Is main line steam being pushed too hard?

[Guest Phil]

You make some very interesting comparisons and raise some excellent points.

 

Since we do tend to take a rather parochial approach to steam locomotive development, there's a danger that we can overlook experience that has been applied elsewhere. For example, it might not have originated with them, but the Skoda works of Plzen (Czechoslovakia) became pioneers in the construction of all-welded boilers from the time of WW2 onwards. Did their boilers require such careful treatment as CJ Allen and DW Winkworth record for the Bulleid Pacifics? (Does anyone know? Seeing that batches of Kriegsloks were among the early examples, and the Skoda-built batches appear to have been successful, I doubt that long heating and cooling cycles would have been applied).

 

Interesting post Eddie.

 

I once read that that the Skoda built Czech class 556 2-10-0s were a marriage of Kriegslok chassis and a homebuilt copy of the US built SNCF 141R boiler. Don't know whether it is true, but have a feeling that might have been from a member of the Czech & Slovak Group, but not sure.

[EddieB]

 

I once read that that the Skoda built Czech class 556 2-10-0s were a marriage of Kriegslok chassis and a homebuilt copy of the US built SNCF 141R boiler. Don't know whether it is true, but have a feeling that might have been from a member of the Czech & Slovak Group, but not sure.

 

Paul Catchpole (who has a strong association to the Czech & Slovak Group) makes a similar point in "The Steam Loxcomotives of Czechoslovakia" that the boiler was derived from the 475.1 4-8-2 (more accurately its development into 476.0, a 3-cylinder design with Chapelon features) fitted to a kriegslok chasis. He also notes the similarity of boiler mountings and smoke deflectors to the 141R.

 

But they were more advanced than that. Reckoned to be the most advanced 2-10-0 design, they incorporated the best of contemporary German and French practice, including all-welded boiler, thermic syphon, mechanical stokers and Kylchap exhausts. The pilot wheels were mounted in a truck with leading coupled wheels, which had lateral play. Whether it was communist-era propaganda, there is a claim of one working a 5,000-tonne train unassisted (although AEDurrant records having seen several 3,000 tonne freights worked by a single 556.0)..

[PhilH]

I couldn't comment on the Kriegsloks, but even in preservation, the Bulleid boiler has had its fair share of problems. Just ask those down at the Bluebell as to why they nickname 21C123 "Blackmore Fail"...most of its problems associated with firebox problems (thermic siphon related) and corrosion to some extent.

 

Sorry Simon I'm not having that - we have quite a history with Bulleids on the MHR (34007, 34016, 34105 and 35005), which includes mainline running with two of the things and we have never had boiler troubles.

 

I think it's a bit of a red herring to talk about welded stay boilers in classes of locos not doing the sort of work which Tornado is doing - surely it would be more valuable to compare things with locomotives which are doing similar work, perhaps 35028 (which of course has one of your maligned Bulleid boilers!)

 

Tornado has undoubtedly been busy, but its work load is not, say, ten times busier than other mainline locos out there, so I would still maintain that questions remain about the long term performance of its boiler.

 

As I said before, time will tell.

[S.A.C Martin]

Phil, with respect, my points were aimed simply at the similar problems between specific Bulleids, and Tornado. I am in no way saying all Bulleids are bad: but there are well documented problems with their boilers since their inception. I am also definitely not maligning the MHR engines which I have enjoyed running behind on many occasions. No disrespect was intended. However - I must ask, simply on the basis of comparison, what water treatment do the MHR Bulleids receive, and to what extent (if any) have the boilers had problems in preservation? I ask only to be better informed in future.

[PhilH]

I think I was just trying to make the general point that the boilers on BPs were/ are always considered to be one of their more successful features. Certainly I can't recall us having much trouble with any of ours, I think the biggest thing was we once had to have a new back corner welded in on 34016. We've had no trouble with the thermic syphons that I can recall over the twenty plus years that I've been playing with them.

