The Night Mail

[New Haven Neil]

Like Rockershovel, being in the Merch meant a continual needle/human interface!  Cholera, yellow fever, I can't recall what else there was IIRC 4 we had to have all the time, and extras if you were going somewhere dodgy!

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

The Chinook lifting point is in the same place, they open a hatch in the floor and the lifting tackle goes through , hung from the middle of the ceiling.

Darn cold in the back flying round the Falklands in their winter, with an underslung load and all the doors open, so the loadmaster could lean out to see what was happening.

 

As we wound down the logistics side of Exercise Lionheart (1984), I was responsible for returning about six CVRT which comprised part of the 1(BR) Corps battlefield replacements back to their hideyhole in Bielefeld.  These vehicles had been parked up in various temporary logistic sites to the SE of Paderborn.  Since they'd all been airlifted out, and they wanted to keep the track mileage to an absolute minimum, they were to be flown back as well.

 

As Lionheart ended, we flew into the LZ by Puma with all the lifting gear as an underslung load, recovered the vehicles from their various hides and prepared them for the lift back.

 

Of course, nothing is ever straightforward, and at one of the sites the LZ had been freshly ploughed.  Although, the CVRT would get onto the field, I really didn't want the Chinook trying to pick up, just in case he had to set down, as the chances are it would bog in so I spoke to Gutersloh and arranged  a new LZ site.

 

The Chinook arrived, we and the local police stopped the traffic on the  not so minor road, the CVRT got driven into position, and the Chinook did what it does best, heavy lift.  By the time we done this twice times, there was quite a crowd gathered to watch the last vehicle off.

 

The other three were holed up in a wood and were driven to their pick up point which was a field.  I'd arranged that the last but one lift would also lift the majority of the ground team back to Bielefeld, and we would travel back on the last flight.

 

We spent quite a bit of time on the ground waiting, much longer than originally anticipated and  I'd just got to the 'They've gone u/s, so we'll have to drive this thing all the way back',  when the Chinook arrived back on task.

 

Of course the two of us left were both needed on top of the CVRT to effect a safe hook up, and normally we'd stay on until the aircraft had lifted and we could check all the suspension lines were taut and not snagged or otherwise hooked up, but on this occasion the pilot put the aircraft almost onto the roof of the CVRT.(I'd thought this through before hand, so this one was a Spartan, which had little in the way of awkward protuberances on the top deck.)  We were assisted in by the two loadmasters and then proceeded to look through the hole in the floor whilst the aircraft took the strain.  After we'd ascertained the suspension lines were clear, we waited and waited.

 

A check with the pilot as to the delay demonstrated one of the problems with a lot of aircraft: That of being unable to carry a full payload and fuel load.  There had been a slight miscalculation when they had refueled prior to the final sortie, which accounted for the delay we'd experienced, and they were now sitting in the hover until they'd burned off sufficient fuel to get the power to weight ratio correct.

 

It only took a few minutes, but standing at the back of the cockpit and watching the fuel gauges slowly dropping was a timely reminder of how much fuel a helicopter needs when it's in the hover.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Happy Hippo

[Dave Hunt]

I also had to have armfuls of needles in case of rapid deployment. The worst one in my experience was yellow fever and in typical Sod's law fashion that was the most frequent.

 

Dave

[Dave Hunt]

It's a sign I tell you!! They really are monitoring our every move! Here we are discussing helicopters and one has just turned up and is circling near our house. if I don't post for a while you know that I've been abducted........

 

HH, keep out of sight!

 

Dave

Edited December 6, 2020 by Dave Hunt

[Happy Hippo]

7 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

I also had to have armfuls of needles in case of rapid deployment. The worst one in my experience was yellow fever and in typical Sod's law fashion that was the most frequent.

 

Dave

I can sympathise, but at least it was in the arm.  I will never forget getting an inflammatory infection, that required a bum cheek full of penicillin.  About 5 minutes before I was due to travel from Catterick (N Yorks) to Bovington (Dorset) in a series III Landrover.

