Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

Just now, Clive Mortimore said:

Bad coal is nothing new. In the 80s nursed a old chap who had been a fireman on the LNER. He told me that in the 20s they were given German coal as part of the WW1 reparations. It was small and hard, and when working the Pullman trains out of Kings Cross with a GCR 4 cylinder 4-6-0 locos the draft was so strong it would lift the coal off the fire and exhaust it out the chimney. Which in turn fell like rain on the cab roof. 

 

He liked the Ivatt Atlantics but the Gresley Pacifics were too much like hard work to fire.

a few years back, I was involved with a preserved Burrell traction engine. At the beginning of one season, the owner took delivery of a coal supply from his usual supplier of good welsh steam coal,always from the same colliery. In those days coal was delivered in large sacks and had a batch number tracing it right back to the seam. Of the 20 or so bags delivered, all but one were of the usual high quality. The exception looked the same, initially burnt the same, but out on the road, wouldn't make a hot fire and clinkered terribly. we had no option but to pull off the road, dump the fire and start again. I suspect a similar situation occured with 60103. the difference being, that it is a major undertaking to replace the complete fire and tender coal load on a mainline pacific. I feel for the passengers and the support crew, but that kind of issue isn't one that can be recovered from quickly and easily. They would have had no option other than pull the loco from the train.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, davidw said:

Wow - would Nick be described as a beginner?

Thank you for your kind words. 

 

The twin is made from two Comet kits with MJT underframe parts and a scratch built break end. The other kits are Parkside and D and S. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Probably about time something was done about it. Perhaps supplier accreditation, product checking before use, due diligence or whatever is necessary.

 

 

 

You've presumably not had any dealings with solid fuel then.

Attached are a couple of pictures, see if you can tell the difference between the different fuels, they're all black and will burn and provide heat under the correct conditions.

 

 

IMG_20210620_173645240.jpg.8ee93b4dd35e05ca07816a4be5dec507.jpg 

These two while looking very similar are a medium quality housecoal, excuse the odd bits in one of them as we burn all our address labels and such so there were lots in here awaiting the next time we light a fire, the other was obtained from a house clearance where the householder, being a model engineer with steam models had some properly sorted and graded steam coal. I brought it home for the fire anyway.

 

 IMG_20210620_173744813.jpg.6d5a1a3bb993b56e292b0f503e0fa2fc.jpg

 

This is smokeless coal, again there are different grades and brands. It burns given the right conditions and provides lots of heat.

 

Which would you suggest be put in a loco tender for a mainline run?

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, great central said:

 

You've presumably not had any dealings with solid fuel then.

 

 

Actually I have, but I wouldn't be picking a fuel for steam locos. I'd expect an experienced professional to do that. And to get it right.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for showing us your work Neil,

 

It looks very good. 

 

You raise a very interesting further point regarding gearboxes; that of time saved set against cost. How does one evaluate time, especially if, by saving it, one also, just about automatically, has a beautifully-sweet prime mover?

 

I think the discussions have probably all been aired now, and, as I've said many times, 'You pays your money and you takes your choice'. I fully understand yours.

 

Two constructively-critical points on your 'Brit' if I may? Replace the bogie wheels with correct nine-spokers, and fill in the triangular gaps in the frames (designed to accommodate an open-framed motor) with Plastikard 'wedges' of appropriate thickness (soldering brass in-fills at this stage is a bit too tricky). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I must admit I didn't realise the bogie wheels were incorrect I will get this sorted along with the frame cut outs. Thanks Tony.

 

Regards Neil

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Actually I have, but I wouldn't be picking a fuel for steam locos. I'd expect an experienced professional to do that. And to get it right.

 

Isn't it so easy to condemn others from the comfort of your armchair, when you clearly don't have a true understanding of the subject.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ncl said:

Thank you for your kind words. 

 

The twin is made from two Comet kits with MJT underframe parts and a scratch built break end. The other kits are Parkside and D and S. 

Don't forget I've got your N5 here, Nick.

 

How did we miss it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
29 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Actually I have, but I wouldn't be picking a fuel for steam locos. I'd expect an experienced professional to do that. And to get it right.

 

Interestingly I have a company magazine from the 1930s describing exactly how they did that necessary testing to establish gasification on heating, calorific values, ash content, caking properties etc.  The problem is you would need a permanently manned laboratory to measure all of these factors - and more.  I doubt those professionals exist any more "locally" outside of the remaining coalfired power stations - so Germany might be the closest option.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

already run on imported Russian coal. And it's bl00dy good stuff!

I remember someone at the North Norfolk Railway saying that they used to get Russian coal and it was awful. The crews found bits of polystyrene it in which was curious as the coal was priced according to weight not volume.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Interestingly I have a company magazine from the 1930s describing exactly how they did that necessary testing to establish gasification on heating, calorific values, ash content, caking properties etc.  The problem is you would need a permanently manned laboratory to measure all of these factors - and more.  I doubt those professionals exist any more "locally" outside of the remaining coalfired power stations - so Germany might be the closest option.  

most of the coal sourced for the heritage steam movement, whether it comes from the few remaining UK sources, or from further away is perfectly good. It doesn't matter where it comes from, you can't analyse every lump :). As mentioned previously, duff coal can look fine and initially appear to burn fine, only to turn out to be dreadful stuff which can bring a steam locomotive to it's metaphorical knees. the big railway is such a busy place nowadays, there isn't the luxury of stopping for a 'blow up' or to rebuild the fire, without causing untold delays to other trains. therefore, the crew of 60103 would have had no choice but to declare the locomotive a failure and substitute a diesel.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JamieR4489 said:

I remember someone at the North Norfolk Railway saying that they used to get Russian coal and it was awful. The crews found bits of polystyrene it in which was curious as the coal was priced according to weight not volume.

