Requesting Content

Now that's one heck of an interesting article. Many thanks for the link. Obviously this design was successful - I'm really surprised none have been made for Trainz. Between the drawings and photos it should be possible.

If I understand the design all they are doing is getting more work in the form of warming water before its injected into the boiler from residual heat out of what would normally be exhausted out the stack. Nothing wrong with that of course - rather clever in a way. Does make for a much more complex system.

Ben
 
Now that's one heck of an interesting article. Many thanks for the link. Obviously this design was successful - I'm really surprised none have been made for Trainz. Between the drawings and photos it should be possible.

You are welcome! I think the only reason no one has made it for Trainz yet is that very few people know of it. But I do agree, it is surprising. What surprises me is why they didn't make more locomotives like the two smaller Franco-Crosti locomotives.

If I understand the design all they are doing is getting more work in the form of warming water before its injected into the boiler from residual heat out of what would normally be exhausted out the stack. Nothing wrong with that of course - rather clever in a way. Does make for a much more complex system.

If I read the article right, that's exactly what it did and was supposed to do. It is a rather ingenious design. But it is rather complex as you said. Not a problem for Trainz though. :hehe:
 
In some respects its similar to super heating. That adds energy to the steam by running it though a bunch of pipes surrounded by the exhaust gasses from the firebox (which are a heck of lot hotter then 212 F) before injecting it into the cylinders thus capturing energy in the form of heat for further use rather then just let it go to waste up the stack. The above system also captures energy but adds it to the water before it gets injected into the boiler rather then letting it go up the stack. The same basic concept (utilize otherwise wasted energy) but implemented in much different ways.

I have no idea which system is more efficient (if there is a difference) but it would seem to me the most likely difference would be in how much maintenance is required for the systems (keeping in mind the nature of the maintenance would be quite different).

Ben
 
In some respects its similar to super heating. That adds energy to the steam by running it though a bunch of pipes surrounded by the exhaust gasses from the firebox (which are a heck of lot hotter then 212 F) before injecting it into the cylinders thus capturing energy in the form of heat for further use rather then just let it go to waste up the stack. The above system also captures energy but adds it to the water before it gets injected into the boiler rather then letting it go up the stack. The same basic concept (utilize otherwise wasted energy) but implemented in much different ways.

I have no idea which system is more efficient (if there is a difference) but it would seem to me the most likely difference would be in how much maintenance is required for the systems (keeping in mind the nature of the maintenance would be quite different).

Ben

I'm not sure which system is more efficient or in any other way better. I'd have to research and compare the two. I haven't quite researched super heating locomotives yet. I'll search that website to see if it's on there.
 
The value of the Franco-Crosti pre-heater is still a hotly debated question among Italian railfans. Basically, it should have increased the efficiency of the boiler by making use of exhaust gases.

Both the Belgian locomotive and the Italian 672 class had problems with the flexible joints conveying the exhaust gases to the pre-heater(s). Subsequent designs mounted one or two pre-heaters on the locomotive frame.

In Italy, the Franco-Crosti system was seen as an economical way to get more power from old steam locomotives and to prolong their useful lifetime: Italy electrified most main lines before World War II, and that the last steam locomotives for the Italian Railways were delivered in 1927. On the other hand, main line Diesel locomotives were only introduced around 1960.

The Italian Railways performed a test campaign in 1940 comparing a 685 class 1-3-1 (a 2-6-2 or Priairie for our American friends) with a 683 (i.e. a 685 class, modified with two side Franco-Crosti pre-heaters and a substantially rebuilt boiler). The results were sensational, with the 683 delivering 10-15% more power while consuming less coal and water.

In 1942, other tests were performed, comparing the 683 class with an Hungarian 1-3-1 as the Franco-Crosti company was hoping to sell its system to the Hungarian Railways. The tests showed no advantage of the Franco-Crosti system, so Hungary never bought them. The Hungarian locomotive used for the tests was a quite recent design, unlike the class 685, which were designed around 1910.

The Franco-Crosti system appeared to work when applied to Italian locomotives designed before World War I, but when it was applied on modern steam locomotives showed all its faults (increased maintenance, corrosion effects on pre-heaters and chimneys) and none of its supposed virtues: the 10 class 9F British locomotives were quickly converted back to the standard configuration after a very short time when comparative tests proved a total failure.

All the locomotives mentioned in the linked article (623, 683, 741 and 743 classes) were taken out of service several years before their unmodified counterparts (625, 685 and 740 classes): their greatest power was not needed for the light duties, their greatest weight prevented them from circulating on the light rail of secondary branches and their need for increased maintenance condemned them. Two 743 class and one 741 class 1-4-0 (2-8-0 or Consolidation) still exist: I have seen all of them and I must admit they are quite "interesting", despite being technical failures. The 741 is operational and I believe it is the only Franco-Crosti locomotive still running. In the picture below she is hauling an excursion train in the mountains north of Florence.

P.S. Franco-Crosti locomotives are fitted with superheaters, as most locomotives after 1900.

741-120_79_79-0.jpg
 
Basically super heating raises the steam from around 400 F to as much as 750 F. A diagram I have shows steam generated in the boiler going through the throttle then through the super heater tubes which are surrounded by combustion gasses from the firebox. This then goes into and out of the cylinders and up the stack. It does not raise steam pressure - rather it increases its temperature and volume (that's what the book says).

Ben
 
This Wikipedia article provides some additional information about Franco-Crosti pre-heaters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Crosti_boiler

I only spotted one error: the 743 class locomotives were not built as new engines, they were rebuilt 740 class 1-4-0 (which were also the basis for the 741 class).

The article highlights that both the German 50.40 class 1-5-0 and the British 9F 1-5-0 suffered from corrosion problems due to the condensation of acidic fluegases. (This was also a problem with Italian locomotives: I have a picture of a 743 class locomotives with heavily corroded chimneys).
 
@Pendolino You sure do know your stuff when it comes to preheaters. lol

Italian Railways (unfortunately, I add :D) were the largest users of Franco-Crosti locomotives, so there is a vast literature about their strengths and weaknesses.

One question. Where did the acidic fluegases come from?

Exhaust gases include sulphur and nitrogen oxides: their condensation in the pre-heaters (together with the condensation of steam), leads to the formation of sulphuric and nitric acid, which cause corrosion of the pre-heater tubes and especially of the chimneys.
 
Exhaust gases include sulphur and nitrogen oxides: their condensation in the pre-heaters (together with the condensation of steam), leads to the formation of sulphuric and nitric acid, which cause corrosion of the pre-heater tubes and especially of the chimneys.

Could changing the fuel source have solved that problem, or was it inevitable?
 
My guess would be inevitable as all coal has some sulfur and nitrogen in it. Ditto oil.

When I rode the Durango & Silverton I also took the shop tour and asked the gent if the EPA gave them a hard time about burning coal. The answer was no as they have a source of low sulfur coal but it still would have an effect over time - just a longer time.

Ben
 
Wood almost certainly has sulfur and nitrogen in it too, lol.

On the silly side:
1. Burn hydrogen and oxygen to boil water to make steam.
2. Run that through the cylinders.
3. Continue to heat the exhaust steam to 2000 F at which point it will dissociate back into hydrogen and oxygen.
4. Collect the hydrogen and oxygen.
5. Go to step 1.

Only problems are:
A. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
B. Perpetual motion machines do not exist.
C. Entropy always wins in the long run.

Ben
 
Bummer. I guess the only solution would be to keep all the parts with the corrosion problem heated at or above 212 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent condensation. But that would be hard to do and wouldn't even be worth it.
 
I'd think the steam would not only still be corrosive but at elevated temperatures more corrosive since most chemical reactions (and corrosion is a chemical reaction) occur faster (and possibly stronger) at higher temperatures.

Ben
 
True, I hadn't thought of that. It would solve the condensation problem, but not the corrosion problem. Are there any heat conducting materials that would be resistant to the corrosive properties of the acid? (I'm guessing the answer is no.)
 
True, I hadn't thought of that. It would solve the condensation problem, but not the corrosion problem. Are there any heat conducting materials that would be resistant to the corrosive properties of the acid? (I'm guessing the answer is no.)

Gold would be the first that springs to mind, stainless steel of the correct grade isn't bad. Glass lining, depends how much heat you want to conduct and how much money you have.

Cheerio John
 
Gold would be the first that springs to mind, stainless steel of the correct grade isn't bad. Glass lining, depends how much heat you want to conduct and how much money you have.

Cheerio John

You'd need a fortune to solve the problem with gold. lol Stainless steel doesn't sound too bad. I'd make some parts of the locomotive look pretty good. The glass lining would (obviously) need to be heat treated. But all of those sound like they could work.
 
Gold is one of (if not the) most un-reactive of metals but it can be dissolved by a combination of nitric and sulfuric acids both of which are probably produced by burning coal (from nitrogen and sulfur).

Face it gents - Mother Nature wins every time, lol.

Ben
 
Back
Top