Kent & East Sussex Railway

I know it is more fanciful wanderings, but how much tractive effort does an Ilfracombe goods produce/how many coaches could a replica handle?

Just vaguely remembering a magazine article (maybe?) years and years ago mentioning in passing as a WIBN that a lookalike (rather than a faithful replica) Ilfracombe goods could be made from other bits that would be helpful/needed in future (so could share patter costs) to other locos. Such as cylinder casting that fits another inside cylinder loco (I forget which, something similar sized I'd imagine), a new O2 boiler. Obviously not free but another thing to help haul trains and this was possibly before the larger GWR tanks were at KESR.

 

They really are quite small engines. As built the TE was about 10,300lbf. Later rebuilds increased the boiler pressure to 16opsi and that takes the TE up to 12,660lbf. To put that in context, a Terrier is about around 7,500lbf. The Stirling O1, which also worked on the line near the end (and has visited in preservation), is about 18,400lbf.

So you are getting something in the region of one and a half Terriers (and, oddly, roughly one and a half times the weight as well, depending slightly on the tender); or 2/3 of an O1. I don't know what that would be in KESR terms, maybe about 3 Mark 1 carriages.

As for the concept of doing a "bitsa" style lookalike incorporating leftovers from other locos: that way madness lies. You end up putting in so many compromises to make your salvaged bits work that any possible savings get wiped out in all the redesign work you have to do. If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.

Tom

 

An Ilfracombe goods copy as built (140lbs) would only give you 11,100lbs TE, whereas if you gave it a tweak (or two) in the steam circuit to 240 psi, you could end up with a loco that could haul something like 19,164lbs TE.

As Google is our friend:-

16xx class has a TE of around 18,500lbs
66xx class has a TE of around 25,800lbs
42xx class has a TE of around 31,450lbs

If, however, you still want an 0-8-0T, then Bagnall built two for Turkey

Yes, W.G. Bagnall did supply 0-8-0T (tank) locomotives to a steelworks.

In 1937, the company built and exported two standard-gauge outside-cylinder 0-8-0T locomotives (Works Numbers 2578 and 2579) specifically for the Karabük Iron & Steel Works (Karabük Demir Çelik Fabrikaları) in Turkey.

Key Details of the Locomotives:

The Order: They were ordered during the initial construction of the massive Karabük steel plant.

Specifications: They featured closely spaced driving wheels, Walschaerts valve gear, piston valves, a round-top firebox, and a tractive effort of roughly 26,000 lbs. They are widely considered to be the largest standard-gauge tank locomotives ever constructed by Bagnall.

Service Life: Both locomotives proved highly reliable, shunting within the heavy industrial environment of the steelworks until they were finally retired in the mid-1990s.

Preservation: Both engines have been preserved directly at the Karabük steelworks site.

photo link

https://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trai...ddle-East/Turkey-industrial-steam/i-6tmZLwR/A

https://www.facebook.com/groups/755365525019385/posts/1596274310928498/

My understanding from a few years ago was that someone was going to bring one of them back to the UK, but he couldn't find a home for it

 

For comparison: 0-8-0T Hecate

Weight: 47 tons; Pressure: 160psi; Cyls: 16x24; DW: 4ft 3; TE: 16,385lbs.

https://rchsimagearchive.org.uk/ind...ent-and-East-Sussex-Railway&image=010684E.jpg

 

And if you take it up to the 2,500psi currently used in power stations you get the equivalent of five BR standard 9Fs in a 28 ton loco, and it could not only pull all the carriages on the railway up to Tenterden, but probably the carriage shed they are stored in as well.

You can’t just pluck numbers out of a hat to make the numbers say what you want. Find a reputable text book and look up “hoop stress” and “factor of adhesion” for some starters as to why.

Tom

 

Have you spoken to Didcot about this?

 

You won't be pulling the carriages, you'll be rotating the earth beneath them.

 

I knew they were small locos, but that much less Tractive effort than an 01 does surprise me, but not much on second thoughts. I knew they were for a lightly laid line (the Ilfracombe Branch was an earlier flavour of light railway than the 1896 act ones for those who don't know).

Also I wasn't suggesting a bits a pieces loco, I have enough of a knowledge of locos to know it would be a nightmare plus my work involves lots of integrating & testing safety critical things. It was more the mad loco discussion dredged something up from the dim recesses of my mind and wandered how small the locos were as I couldn't find a full set of figures online (and, as you say the figures are only a very vague bit of information on their own)

 

There is, of course, more to it than just supplying what would be known as superheat to the cylinders; the valve gear would need to be able to deal with the extra energy, maybe even an improved exhaust system will be needed, then you have the addition of sanding equipment being fitted.

Looking at Hoop Stress, as I understand it, this comes into play more to do with the boiler barrel, in which case this would be factored into the design of the new barrel; a higher pressure would require the boiler plate to be thicker from the word go. It is not something you can do with an old boiler that has been set at, say 140psi for most of its life and then you have the issues of the stays around the firebox again as well. This would also be part of the design for the new boiler and firebox.

As for a textbook, I have access to a number of them, starting with Greenly's Steam Locomotive Theory and on up to a couple by Mr Chapelon, plus others in between.

 

Looks very like a slide-valve setup to me.

Pat

 

I've got several textbooks on guitar building. It doesn't mean I think I know enough to propose designs to the likes of Fender and Gibson

 

There we go, then!

Noel