kitson Clark: I have not very much to add, except one or two historical points. One is the story about he blast-pipe in the Rocket. I believe that the father of our friend Sir John Dewrance also worked on that blast-pipe.He might, as there was a record passed to Sir John many years ago as to his father's connection with the story. With regard to what Mr. Holcroft said about the oval fire-hole door, I had the privilege of riding on the top of the boiler of an Atlantic type locomotive that ran from Philaelphia to Atlantic City in 1897. The firebox, as far as I remember, was styled Wootten. It had two fireholes, and the coal was exactly what has been described-picked pieces, rather smaller than one's fist, over the whole of the grate area, and they practically did not add any fuel during any time of the run of 47½ miles. The, engine steamed extra~ordiriarily well, and perhaps rather from its own merits than my approving presence, made history. With regard to the Author's fine series of data, I find myself rather saturated with statistics, indeed more than I can digest until given more time; but I think there is something further which deserves investigation and even meditation, and that is what might be called the mechanico-physics.Mr. Chambers raised an interesting point about the - position of the chimney. He is quite right, if the chimney is well back, sparks go into the front end of the smokebox and die before they go through the chimney, but so far as the position of the chimney is concerned in the matter of forming a draught, I cannot conceive that its location makes ny difference at all except as Mr. Holcroft has said, the gases take an easier bend to the exit when the chimney is laced well forward. One may regard a smokebox as a chamber which is exhausted by the action of the blast, and though I.do not pretend to speak with any authority on it the subject, I think that most of the troubles are really due to too much draught. For instance, Mr. Carling was talking about a 50 per cent. improvement effected by altering the blast, one wondered what the draught arrangement was before the alteration.
Mr. WiIIiams mentioned the Garratt locomotive. I would like to ask him this, just by way of collected iriformation. In the Garratt locomotive there is one very long blast connection and one short one. Is there any noticeable difference in the fire, due to the reservoir capacity - in the long blast-pipe? It would appear that there must be a cushioning of the blast, which should give all the gentle draught advantages of, for instance, the Kylala blast pipe, which, owing to a large exhaust opening, gives a more a gentle jet effect. The figures which I have put before all tend to prove that a gentle zephyr through the fire gives the best and most economical results.
With regard to the position of the fire-hole in relation to the deflector, plate and the shape of the firehole Mr. Holcroft mentioned the fireman's trick of blocking the lower half of the fire-hole to secure better steaming. The fireman's device made a more effective deflector' plate, and this means that he drove air straight down on to the fire, which is just what is wanted. Drive the air entering the fire-hole straight down on to the fire it will get hot and thus improve the temperature of the firebox. Keep up the temperature of the firebox and you will get good results.
Mr. Carling said that the blast-pipe on a certain locomotive was altered to advantage, but he did not say whether they increased the draught or reduced it. - May I ask whether you increased the draught or reduced it? Mr. D. R. Carling: I have only got down the evaporation figures on my notes. I think, however, that the
Journal No. 107
Sanford, D.W. (Paper No. 289).
The effect of commercial efficiency on locomotive design. 325-32. Disc.:
332-40. table
Sanford regarded the following as "additional complications":
H. Chambers (332-3) commented on the above:
Journal No. 108
McDermid, W.F. (Paper 291)
The locomotive blastpipe and chimney. Part 1. 397-427. Disc. 428-46.
A review of the published findings by many experimenters, which recorded factors influencing steam raising and are susceptible to draught variation: it also analysed in detail each factor and its incidence on draught maintenance. To do this, all parts of the draught apparatus have to be examined from the ash pan to the chimney, although certain factors, notably the flue area of tubes and their evaporative value as effected by draught intensity, were held over for separate discussion. Due to the interdependence of the several parts of the draught apparatus, there was some overlapping or blending of their functions, but the subject was reviewed under the following main headings:
Ashpans and dampers.
Ashpans should be deep enough to permit ready access of air to the whole grate, otherwise an even fire cannot be maintained. It is sometimes necessary to prevent the passage of air to the underside of the grate, hence ashpans are made practically airtight and fitted with dampers under the conrol of the operator. By opening the leading and closing the trailing damper the draught through the fire can be increased to the extent of the air pressure at the leading end, which is due to the movement of the engine; or, on the contrary, the draught can be eased by using only the trailing damper. A damper opening 25%. of the grate area has been suggested as desirable, but many locomotives have only about 12% provided, and Stroudley considered just under 7% sufficient. A 12% damper opening, serving a grate having air openings provided which amount to 30% of the grate area, will produce rarefaction in the ash pan to the extent of 0.3 inches of water, if the pressure difference above and below a 12-inch fire on the grate is to be 4 inches of water.