[Tony_S]

11 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

a series III Landrover

The recent Landrovers have very comfy seats, though I suppose they might do a military version? 

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, Tony_S said:

The recent Landrovers have very comfy seats, though I suppose they might do a military version? 

The Series 3 seats were just pads of foam on a plywood base, covered in some form of waterproof coating.  that coupled to the leaf spring suspension did not offer the best of rides.

 

It was only when the  LR Defender started getting issued in the late 80's that there was a real improvement, when the majority of the fleet went over to diesel fuel, with coils springs and proper bucket seats.  We did get a batch of V8 petrol engined Defenders but the deciscion was made not to mix them into the general fleet so the vast majority went to Northern Ireland.

 

The early Defenders were a bit of a mixed bag:  Some were really good, but they were non turbo charged, and their performance on hills varied depending on individual vehicles.  Our Stores Troop at 16 AD Regt had five.  Three of which were real work horses, the other two were pants.  Since the priority was the ops side, we let the decent machines go to the sections supporting the Rapier Batteries, whilst my SQMS and I soldiered on with  the two nicknamed 'Slow and Slower'. 

 

 I did consider trying to get hold of a 3.5 V8 powered forward Control Landrover as used as the Rapier fire unit tractors, but they were getting towards the end of their service life and were somewhat unreliable.  

 

This was countered somewhat as an Air Defence Regiment has a full REME workshop attached and not just a Light Aid Detachment.  (Hence why there was a full Ordnance Stores Troop in support and not just a handful Supply Specialists.)

 

 

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

They should complain! A lot of old fast jet pilots who spent a fair proportion of their time at considerably more than 1G know all about lower back pain. How do I know that.......?

 

My most memorable helicopter experience was doing a dinghy drill in the Far East when the helicopter pilot who turned up to ferry us one by one back to shore turned out to be a friend with whom I had done basic training. When he recognised me he told the winch man to do a solo lift, i.e., not come down with the strop but to remain in the door and just send the strop down for me to put on, then just lift me a few feet clear of the dinghy and leave me there. He then 'trawled' me back to the beach, dipping me into the sea repeatedly so that by the time I got back on land I was doing a fair representation of a drowned kitten. What it is to have friends.

 

I've also been in the cockpit of a helicopter landing and taking off in forest clearings seemingly not any bigger than the aircraft and that, as well as other experiences, has given me a great deal of respect for chopper pilots. Not that I ever wanted to be one though.

 

 

What's the rule?  Bang out 3 times (or is it 2?) and you're off fast jets due to spine compression?  Coupled with the fact that you have a habit of bending their expensive kit.....

 

Dinghy Drills?  Had a couple of those, but in Portland Harbour.  The SAR was a Coastguard S61; the bright sparks decided to close the SAR facility at Portland in 2017, despite the fact that in 1999 the SAR was the second busiest (even though it only had 12 hour operations).  In 2010 it was revealed that the SAR operated in the busiest area, at 25%, for all SAR emergencies operated by HM Coastguard in the UK.  Smart thinking, that.

 

As for respect, this guy appears to know a thing or two; I've been onboard Lynx for a few deck operations in flat calm conditions and it makes you realise just how little room there is on the back of a Frigate - and how exposed the Batsman is if things go horribly wrong:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

I can sympathise, but at least it was in the arm.  I will never forget getting an inflammatory infection, that required a bum cheek full of penicillin. 

 

Did they want to get the penicillin nice and close to the site of the problem by any chance?

 

[Happy Hippo]

Finally and without more ado, we are back to the B/L Mogul saga!

 

In answer to Douglas's latest query as to the reason the Mogul is running out of puff.

 

In short the output of steam in not matching that required for continuous running.

 

There can only be two significant reasons for this:

 

Considerable leakage in the steam system prior to it being exhausted as designed.