 

As for water treatments until a couple of years ago we relied on the normal water treatments that railways such as ours usually utilise. We used to put it in ourselves in to the tender water when we filled up prior to our day's work, then it became the boiler department's responsibility. This, together with our normal 28 day washouts seemed to keep them in good condition. We now have a reverse osmosis system which has taken things to another level, apparently the boilers are in even better nick now. I can't honestly remember the last time we had any major boiler problems on engines overhauled at Ropley.

 

Of course, engines which we have been given stewardship of which have been overhauled elsewhere are another matter....

[EddieB]

 

Of course, engines which we have been given stewardship of which have been overhauled elsewhere are another matter....

 

Please be more specific (without naming names, perhaps). Are you agreeing with Simon, as to troubles with certain boilers that can arise where maintenance is slack or because of untreated water?

[PhilH]

Please be more specific (without naming names, perhaps). Are you agreeing with Simon, as to troubles with certain boilers that can arise where maintenance is slack or because of untreated water?

 

I certainly won't be naming names as I won't be opening any cans with worms in on this forum, but we have had a couple on our railway which had problems, including one high profile one.

 

Also I can only comment with certainty on the Mid Hants boiler regime and the results thereof - but nobody can afford to be slack with boiler maintenance.

 

Sorry....

[EddieB]

Thanks, Phil. If it isn't always in the public domain, it is widely known that standards of maintenance and upkeep vary from place to place and let's leave it there by saying some are better than others!

 

Nevertheless, it is also fair to say that some steam locomotives are more susceptible when treated with insufficient care than others. The example of Bulleid boilers (I mis-typed as "bullied", which may be pertinent!) is that, well looked after, they are highly efficient, but care is required - as Simon points out. Such care seems to have been the norm where similar, i.e. all-welded, steel fireboxed boilers have been deployed. Not that care needs to be exceptional, as evidenced by large numbers of locomotives in regular day to day operation, but at least to have a regime (as you say) in place. This appears to have been a lesson learned the hard way on the Bulleids and possibly again with Tornado?

[S.A.C Martin]

I can't comment with any degree of authority, having had limited experience with actual steam engines, but what has struck me is that the highest pressure boilers with the best steam raising abilities, seem to also require careful and considered (and to some extent, regimental) maintenance. The early days of the Bulleids seem to be defined by careful observation and trial and error within the confines of a decently sized class. I don't think in the case of the Bulleids or Tornado it is deliberate mistreatment of the engine by any means: but a sincere and fair belief that the design would act within given parameters when treated and worked accordingly. That has proven to not entirely be the case, but I am confident things will improve for 60163 as more data is collected and analysed with regards her renewed boiler.

[PhilH]

The thing that has to be remembered as well is that there shouldn't be too much difference in the handling of locos on the main line, whatever the crew. The reason I say this is because there is always an owners rep. on the footplate who should ensure a consistent envelope of handling that loco.

 

And, of course, the preparation and maintenance of the loco is always done by the support crew, either out on the road or wherever the loco is based for its work, which again should eliminate variation which could be detrimental to the loco's performance.

 

On the subject of Bulleid boilers I can't find in any of my books (maybe I haven't looked hard enough!) reference to too many problems with these - apart from the fact that they gobbled coal. I would be interested to read up on this, so would appreciate a heads up on your sources Simon.

[S.A.C Martin]

On the subject of Bulleid boilers I can't find in any of my books (maybe I haven't looked hard enough!) reference to too many problems with these - apart from the fact that they gobbled coal. I would be interested to read up on this, so would appreciate a heads up on your sources Simon.

 

No problem Phil - British Pacific Locomotives by Cecil J. Allen, Locomotives in Detail: Bulleid 4-6-2 Merchant Navy Class by R.J. Harvey and Bulleid Pacifics by D.W. Winkworth. Both of the first two are now out of print, but I found the first at the MHR on one of the stands, and the second in the Bluebell's second hand bookshop!