Figure 8 showed the weight, volume,. and ve1ocity per period of atmospheric air when impelled by any pressure difference up to about I7 inches of water pressure. The graph covers the normal temperature range, 32° to 92°F.; the velocity of flow at any other temperature, or pressure difference in inches of water can be calculated by using the formula given on the graph.
Air openings through the grate.
British locomotives have openings through the grate, for the passage of air, amounting to about 30% of the grate area. French practice includes, in some cases, air spaces amounting to about 45%. In America, some grates are provided with only about 25%., while others have about 40% open. The class of fuel used may, to some extent, account for these differences in grate construction; but, other things being equal, theoretically the resistance offered to the pas-
Noted that specific heat values for for coal had stil to be defined authoritatively. A high tempertuare in the firebox is essential as this is where 40% of the heat is taken up. The temperature at the entrance to the tubes should be 2190F but is only 1800F. The ignition temperature of coal is 700-925F. Jumper blast pipe mentioned on page 416. Notes Committee of Railway Master Mechanics Association on Handling the gases of combustion. 7lb of steam is produced from 1lb of coal
Cited University of Illinois Bulletins Nos 82 and 101. When considering forced draught he considered the Gresley paper on three-cylinder high pressure locomotives presented to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers noting fluctuations in smokebox vacuum. Noted that experiments had been conducted in the USA "about thirty years before" on blastpipes and chimneys.
Reproduces a letter from Davies Giddy to William Nicholson in London on the effect of exhaust steam through the chimney on the fire on Trevithick's locomotive. This letter was published in J. nat. Philos. Chem. Arts, 1805, Sept.
Discussion: D. Kitson Clark (433-4) referred to the blastpipe and draughting arrangements for the Kitson-Still locomotive. D.R. Carling (434-6) noted that one of a high successful series of 2-8-2s built for the Missouri Pacific Railroad had been rebuilt as a three-cylinder locomotive. This locomotive was tested by the Pennsylvania Railroad at Altoona and modifications made to the blastpipe enabled an increase in the maximum evapourative rate from 48,000 lbs/h to in excess of 60,000 lbs/h and this emphasised the potential available through improved draughting. He added that Duplex chimneys require further examination. Cited Ulrich Barake: Rechernische Untersuchung der Warmeuberttragung im Lokomotiv-Langkessel. Author (page 436) noted that Hughes experimented with a window into the smokebox and discovered that the steam jet from the cone tapered at about 1 in 6 and this is similar to that stated in Goss's books. He noted that the Adams' Vortex was also an ash ejector as was Stone's device. He asked Williams if the distance from the firebox affected draughting on Garratt locomotives. Meeting in Leeds on 8 April 1932: Saunders (439) noted that the Vortex and Maclellan variable blastpipes had been used on the GER. (in response McDermid noted that the Maclellan blastpipe had been standard on the GER for a time. W.E. Selby (439-40) was informed by McDermid that the space between the firebars should be as large as possible. J. Blundell (441-2) stated that the GCR had evaluated Hill's grate in which steam was blown through the ashpan, but it was not very successful. Blundell also returned to Gresley paper on three-cylinder high pressure locomotives to consider what was happening in the smokebox. O. Becker (444-5) mentioned a considerable body of work on the subject: in 1894 in Hanover there were experiments on nozzles, distances and cylinder pressures; in 1901 the Master Mechanics' Association sponsored experiments on stacks at Purdue University under Professor Goss; and there were tests performed at St. Louis for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Sheridan (445-6) noted that larger grate areas were common in Belgiium.
Brazener, W.F. (Paper 293)
The manufacture of copper firebox plates. 447-74. Disc.: 474-500: 1934,
24, 128-41.
Outlines principal properties of copper. Chronicles use of copper
in the manufacture of firebox plates. Details production of copper plates,
covering: casting, or ingots.
Journal No. 109
Pudney, F.A. (Paper No. 292)
Notes on three diesel engine types; Some recent cam gear improvements. 512-33.
Disc.: 534-47.
Included mention of Tosi diesel electric locomotive and Ansaldo direct
drive diesel locomotive. and the Christiani compressed steam locomotive.