 

The inability of the burner to match or exceed the steam rate required for continuous running.

 

Douglas has already identified a serious steam leak in the front end where there was leakage from the lubricator. This has been rectified.

 

However there is always the possibility that the cylinders are so worn that  a lot of steam is wasted as 'blow through'.

 

We can accept a small amount of such leakage, and knowing the ability of these locos to run after many years of use, I'm minded to put this particular problem to one side.  Logically if the valves were badly worn, the loco would be unable to move off; likewise if the piston gland such as it is was shot, we'd be getting huge amounts of steam blowing out when the regulator was opened.  The starting, if it did move off would be very weak.  the same would apply to excessive leakage past the piston inside the cylinder bores.

 

So this brings us back to the boiler and it's ability to generate enough steam.

 

Now it could be suggested that somewhere between the boiler and the cylinders there is a partial blockage.  But, if that were the case, then steam would be unable to leave the boiler so this would result in boiler pressure quickly rising and the safety valve operating to relieve the excess pressure!

 

We have discussed the vapourising burner and how it should be set up.  I am not convinced that the B/L instructions are quite correct when it states that lifting the pilot wick height will increase the ability of the burner to make more steam.  When you look at a burner, or a blow torch, the flame is divided into zones, depending on which zone is in contact with what you are trying to heat up depends on the level of heat transfer.  Lifting the wick higher than the 1/8" recommendation will lift the cool zone at the base of the flame closer to the vapourising tube, so although you will get more flame, you will not necessarily get more heat.

 

The locomotive requires a certain minimum pressure to operate.  On a lot of small steam locos it is usual for the blow pressure to be set as, say 40psi, but once the regulator is opened then the pressure will drop to about 20 psi, and the loco will continue to run, but as soon as the heat source is removed from the boiler then the loco will slow and stop.

 

Now that statement may seem obvious but if we accept that the loco requires 20 psi to operate continuously when pulling 

a load, and the boiler pressure when running is less than that then, the loco will stop.  

 

So if that loss of boiler pressure is causing the loco to come to a halt then perhaps we need to be looking at a higher initial boiler pressure, and see whether this will help cure the problem.

 

Remote problem solving is quite difficult and my solution would be to carry out a number of tests to isolate the cause.

 

Test one connect the chassis to an air compressor ( I use an airbrush compressor for this) and having put the chassis in a bowl of water, turn on the air supply.  This is akin to looking for a leak in a bicycle inner tube, but will immediately identify any leaks in the cylinders, valves or glands.  I'd expect some but not end up with a bubbling mass.

 

I would NOT connect the boiler to the compressor as a mistake could have fatal consequences!

 

Without a  hydraulic testing ability I'd restrict the leak test of the boiler itself to steaming up outside on a cold day and see how much unwanted steam appears.   douglas has already identified a leak in a similar fashion.

 

Once that's out of the way we can go back to the other potential cause of excessive steam loss which is the safety valve.  We know it has been stripped and assembled many times, but do we have any idea what pressure it is set to operate at?  If it is too low, the boiler will raise steam, Once the regulator is opened any pressure above the minimum operating pressure will  move the loco off; accelerate it and then begin to tail off.  although the burner is capable of generating steam to bring the boiler up to pressure when static, it cannot overcome the steam loss every wheel revolution. so it slows down and stops.  After a few minutes the loco will again have enough pressure to move off.

 

A higher initial boiler pressure will extend the run somewhat but logically the loco will still eventually run out of steam. 

 

Check the safety valve to make sure it is closing and opening correctly without any leakage  that included the valve to boiler seal.

 

Now that seems to have brought us full circle and we are back to the boiler's inability to generate steam in excess of consumption.

 

At this point I'd be looking to see if we can increase the burner capacity. 

 

So, if the burner is  working, are there  any blockages that would restrict fuel flow between the tank and the wick which feeds the vapourising tube?