 

The above quotations I made in my earlier post come from the Cecil J. Allen and Winkworth books, Harvey's book mentions some problems but not to the same extent as the latter two (he mentions the TIA water treatment system, but not as to why it was used specifically for the Bulleids in service).

[Blandford1969]

 

Also I can only comment with certainty on the Mid Hants boiler regime and the results thereof - but nobody can afford to be slack with boiler maintenance.

 

Sorry....

 

I totally agree with Phil, after we introduced reverse osmosis plants on the Severn Valley our boiler are in far better condition, can go longer between washouts and last longer than when we put treatment in.

[craigwelsh]

Wasn't the mainline King doing some controlled tests of water treatment over the years to see how much better the boiler condition was as a result? I can't remember where I read it now and im not sure if it was Porta stuff or something else? edit: It was Porta and there is something in this document: http://www.portatreatment.com/pdf/york-paper.pdf

 

I guess the next period of Tornado operation will be the big test as the boiler was a prototype with snagging up until this works visit.

 

The book references seem to show problems over the same sort of initial period as Tornado and those are ironed out now so we'll see what happens.

 

I was going to mention Blue Peter breaking as my thoughts on thrashing but its already been covered and it obviously wasn't intentional.

[PhilH]

No problem Phil - British Pacific Locomotives by Cecil J. Allen, Locomotives in Detail: Bulleid 4-6-2 Merchant Navy Class by R.J. Harvey and Bulleid Pacifics by D.W. Winkworth. Both of the first two are now out of print, but I found the first at the MHR on one of the stands, and the second in the Bluebell's second hand bookshop!

 

The above quotations I made in my earlier post come from the Cecil J. Allen and Winkworth books, Harvey's book mentions some problems but not to the same extent as the latter two (he mentions the TIA water treatment system, but not as to why it was used specifically for the Bulleids in service).

 

I do think that with a lot of these books written with the benefit of hindsight some eggs are definitely overcooked with regard to cataloging problems - certainly you 'pays your money and takes your choice' with these comments! It does state though that once a regime for washouts and water treatments had been established Bulleid boilers went on to average 560,000 miles boiler life (source: said BPL by CJA)

 

Perhaps a more objective view is that expressed by S.C. Townroe (who was once my dad's boss at Eastleigh [71A] shed) as recorded in 'Bulleid Pacifics at Work' by Col HCB Rogers:

 

'S.C Townroe believes that the troubles with the syphons were isolated cases and, as both modified and unmodified Pacifics had their original boilers, it may have been a symptom of age. Certainly there was no serious trouble in the running sheds over the thermic syphons, and Townroe never heard of failures on the road caused by leaking cracks, nor of even minor disasters from weld failures.'

 

What I mean about hindsight is that it has to be remembered that when the Bulleid boilers were introduced everything was either in its infancy or had to be developed for this purpose - advanced welding techniques, knowledge in depth of water treatment,. boiler washout regimes etc. I would have thought that this is where the Tornado project had a definite advantage inasmuch as it has all of this information, knowledge of precedence at its fingertips. Surely with all of this available knowledge the absolutely optimal boiler management regime could be worked out? If heating/ cooling cycles are found, in time, to be the root cause of this thing's boiler problems then I'm afraid that given the above parameters the management team of this loco must take their share of the responsibility (in my opinion, of course)

 

One thing in reply to a point of Simon's - these days boilers don't needmajor repairs after 7 years. They have to be inspected for insurance purposes and certification which usually involves ripping the things apart. Extensions can be granted though.

 

Now if you'd have commented on the mechanical shortcomings of original Bulleid Pacifics you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me....

[S.A.C Martin]

I do think that with a lot of these books written with the benefit of hindsight some eggs are definitely overcooked with regard to cataloging problems - certainly you 'pays your money and takes your choice' with these comments! It does state though that once a regime for washouts and water treatments had been established Bulleid boilers went on to average 560,000 miles boiler life (source: said BPL by CJA)

 

I did consider posting that statistic myself, but my points centered specifically on the early days of the boilers, so felt it irrelevant to the then line of discussion. In retrospect, it was remiss of me to ignore it.

 

It does prove your point about maintenance and water treatment rather nicely - I wonder what the average life of other railway's boilers would have been, if they had used similar water treatment techniques? In the course of my research for stories for my series, I am constantly finding anecdotes about the quality of the feedwater with regards ex-LNER sheds and similar...!

 

Perhaps a more objective view is that expressed by S.C. Townroe (who was once my dad's boss at Eastleigh [71A] shed) as recorded in 'Bulleid Pacifics at Work' by Col HCB Rogers:

 

'S.C Townroe believes that the troubles with the syphons were isolated cases and, as both modified and unmodified Pacifics had their original boilers, it may have been a symptom of age. Certainly there was no serious trouble in the running sheds over the thermic syphons, and Townroe never heard of failures on the road caused by leaking cracks, nor of even minor disasters from weld failures.'

 

In fairness, Cecil J. Allen in the post I quoted, stated that the welds on the boilers were not the problems by any means, but I take your point with regards the troubles with the syphons.

 

What I mean about hindsight is that it has to be remembered that when the Bulleid boilers were introduced everything was either in its infancy or had to be developed for this purpose - advanced welding techniques, knowledge in depth of water treatment,. boiler washout regimes etc.

 

It seems to be a particular trait of Bulleid's that most of his locomotives had a lot of experimental techniques and components applied - one wonders, if in the Leader, it wasn't so much the concept that was the problem, simply that it as an engine became a collective test bed for a lot of components...! But that's another can of worms altogether!

 

If heating/ cooling cycles are found, in time, to be the root cause of this thing's boiler problems then I'm afraid that given the above parameters the management team of this loco must take their share of the responsibility (in my opinion, of course)

 

Absolutely Phil, and you'll get no argument from me on that point. However I do feel from speaking to a few members in and around the trust, that they felt their water treatment and maintenance of the boiler was more than adequate. That it's been proved wanting, and needing repairs, does not necessarily speak volumes about anyone's competency: but the value of hindsight and research.

 

In all, I don't think many people expected the boiler to act so much like a Bulleid boiler in that way, particularly as some similarly sized German boilers (made in the same vein and in the same material) are treated very differently in some respects and have not had these problems (at least, in the limited research I have done when looking this subject up over the last year).

 

One thing in reply to a point of Simon's - these days boilers don't needmajor repairs after 7 years. They have to be inspected for insurance purposes and certification which usually involves ripping the things apart. Extensions can be granted though.

 

Fair enough Phil, good to know.

 

Now if you'd have commented on the mechanical shortcomings of original Bulleid Pacifics you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me....

 

Fair play Phil! I do wonder if, made with modern equipment and new materials, would the chain driven valve gear have worked better overall? The oil bath could certainly be redesigned and made differently to do the same job.

 

Just to add, thank you for Phil for taking the time to respond to my (many!) points and questions, it's much appreciated.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

during the war they used things called brickkets, powdered coal compressed , fire man hate it.

 

And after. I can remember my father ordering some of this.

 

The problem is that there is no substitute for coal to start a fire but both briquettes and indeed coke burn fairly well if put on a fire that is going well.

 

This really only applies for enclosed fires like boilers and Raeburn room heaters and would not apply to open grates. All of this is domestic which would not notice a slight change in heat and is more about keeping alight than actual thermal efficiency.

 

A locomotive firebox has been quite carefully designed to give maximum grate area and controllable damping and blowing to control the flow of air across the fire. Poor coal just doesn't contain enough flammable gases to give the heat and is basically lumps of solid carbon and to some extent this applies to briquettes and coke. Once the loco fire has started to drop in thermal output it is a slippery slope and a batch of poor coal will defeat even the best fireman.