Railways across the UK have, to a greater or lesser extent, been using imported coal from Russia and elsewhere for years now. as Graham mentions, most consider it to be very good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

Railways across the UK have, to a greater or lesser extent, been using imported coal from Russia and elsewhere for years now. as Graham mentions, most consider it to be very good.

To praise or write off all "Russian Coal" is a bit pointless when the country covers what, eight time zones?  The qualities of British coal could vary within any of our coal mining areas, which were sometimes less than 20 miles across.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Denbridge said:

a few years back, I was involved with a preserved Burrell traction engine. At the beginning of one season, the owner took delivery of a coal supply from his usual supplier of good welsh steam coal,always from the same colliery. In those days coal was delivered in large sacks and had a batch number tracing it right back to the seam. Of the 20 or so bags delivered, all but one were of the usual high quality. The exception looked the same, initially burnt the same, but out on the road, wouldn't make a hot fire and clinkered terribly. we had no option but to pull off the road, dump the fire and start again. I suspect a similar situation occured with 60103. the difference being, that it is a major undertaking to replace the complete fire and tender coal load on a mainline pacific. I feel for the passengers and the support crew, but that kind of issue isn't one that can be recovered from quickly and easily. They would have had no option other than pull the loco from the train.


Looking at the reports the fire clinkered up on the climb to Stoke Junction.  60103 had to have a Blow-Up.  Before the end of steam she would have come off at Grantham and be replaced.  An alternative would be to clean out the fire and start again, but nowadays there is nowhere to do this.  At least they managed to get as far as Retford, before an assisting Loco was added.  
 

Paul

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Flying Fox 34F said:


Looking at the reports the fire clinkered up on the climb to Stoke Junction.  60103 had to have a Blow-Up.  Before the end of steam she would have come off at Grantham and be replaced.  An alternative would be to clean out the fire and start again, but nowadays there is nowhere to do this.  At least they managed to get as far as Retford, before an assisting Loco was added.  
 

Paul

You're dead right there Paul. I remember well breaking up clinker with the bent dart or pricker, as it was clogging up the firebars. Restricted air through the firebars equals poor combustion  and poor steaming obviously, and one of the main reasons of poor steaming I would suggest. You must have good air flow to burn coal, primary air through the firebars, and secondly air through the firehole door. to help prevent black smoke, which is unburnt energy. When cleaning the fire on the ash pits at Grantham, clinker was the main problem.

   I don't recall ever having to stop for a blow up, but the fires were often terribly "mucky", especially on the iron ore empties returning from Frodingham ... happy days though, even so.

 

Regards, Roy.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If the coal was like the Russian batch we had just before Christmas it was not so much forming clinker as sitting on the bars, not going through so the fire bed was building up with the very top layer burning, but everything underneath was ash.  We had a box full of fire (with a West Country) and no heat and at midnight we were digging it out to get air through. So I feel for the crew. 

 

We have had Russian since then which has been great, I think we are still on Russian at the moment, reasonable heat, not too much smoke or clinker. Similarly back in the 90s we had a batch of coal from Poland (I seem to remember) which flashed up quickly with a lot of heat, then cooled then got hot again.  That year and potentially that coal brought together a perfect storm of boiler problems, those of whom worked through it would rather forget. 

 

To add to some of the earlier comments, you cannot tell how good or bad the coal is going to be looking at it. 

 

I remember us taking a tender of coke once as an experiment (again on a West Country) after 72 miles she sat down and we had to dig it out. Again, not clinker just hot ash that did not break down and just sat there. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

But there's nothing very new here. The Carlisle-based engines and crews involved in the Aisgill accident of 1913 were fighting bad coal, despite samples of coal from the local collieries supplying Durran Hill shed having been assessed by the company's chemist and found to be perfectly satisfactory.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Denbridge said:

most of the coal sourced for the heritage steam movement, whether it comes from the few remaining UK sources, or from further away is perfectly good. It doesn't matter where it comes from, you can't analyse every lump :). As mentioned previously, duff coal can look fine and initially appear to burn fine, only to turn out to be dreadful stuff which can bring a steam locomotive to it's metaphorical knees. the big railway is such a busy place nowadays, there isn't the luxury of stopping for a 'blow up' or to rebuild the fire, without causing untold delays to other trains. therefore, the crew of 60103 would have had no choice but to declare the locomotive a failure and substitute a diesel.

 

So if I have understood your post correctly, with around 100 years of experience in running steam locomotives, the 1930s companies were wasting their time analysing what they had bought as fuel for their motive power because very lump is different.

 

[And incidentally most of the town gas plants as well.] 

 

Of course you cannot analyse every lump, any more than you can test to destruction every item made in a factory - but destructive testing still takes place on a sample basis in some industries.  Coal from a particular source will tend to be from one seam and the seam will have particular properties.  Sample testing is then appropriate. 

 

The fact that that is now no longer practical or even possible due to the lost expertise is of course important regarding the recent incident but don't dish the expertise of those who worked with coal 90 years ago.  They too could not tell the difference by looking at it and hence the need for detailed laboratory analysis.  

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Tri-ang XT60 motors as used in some TT locos are indestructible. My 1963 TT Boadicea still runs nice. (no TT layout though).

 

My favourite model motor is the Canon can type used on my American O gauge diesel locos. Just sometimes the nylon gears crack on Weaver locos - a known problem due to using "un-aged" nylon.  At least replacements are available & easy to fit.

 

Brit15

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...