 

Is the vapourising tube feed wick packed correctly?

 

Is the pilot wick set to the correct height of 1/8"

 

I know we have touched on this burner set up before, but these locos were designed around this burner system and have a proven track record. 

 

A bit of old wick trapped in the tube and a build up of dirt around it would be enough to restric the fuel flow.

 

We have mentioned this before and the burner will function and look as if it is working properly but will not be getting enough fuel through to generate the heat needed.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Happy Hippo

[Happy Hippo]

5 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

 

 

Did they want to get the penicillin nice and close to the site of the problem by any chance?

 

Yes, since you ask!

 

I'd been hoofed in the sack during a rugby match the week previously and there  was quite a bit of inflammation around the right nut.

 

Guest and Hunt! Stop laughing at the back.

 

I didn't cry at the time,  I just muttered bother, or words to that effect

[Florence Locomotive Works]

14 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Finally and without more ado, we are back to the B/L Mogul saga!

 

In answer to Douglas's latest query as to the reason the Mogul is running out of puff.

 

In short the output of steam in not matching that required for continuous running.

 

There can only be two significant reasons for this:

 

Considerable leakage in the steam system prior to it being exhausted as designed.

 

The inability of the burner to match or exceed the steam rate required for continuous running.

 

Douglas has already identified a serious steam leak in the front end where there was leakage from the lubricator. This has been rectified.

 

However there is always the possibility that the cylinders are so worn that  a lot of steam is wasted as 'blow through'.

 

We can accept a small amount of such leakage, and knowing the ability of these locos to run after many years of use, I'm minded to put this particular problem to one side.  Logically if the valves were badly worn, the loco would be unable to move off; likewise if the piston gland such as it is was shot, we'd be getting huge amounts of steam blowing out when the regulator was opened.  The starting, if it did move off would be very weak.  the same would apply to excessive leakage past the piston inside the cylinder bores.

 

So this brings us back to the boiler and it's ability to generate enough steam.

 

Now it could be suggested that somewhere between the boiler and the cylinders there is a partial blockage.  But, if that were the case, then steam would be unable to leave the boiler so this would result in boiler pressure quickly rising and the safety valve operating to relieve the excess pressure!

 

We have discussed the vapourising burner and how it should be set up.  I am not convinced that the B/L instructions are quite correct when it states that lifting the pilot wick height will increase the ability of the burner to make more steam.  When you look at a burner, or a blow torch, the flame is divided into zones, depending on which zone is in contact with what you are trying to heat up depends on the level of heat transfer.  Lifting the wick higher than the 1/8" recommendation will lift the cool zone at the base of the flame closer to the vapourising tube, so although you will get more flame, you will not necessarily get more heat.

 

The locomotive requires a certain minimum pressure to operate.  On a lot of small steam locos it is usual for the blow pressure to be set as, say 40psi, but once the regulator is opened then the pressure will drop to about 20 psi, and the loco will continue to run, but as soon as the heat source is removed from the boiler then the loco will slow and stop.

 

Now that statement may seem obvious but if we accept that the loco requires 20 psi to operate continuously when pulling 

a load, and the boiler pressure when running is less than that then, the loco will stop.  

 

So if that loss of boiler pressure is causing the loco to come to a halt then perhaps we need to be looking at a higher initial boiler pressure, and see whether this will help cure the problem.

 

Remote problem solving is quite difficult and my solution would be to carry out a number of tests to isolate the cause.

 

Test one connect the chassis to an air compressor ( I use an airbrush compressor for this) and having put the chassis in a bowl of water, turn on the air supply.  This is akin to looking for a leak in a bicycle inner tube, but will immediately identify any leaks in the cylinders, valves or glands.  I'd expect some but not end up with a bubbling mass.

 

I would NOT connect the boiler to the compressor as a mistake could have fatal consequences!

 

Without a  hydraulic testing ability I'd restrict the leak test of the boiler itself to steaming up outside on a cold day and see how much unwanted steam appears.   douglas has already identified a leak in a similar fashion.

 

Once that's out of the way we can go back to the other potential cause of excessive steam loss which is the safety valve.  We know it has been stripped and assembled many times, but do we have any idea what pressure it is set to operate at?  If it is too low, the boiler will raise steam, Once the regulator is opened any pressure above the minimum operating pressure will  move the loco off; accelerate it and then begin to tail off.  although the burner is capable of generating steam to bring the boiler up to pressure when static, it cannot overcome the steam loss every wheel revolution. so it slows down and stops.  After a few minutes the loco will again have enough pressure to move off.

 

A higher initial boiler pressure will extend the run somewhat but logically the loco will still eventually run out of steam. 

 

Check the safety valve to make sure it is closing and opening correctly without any leakage  that included the valve to boiler seal.

 

Now that seems to have brought us full circle and we are back to the boiler's inability to generate steam in excess of consumption.

 

At this point I'd be looking to see if we can increase the burner capacity. 

 

So, if the burner is  working, are there  any blockages that would restrict fuel flow between the tank and the wick which feeds the vapourising tube?

 

Is the vapourising tube feed wick packed correctly?

 

Is the pilot wick set to the correct height of 1/8"

 

I know we have touched on this burner set up before, but these locos were designed around this burner system and have a proven track record. 

 

A bit of old wick trapped in the tube and a build up of dirt around it would be enough to restric the fuel flow.

 

We have mentioned this before and the burner will function and look as if it is working properly but will not be getting enough fuel through to generate the heat needed.

Firstly, my thanks as always HH.

 

I’ll start with the cylinders. I won’t completely dismiss the fact that they might be leaking, but both the pistons and valves were capable of pulling a vacuum last time I had the end caps and cladding off, which was in August 

from memory. 

 

The burner: Yes I would venture to say the BL instructions are wrong, so after the Formula 1 race this morning I’ll have a steam up with the pilot wick set to 1/8 inch, and see what happens. 
 

The safety valve: According to BL, its is designed to blow off at 15-16 psi (15 at low end of spring I’m guessing 16 when fully tightened up, as it is now). The boiler was tested at the factory to 40 psi, and we’ve had it to 30ish on the air compressor on accident, when we didn’t know there was a blocked steam line. 
 

The burner again: Might have said this already. On Wednesday I took out the old non pilot wick that carries the sprint up to the vaporizing tube, and it was fairly worn out. So I replaced it with another unused one from the engine’s original bag of spares. It seems to be burning better now, but probably isn’t due to my incorrect pilot wick height assumption. 
 

Douglas

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Florence Locomotive Works

[Happy Hippo]

Douglas, 

 

If you tested the cylinders using the good old vacuum trick and they either hold or snap back then they are probably going to work for a good many years to come.

 

If the boiler was tested in the factory at 40 psi then it's good for 20 psi as a normal operating pressure.  

 

Assuming there are no other leaks in between (and including) the boiler to the reverser block, then you'll need to keep going with the burner adjustments to get the fire balanced.

 

You are making progress albeit a little slowly, but things are improving all the time which is what it's all about.

 

As an aside to the matter of boiler testing.  the late Jack Wheldon, whom I've mentioned before, once tested a Mamod brass loco boiler to, wait for it................

 

 

 

 

200psi!

 

At the end of the test the boiler was visibly bulged, and not fit for anything other than the scrap box, but it was an indication of how strong a simple brass boiler, which was only soft soldered together, can be when properly constructed.

 

Obviously I would not suggest you try that with your Mogul boiler, but you may consider fitting a slightly stronger safety valve spring in the future. 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Happy Hippo

[Tony_S]

2 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

When you look at a burner, or a blow torch, the flame is divided into zones, depending on which zone is in contact with what you are trying to heat up

I can remember at school doing an experiment to determine the temperature of different regions of Bunsen burner flames. I do not recall doing that experiment with any of my students when I taught science. 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

11 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

200psi!