In the discussion C.J.H. Trutch (543-5) was critical of both the Christiani
and Kitson-Still designs for retaining boilers. During the discussion the
author mentioned that the Tyneside Venturer achieved 5 miles to the
gallon.
Wade, L.H. and Short (Paper No. 294)
Some aspects of electric tractor design. 563-89. Disc.: 589-99.
E. Windle (591) requested information about the amount of power consumed
by the auxiliaries by a 2000 hp electric locomotive.
Lewis-Dale, Percy (Paper 295)
The chemist in relation to railway engineering. 599-613. Discussion:
614-19.
The analysis of coal, water and the effect of water softening chemicals,
lubricants and oil for signal lamps. Goss (618) suggested that the figure
quoted for unburnt fuel exiting the chimney (5-35%) represented United States
conditions and that in Britain this would not exceed 20% with long travel
valves and correct blast pipe and chimney proportions.\authot was Chief Chemist
of the LMS (see Paper 648),
Journal No. 110
Lelean, W.A.
Presidential Address 1932 (Standardisation). 640-63. Disc.: 663-75.
Items which could be standardised, were boiler mountings and the following
engine details:
Meeting in Manchester, 20th October, 1932: Whitelegg referred to the ratio of adhesive weight to tractive effort, he agreed with the figures quoted by the Author, viz., 4¾ to 1 was "reasonably satisfactory", assuming the standard locomotive is a four-impulse one, but if other standards have six or eight impulses, he would suggest that the ratio is too high and might be considerably lower. He was interested in the President's remarks regarding cast steel bar frames, as it had always been a "matter wonder to him" why this type of frame, which apparently meets with SUccess in America and the Continent of Europe had not been tried in this Country. Of course there are obvious objections of weight and decrease of space betweer the frames, but even these do not appear to be insurmountable. He had read in the technical press that steel castings of this size could not be produced satisfactorily in England on account of the lack of annealing furnaces capable of dealing with them.
Gass (668-9), referring to the question of maximum tractive effort, remarked that from investigating a large number of indicator starting diagrams he found 82 per cent. to be a safe figure for calculating the maximum available tractive effort. Later experiments confirmed that figure. To standardise the ratio of adhesive weigbt to maximum tractive effort it is essential that some fixed figure for mean effective pressure should be adopted. With regard to adhesive weight, a safe factor to meet all weather conditions is 20 per cent. of the weight on the rails of the driving wheels for two-cylinder locomotives, and 25%. for four-cylinder balanced engines. Spring compensating beams have not found favour in is Country. The Atlantic type engines on the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company were originally equipped with compensating beams, and considerable slipping took place. The slipping was much less pronounced after discarding the compensators. The proportion of grate area to heating surface is important; a good ratio appears to be about 1 in 65, but in large boilers with the firebox between the frames it means an extremely long box which is difficult to fire successfully. The first locomotives built as standard at Horwich comprised a 4-.4-0 passenger, a 2-4-2 tank, and an 0-6-0 oods engine. The boilers, cylinders, and valve motions were practically interchangeable in the three types. Tests carried out with a 0-8-0 engine and a 0-6-0 engine, hauling goods trains to the same timing, the tractive effort of the former was 28,426 Ibs., and the latter 20,383 lbs. When hauling a load of 600 tons the more powerful engine consumed 17 per cent. less coal than its competitor. The economy decreased as the load decreased, and with a 300 ton load the fuel consumption was equal.
Mr. J. W. Smith agreed that if one got the opinion of he Shops, the Sheds, and the Drawing Office together, one would aim at simplicity, which was the keyword of standardisation. About the smokebox, he was in favour of everything below the ash level being made of cast iron, but above that he was not too certain. With regard to joints, it is necessary to make everything in an engine smokebox so that one could get it out. He was not so sure that a girder design of frame was right. To his mind one wanted flexibility. In connection with the omitting of collars on the journals, he remarked that years ago they had some trouble with tender axles and the outer collars were turned off. The result was that the frames bulged outwards. If one takes the collars off one is taking stiffness from the frames. If one omits collars on the inside the frame goes in and one gets the weight on the wheel boss. That is one point in locomotive design—when curing a fault one has to be sure it does not create a worse.
Baillie, N.L. (Paper No. 296)
Foundry working on railways. 676-736. Disc.: 737-56.
In Argentina