Draughting arrangements for Bulleid Pacifics including the Giesl ejector

Is there any evidence that it would i) take more time ii) take more energy or iii) divert materials from 'more important aspects of the job'? Did that happen with 6023 for example or the Welshpool and Llanfair fleet?

 

Who pays for the coal and water on a trip? The loco owner, or the train operator?

Given we’re into marginal gains here, that sounds like a significant factor in determining the value to the loco owner of particular changes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Logically it is a win win. If loco is x is cheaper than loco y to run on your railtours would you not be more likely to hire loco x and increase your profit and in turn loco x's owners get more steaming fees? (Which is more than the fuel saving?)

A nice knock on from marginal gains.

 

Are you sure it works like that? That rather ignores the point that some locos might be more in demand because of what they are. For example, I'd be pretty certain that 'Flying Scotsman' is more expensive to hire than many other locos of similar size, but the extra cost is worth it because it can add a premium to ticket prices.

In the case of 35011, the historical evidence seems to suggest that the easiest way to reduce the coal bill is restore it in rebuilt form. The fact that the group plans to rebuild it in the more expensive to run original form suggests to me that in strict business terms, they believe that generating the income to do the restoration in the first place; and then the subsequent attractiveness as a loco for hire, depend on creating something unique, not something of which four or five others are all broadly similar.

Ultimately if the only objective was lowest possible operating cost, no-one would operate steam locomotives at all. Thankfully that's not the case.

Tom

 

If the metal hasnt been cut, then surely the cost of fitting say a Lempor to 35011 is the material costs, as your not having to replace something already made, and the time it would take to design a new blast pipe , most of which would be on a CAD programme, and worked out in advance, If such an addition saves on coal use, and does not effect the available power, then isn't it a no brainer, especially if it enables the loco to either work more economic , or to haul a heavier load, with no fuel penalty , without damaging the loco, To most people its what the loco looks like they notice first, so if the improvements are internal, or not quite so noticeable where they are extenal, such as the air pump mounted in the tender, but hidden by a plate, with the steam exhausting into the water space , or mounted inside by the lockers, hidden from view, but accessible by the crew, your average person would not notice it.

 

In which case then if the fuel saving is included in the hire cost it makes it a cheaper loco to hire out (your loco is cheaper to hire out and gives the tour operator more bang for their buck) making it more attractive than a comparable locomotive for the same duty.

A more efficient loco uses less water, so again improving availability/range.

Either way the loco is more economical to run and more attractive to use and in turn increases demand.

Again, a win win for all involved.

I'd suggest that they are killing two birds with one stone - they create something unique (an unrebuilt MN) and they make that unique thing as efficient as possible by improving the drafting. Again, a win win.

I struggle to understand why people think it is an either or. I can not quite work out why people think you can only have an unrebuilt in a less efficient form or the more efficient rebuilt but not an unrebuilt with efficiency improvements. That is a position that makes absolutely no sense.

(I also think it would be interesting to compare GSN when finished to say BiL - maybe there can be some loco trials on the West of England line)

 

I think BiL will be long out of ticket before the GSN project is anywhere near complete, let alone ready to run on the main line. Interesting maybe, but I cannot see it happening.

Peter

 

Maybe Clan Line . (I am assuming at least one rebuilt will still be running - maybe Shaw Savill, Port Line or Holland America will be active by then)

I'd like to see a Bulleid great gathering with 35005, 35006, 35011, 35018, 35025, 35028, (And any of 9/22/27) 33001 and all the WC/BBs you can find. Recreate Nine Elms for a morning or two)

(Perfect chance to launch a new build Leader project)

 

Were the rebuilt Bulleids happier with the regulator in the roof?

 

Steve, the CME, is doing this in his spare time, so it's his prerogative to decide what aspects he is prioritising.
As far as I can see he has already engaged Loughborough and Birmingham Universities to assist with CFD studies for the draughting and the external aerodynamics.

 

All the drivers i knew rebuilt, or un rebuilt, put the regulator in the roof and controlled the engine on the reverser, a couple of drivers were not content with merely putting the regulator into the roof, they tried to put it through the roof,

 

I think it was Dugald Drummond who advised his board that nameplates wouldn't improve the performance of his locos one bit, a viewpoint probably all too true of his 4-6-0s (!), though they do have a demonstrable value in publicity terms. To Mr and Mrs J.Public, 4472/60103 is Flying Scotsman, arguably the most famous loco built this side of Rocket and is a star turn in it's own right. I'm less enamoured of naming previously unnamed locos (three cheers for Corris steam in this regard), but hey, it's only a nameplate. I've rather more issues with chime whistles, where chime whistles oughtn't to be, but that's probably just me being weird.

When it comes to GSN, if some comparatively minor 'tweaks', on the back of established tech developed over the decades since the MNs first rolled out can improve performance, bring 'em on. No-one, AFAIK, is advancing the case for a 'Full-on Porta' rebuild, or anything which detracts from the outline of Bulleid's original design. In all honesty, I fail to see any issue beyond dogmatism.

In the specific case of improvements to draughting, there exists one very relevant variable I've not seen mentioned in all the posts on 21C11, and that's fire-throwing, an issue which crops up with monotonous regularity every time it doesn't rain for a couple of weeks during the summer.

Individual lines have equipment, strategically placed along their routes, to handle brush fires before they get out of hand and the lack of wall-to-wall media exposées suggests, with a couple of notable exceptions, this responsible approach (with steam bans in extremis), on the whole, serves adequately. Equipping 'the big railway' is another matter entirely. I'd venture to suggest mainline steam isn't best served by dogmatic adherence to some perceived ideal, when it's too often glaringly obvious things could and should be better handled. Our movement stands or falls on public acceptance of steam operations and we really need to be seen to be doing our best to maintain that acceptance.

Here endeth this morning's rant!

 

As for the 6023, more time and effort was spent searching for the reason why she would not steam at all! The solution, already known 5 years earlier, cost only some 350 GBP.
In the case of the absolute money terms quoted here, I would like to suggest relative terms. With a 10-15% consumption reduction within the lifespan of the boiler ticket a full year of water and coal cost does not have to be spent.
Kind regards
Jos

 

And that may be a large part of the motivation: not only are the students doing a lot of the work (for free), but it's getting them all well-introduced to steam locomotives, and hopefully some of them will keep on working with them - a worthwhile goal in and of itself.

Noel

 

Install one of these in the smokebox and you will have more than enough draughting and music as a bonus!


Knut

 

That assumes money is the only constraint. Time and energy are perhaps more relevant here, and I’ll not criticise a group planning to restore a locomotive to 1950s condition for not focusing on 21st century enhancements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In almost 100 posts I don't think there has been any criticism at all. They simply announced that they were considering some improvements to the design. I wish them well, and I'm looking forward to see how it runs.

 

As regards fire throwing, all mainline engines have to have mesh spark arrestors and as long as they are fitted correctly and in good repair then risk is controlled as far as it can, Sometime its the ashpan and dampers that are the cause of lineside fires, and again fitting mesh screens have been tried, and have had some degree of success but as ever its how the engine is being worked, work it hard in times of fire risk, you will stand the risk of lineside fires, so you either accept diesel assistance and an engine working lightly, or you don't run in times of high fire risk, As regards modern enhancements, 35011 will have to have some if she is going to work on the mainline, and if she is going to have air braking, that will have to be designed, one thing i would do is to uprate the output of the stones generator, to have better motion and frame lighting, to make preparation and disposal safer, and high intensity lights front and rear, using the marker lights

 

I’m not sure I agree about “no criticism”, but agree completely that I look forward to seeing it run.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk