So I got to wondering, and I want to know from our bros across the pond: Which, if any, UK steam locomotives were ever equipped with any of the following appliances: Automatic Stoker, Power Reverse, Turbo-Electric Generator, Exhaust Feedwater Heaters, Compressed Air systems, Roller Bearings, Thermic Syphons, and the like. I don't want speculation, I want to know!
UK Steam appliances
- Thread starter kws4000
- Start date
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Then join HMRS and have a dig in their archives.
Cheerio John
Cheerio John
captainkman
You are reading this.
Hi kws400,
I can't speak for all of these things, but I can say that some British railways 9F locomotives were fitted with a mechanical stoker.
Here's a section from Wikipedia about the 9F's that you might find useful:
"Locomotive numbers 92165-92167 were built with a mechanical stoker, which was a helical screw that conveyed coal from the tender to the firebox. The stoker made higher steaming rates possible, and it was hoped that mechanical stoking might enable the burning of low-grade coal. It was relatively inefficient, and the locomotives used in this trial were rebuilt to the normal configuration Simply supplying more low grade coal than a fireman could do by hand did not provide efficient burning.
Number 92250 was equipped with a Giesl ejector in which the exhaust steam was divided between seven nozzles arranged in a row on the locomotive's longitudinal axis and directed into a narrow fan-shaped ejector that more intimately mixed it with the smokebox gases than is the case of an ordinary chimney. This offered the same level of draught for a reduced level of exhaust back-pressure or, alternatively, increased draught with no performance loss elsewhere. Again, great claims were made as to the potential benefits, and 92250 retained the variant chimney until withdrawal, though no benefit was noticeable.
The only modification which did deliver any noticeable benefit was the fitting of 92178 with a double blastpipe and chimney during its construction. Following delivery in September 1957, it was subjected to extensive testing, both in the Rugby test plant and on service trains. After the completion of the tests in February 1958, it was decided to fit all 9Fs built subsequently with double blastpipes and chimneys; these were numbers 92183 onwards, also 92165–7. The modification was also installed on 92000/1/2/5 and 92006. This allowed the engines to steam slightly more freely and thus generate higher power ranges."
Other 'Standards' were fitted with roller bearings.
http://thisisnotawebsite.itswordpress.com.au/blog/
That's a website I made for a school assignment. It has info on BR's 'Standard' steam locomotives. You might find some info on which of those locos had any of the features you listed.
I'll leave it to somebody else to tell the facts about the Big Four and its predecessors.
Kieran.
I can't speak for all of these things, but I can say that some British railways 9F locomotives were fitted with a mechanical stoker.
Here's a section from Wikipedia about the 9F's that you might find useful:
"Locomotive numbers 92165-92167 were built with a mechanical stoker, which was a helical screw that conveyed coal from the tender to the firebox. The stoker made higher steaming rates possible, and it was hoped that mechanical stoking might enable the burning of low-grade coal. It was relatively inefficient, and the locomotives used in this trial were rebuilt to the normal configuration Simply supplying more low grade coal than a fireman could do by hand did not provide efficient burning.
Number 92250 was equipped with a Giesl ejector in which the exhaust steam was divided between seven nozzles arranged in a row on the locomotive's longitudinal axis and directed into a narrow fan-shaped ejector that more intimately mixed it with the smokebox gases than is the case of an ordinary chimney. This offered the same level of draught for a reduced level of exhaust back-pressure or, alternatively, increased draught with no performance loss elsewhere. Again, great claims were made as to the potential benefits, and 92250 retained the variant chimney until withdrawal, though no benefit was noticeable.
The only modification which did deliver any noticeable benefit was the fitting of 92178 with a double blastpipe and chimney during its construction. Following delivery in September 1957, it was subjected to extensive testing, both in the Rugby test plant and on service trains. After the completion of the tests in February 1958, it was decided to fit all 9Fs built subsequently with double blastpipes and chimneys; these were numbers 92183 onwards, also 92165–7. The modification was also installed on 92000/1/2/5 and 92006. This allowed the engines to steam slightly more freely and thus generate higher power ranges."
Other 'Standards' were fitted with roller bearings.
http://thisisnotawebsite.itswordpress.com.au/blog/
That's a website I made for a school assignment. It has info on BR's 'Standard' steam locomotives. You might find some info on which of those locos had any of the features you listed.
I'll leave it to somebody else to tell the facts about the Big Four and its predecessors.
Kieran.
captainkman
You are reading this.
HMRS = Historical Model Railway Society:
http://www.hmrs.org.uk/
Just FYI, The info on my wite is the same as Wikipedia. The information did not matter for the assignment, only the presentation. I just thought linking you to my site would be easier as all the Standard locomotives are on one site and easily accessible from a menu.
Glad my website was of use.
Kieran.
http://www.hmrs.org.uk/
Just FYI, The info on my wite is the same as Wikipedia. The information did not matter for the assignment, only the presentation. I just thought linking you to my site would be easier as all the Standard locomotives are on one site and easily accessible from a menu.
Glad my website was of use.
Kieran.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
HMRS probably has the most authoritative collection of information of anyone. Their members write books on many subjects, some are published by the Society, some by other publishers basically they are the specialists. Some members are more historians and some are more model railway inclined.
Cheerio John
sir_plewsy
I Like Trainz
most of these features would probably have been on British locomotives that were built for export although the bulleid pacifics did have thermic Syphons, steam generators and steam reverser's. some of the BR standards did have roller bearings.
Generators and roller bearings became increasingly common towards the end of the 1940s and into the 50s, however most of the other features you list were never widely used. Some were tried but found that they weren't really beneficial on the smaller locomotives we have in this country. For example mechanical stokers were never really used because the fireboxes on British locomotives have always been small enough that a man with a shovel was perfectly adequate!
Timothetoolman
L.O.V.E.M.U.F.F.I.N
I would think the only British locos to have a generator would be the big locos (Big Bertha and BR 9Fs) which were fitted with powerful headlamps for banking trains on the Lickey Incline at night.
Tim
EDIT: Also shunters at South Hampton Docks for their radio-communications.
Tim
EDIT: Also shunters at South Hampton Docks for their radio-communications.
Last edited:
Well now, I do believe I've learned something today!
Also anything with electric lamps, e.g. LNER Thompson/Peppercorn types and SR Bulleid types.
Also Southampton is all one word, it looks so wrong as two...
2995Valliant
Well-known member
Bullied Pacifics: steam reversers, steam generators (for lamps), thermic syphons
Some BR Stds, some LMS and some postwar LNER pacifics were roller bearing fitted (there were even some industrials built with roller bearings in 1951)
Air compressors - air brakes were common on the Southern Railway and later the Southern Region of BR. Some 9F's were also fitted for working hopper doors in the north-east.
British-Caprotti valve gear was an innovation that showed great promise but came too late in the day, and don't forget Franco-Crosti boilers! Only ever fitted to some 9Fs in practice, but there were plans for some Std 5s as well.
Anthony
Stokers - 9F's as mentioned. Can't think of any others at present, but the coal in the UK isn't really the right stuff for it.
Exhaust feedwater heaters - most UK locos used injectors rather than feed pumps to put water in the boiler, and injectors don't work well with warm water.
There was quite a bit of experimentation with blast pipes and nozzles - the LeMaitre exhaust on the Bullied pacifics, Kylchaps on the A4, a few Giesels (never mass fitted to any class though?) the Swindon "Jumper ring"
Some BR Stds, some LMS and some postwar LNER pacifics were roller bearing fitted (there were even some industrials built with roller bearings in 1951)
Air compressors - air brakes were common on the Southern Railway and later the Southern Region of BR. Some 9F's were also fitted for working hopper doors in the north-east.
British-Caprotti valve gear was an innovation that showed great promise but came too late in the day, and don't forget Franco-Crosti boilers! Only ever fitted to some 9Fs in practice, but there were plans for some Std 5s as well.
Anthony
Stokers - 9F's as mentioned. Can't think of any others at present, but the coal in the UK isn't really the right stuff for it.
Exhaust feedwater heaters - most UK locos used injectors rather than feed pumps to put water in the boiler, and injectors don't work well with warm water.
There was quite a bit of experimentation with blast pipes and nozzles - the LeMaitre exhaust on the Bullied pacifics, Kylchaps on the A4, a few Giesels (never mass fitted to any class though?) the Swindon "Jumper ring"
An excellent summary, and I thank you. Now back to random thoughts...
Here's another random one! Was wood ever used as fuel in the Isles, or were the forests already overharvested and never have much merit?
Wood was never really used, not because we have no trees but because we have/had so much coal. Early locomotives tended to burn coke (treated coal) but later almost all locos burned coal. Oil was experimented with on several occasions but the benefits were never considered to be cost effective. Oil firing has only taken off in a big way on preserved tourist lines worried about setting light to areas of national park, but even these are now going back to coal, as oil costs rise and modern spark arrestors prevent fire.