“...at this Mr. Trevithick was most elated.”

[jamie92208]

A short coda to my post of a few days ago about the engine works in Hunslet.  Here are a couple of shots of the Hunslet Engine Company Works as they look today. Taken in December 2009. Here is the main erecting shop, which was reclad when Schneider electrical took it over.

The extension on the left was where the main gate and security office was.  Originally the main line connection went through that gate and into the side of the erecting shop inside the yard. However when they got the contract for the 323's the connection was relaid and a doorway created were the two brick pillars are. The approach tracks that cross Hudswell Way and Jack Lane can be seen. There were two other road crossings which aren't in this photos to the left.

The old offices are listed and are to the left of the first photo fronting onto jack Lane.

The name above the doorway stands to this day thought the offices are not in use any more.

The blue plaque was erected by Leeds Civic Society to honour the site's history.

 

 

Jamie

[Florence Locomotive Works]

Another run was just had of the Mogul, and it was about the same as the most recent runs. However the burner did light itself this time. I am unsure what to conclude from this. 
 

Douglas

[Florence Locomotive Works]

2 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Douglas, 

 

If you tested the cylinders using the good old vacuum trick and they either hold or snap back then they are probably going to work for a good many years to come.

 

If the boiler was tested in the factory at 40 psi then it's good for 20 psi as a normal operating pressure.  

 

Assuming there are no other leaks in between (and including) the boiler to the reverser block, then you'll need to keep going with the burner adjustments to get the fire balanced.

 

You are making progress albeit a little slowly, but things are improving all the time which is what it's all about.

 

As an aside to the matter of boiler testing.  the late Jack Wheldon, whom I've mentioned before, once tested a Mamod brass loco boiler to, wait for it................

 

 

 

 

200psi!

 

At the end of the test the boiler was visibly bulged, and not fit for anything other than the scrap box, but it was an indication of how strong a simple brass boiler, which was only soft soldered together, can be when properly constructed.

 

Obviously I would not suggest you try that with your Mogul boiler, but you may consider fitting a slightly stronger safety valve spring in the future. 

 

 

 

Another possible solution.

 

Momentum scrubbing into the curves.

 

I have observed over the many runs that I have done, that the engine runs significantly better on straight sections of the track, than on the curves. However, I have found archive footage of the actual test track at BL’s works in Northampton, and it shows the engines running very well on curves. (Skip to 14:54) Your thoughts sir are appreciated. 
 

Douglas

 

 

[Dave Hunt]

5 hours ago, polybear said:

What's the rule?  Bang out 3 times (or is it 2?) and you're off fast jets due to spine compression?  Coupled with the fact that you have a habit of bending their expensive kit.....

 

There's no such rule as far as I know. I think it's one of those myths. Spinal compression and neck injuries are common in any ejection and a friend of mine was nearly an inch shorter after jumping out of a Gnat but eventually regained his previous stature. There was a guy I knew who was (in)famous for banging out of every type with an ejector seat that he had ever flown - if I recall correctly his tally was five. He'd even baled out of a Chipmunk! I should add that none of them was his fault, he was just the unluckiest chap I ever knew. Although I once bent a Hunter to the extent that it had to be written off (even though I walked away from it) and damaged a Phantom such that it had to be taken to bits and sent to BAe to be rebuilt, the most expensive damage was to a Tornado F3 when the Italian student in the front swept the wings forward at an horrendous speed - a story I have told here before. Another fairly expensive one was when I had an engine go bang in an F3 and had to divert into St. Athan; the right hand side back end of the fuselage was almost rebuilt as a result. And I still wasn't fired for bad behaviour. Let's face it, if HMQ gives a bunch of extroverts highly expensive toys and requires them to do dangerous things with them, some are going to get bent!

 

I'm just off for a Zoom quiz with some ex-school mates and their spouses, the occasion doubling up as a gin tasting. The last one in September lasted over three hours and I didn't feel very well the next day so I may be a bit late tomorrow.   

 

I see that the cockw government are still supposedly trying to get a deal with the EU. After four years ineptitude I'm not really very hopeful. Can you imagine them trying to achieve something in the real world?

 

The best news of the day was England beating France. 

 

Cheers everyone.

 

Dave

[Happy Hippo]

39 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

There's no such rule as far as I know. I think it's one of those myths. Spinal compression and neck injuries are common in any ejection and a friend of mine was nearly an inch shorter after jumping out of a Gnat but eventually regained his previous stature. There was a guy I knew who was (in)famous for banging out of every type with an ejector seat that he had ever flown - if I recall correctly his tally was five. He'd even baled out of a Chipmunk! I should add that none of them was his fault, he was just the unluckiest chap I ever knew.

Surely he must be the luckiest guy you know.  There is a big difference between deliberately casting oneself from the surly bonds of an airframe for fun, and having to leave a perfectly unserviceable one that might be going very fast at low level whilst being totally unstable?

 

From experience, an emergency exit from an elderly Pilatus Porter that decided to put a piston through the side of the crankcase at 600 feet creates the adrenaline rush required to get out before you soil your breeches. 

[rockershovel]

50 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

 

 

I see that the cockw government are still supposedly trying to get a deal with the EU. After four years ineptitude I'm not really very hopeful. Can you imagine them trying to achieve something in the real world?

 

The best news of the day was England beating France. 

 

Cheers everyone.

 

Dave

 

I wasn’t aware that Chipmunks HAD ejector seats! I remember them from Air Experience Flying with the CCF in the early 1970s. 

 

I am watching the EU negotiations with rather more interest than the rugby. You have to remember that no one really knows how Article 50 works, not least because it was never intended to be put into practice. Pretty much any possible outcome contains aspects which no one wants, on either side. 

[Happy Hippo]

1 hour ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Another possible solution.

 

Momentum scrubbing into the curves.

 

I have observed over the many runs that I have done, that the engine runs significantly better on straight sections of the track, than on the curves. However, I have found archive footage of the actual test track at BL’s works in Northampton, and it shows the engines running very well on curves. (Skip to 14:54) Your thoughts sir are appreciated. 
 

Douglas

In a word, No.

 

There is an element of increased drag, but the wheel standards... Coarse scale in this case, are there to allow the loco to have some victory over Sir Isaac. Try running some of Dave's S7 stuff on curves like that and see what happens.

 

Yes, there is an increase in the drag as more of the train gets into the curve, but that is usually overcome by adding a bit more power.  You open the regulator sufficiently to overcome the issue.  This was one of the reasons that radio control became so popular with live steamers in the 16 mm fraternity.  Users would  be putting ever tighter radii in for the curves on their garden line and let us say that the gradients were none too prototypical either, so large regulator openings followed by quick closure became a way of life for some users.  You see the BL loco plus a large train running at full pelt around the circle, but there is no straight track in their test circuit.  So the regulator can be left wide open.  It also only shows it running for a few seconds, so you may find that a little later it would be running considerably slower.

 

When you are trying to fault find there are no shortcuts. you need to have exhausted one set of possibilities before moving onto another.

 

As you found when you suddenly found the steam leak in the lubricator.   Sometimes there is a large jump in performance after such a discovery.

 

Had we been working face to face and not trying to diagnose the fault over a long distance we may have found it sooner.  I'd certainly suggest that would have been the case with the initial burner diagnosis.  But that was not your fault, because you weren't really aware of what you should be looking for, and I'd made certain assumptions which I shouldn't have..

 

Since the loco cylinders are in good shape, concentrate on the burner unit for now.

 

Once you've done that you might consider the rotary reverser/regulator.  If that is not sitting flat against the port face, it is another potential steam leakage location.  I now know we are now going back over steam leaks, but it may be a possibility.  If there is not a good fit, do not immediately take a file to it or try to polish it smooth.

 

Such a task needs a very careful approach, and the parts properly lapped in together.

 

What we don't want to do is try doing too many things  at once, before we move onto the next set of checks.  This can upset the loco operation and we will then not know which adjustment is the one that made it better/worse..

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Happy Hippo

[polybear]

38 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

There's no such rule as far as I know. I think it's one of those myths. Spinal compression and neck injuries are common in any ejection and a friend of mine was nearly an inch shorter after jumping out of a Gnat but eventually regained his previous stature. There was a guy I knew who was (in)famous for banging out of every type with an ejector seat that he had ever flown - if I recall correctly his tally was five. He'd even baled out of a Chipmunk! I should add that none of them was his fault, he was just the unluckiest chap I ever knew. Although I once bent a Hunter to the extent that it had to be written off (even though I walked away from it) and damaged a Phantom such that it had to be taken to bits and sent to BAe to be rebuilt, the most expensive damage was to a Tornado F3 when the Italian student in the front swept the wings forward at an horrendous speed - a story I have told here before. Another fairly expensive one was when I had an engine go bang in an F3 and had to divert into St. Athan; the right hand side back end of the fuselage was almost rebuilt as a result. And I still wasn't fired for bad behaviour. Let's face it, if HMQ gives a bunch of extroverts highly expensive toys and requires them to do dangerous things with them, some are going to get bent!

 

 

This is a rather famous photo of an ejection at Hatfield:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-behind-a-famous-photo-of-an-ejection-from-a-raf-lightning-interceptor/

I used to work with the guy who held the pilot clear of water (he landed in the greenhouses (shown in one of the photos) and set off the sprinkler system as a result; the same guy worked on the aircraft before the accident - it had a history of random fire warning indications - they even renewed all fire warning wiring as a result.  From memory the pilot (George Aird) got another fire warning on the day of the accident whilst over the wash (or south coast?) and should've banged out; however since he knew the history of the problems he decided to stay put and diverted to (I think) RAe Bedford.  Then the fire warning extinguished so he cancelled the diversion and decided to return to Hatfield - as he come in over the fence he lost elevator control at 100 feet and the rest is history.  The aftermath and subsequent investigations were less than pleasant by all accounts, with much finger pointing and laying of blame going on.  Eventually they concluded that under certain conditions a crack in an engine casing/jet pipe could allow hot gases to escape and cause the warning; eventually this worsened to the point where the tailplane actuator system failed.

 

George ended up in hospital with a couple of broken legs, surrounded by bikers who'd slung it down the road.  When asked what he'd done he told them he'd crashed his Lightning - they assumed it was a BSA....

He was back flying in 6 months, and in a Lightning within a year.  By all accounts he was one of the first 100 people saved by a MB ejection seat.

 

I've a feeling that George is still alive and in his 90's

 

The photographer was paid a £1K for the photo by the Daily Mirror - a lot of money in 1962.

[Happy Hippo]

8 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I wasn’t aware that Chipmunks HAD ejector seats! I remember them from Air Experience Flying with the CCF in the early 1970s. 

 

I am watching the EU negotiations with rather more interest than the rugby. You have to remember that no one really knows how Article 50 works, not least because it was never intended to be put into practice. Pretty much any possible outcome contains aspects which no one wants, on either side. 

Jumping out of one would be an air experience many were prefer not to undertake!

[simontaylor484]

I was in the Air Training Corps in the 90s they were still using the Chipmunk then 

I saw an advert recently for flights in them and they were charging an arm and a leg.

I still remember the briefing video on having to leave the aircraft by parachute 

Canopy off undo seat harness stand in seat jump over the side on and look where the d handle for the parachute ripcord is

[simontaylor484]

Jamie

 

I think that track going across the front Merlin Gerin is the one i was thinking of the other day