Locomotive Front End Designs

Something that would most certainly give a Princess Coronation a boost is the the same exhaust fitment as a Tornado/Blue Peter/P2, that is a Kylchap, that would level things a wee bit more.

Also, with regard to cylinder, wheel sizes, etc. and the relationship to outright power production, it's worth remembering the class of loco that achieved the highest IHP during the 1948 loco exchange trials.

Cheers,

Alan

 

The easiest would be just to fit multiple exhausts under the present chimneys. If the drawing in the books is correct the single exhausts
are just plainly wrong.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Quite right and at 11:39 this morning I stated above that multiple blastcaps and the present chimneys would suffice!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Youre the Man. Maybe they will let you tune up a Double Chimney King in the near future

 

Maybe, but that is not relevant as the King double chimney was properly proportioned by Ell and the doubles of the Princess do not fulfill
his proportions.To sum up: chimneys too short, distances from orifice to chimney choke too large and as a consequence 4 7/16 inch orifices which should be larger but cannot due to these deficiencies. Another blastcap(s) will do at low-cost.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

attached is from:

Problems Connected with Locomotive Design
W. A. Stanier
Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers, January 1939; vol. 29, 147: pp. 13-35.

 

also........

extract from:

The Development of L.N.E.R. Locomotive Design, 1923–1941
B. Spencer
Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers, May 1947; vol. 37, 197: pp. 164-243.

 

This is regarding my reply to #1040 where it was supposed that a Kylchap would be better than the plain double chimney for the LMS Pacifics. Since the point is raised again, the drawing in the Stanier lecture shows a poorly scaled double chimney that could be greatly improved by fitting a multiple blastcap below both chimneys. This forces the chimneys to do what they are meant for: suck!
Stanier could have known better since this was proven by Young of the University of Illinois back in 1933, I do not blame him however, since even Ell missed the point showing knowledge of Young during his comments on a 1953 lecture by Tuplin.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

But what would have been the point? The simple double chimney was demonstrably effective: the tests of 26th February 1939 proved that, and those on the rollers at Rugby showed that it could produce more steam than the engine could use before adhesion became a problem. The simple double chimney occupied less smokebox volume allowing easier maintenance for emptying, tube cleaning (everyday tasks), etc., and avoided the need to pay royalties, always an issue with locomotive CMEs.

 

You are missing my point, alas. Already in 1933 Young showed experimentally the equivalence of a double length chimney and one with four orifices. See for yourself: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/4435
If you care to look at fig 16 page 76/77, fig 17 page 81 and fig 28 page 104. However, it appears that worldwide everyone missed this.
Stanier choose for double chimneys which are the equivalent of a single chimney lengthened to a mere 141% which is of course the most expensive solution.
Please note I do not blame Stanier and Ell at all, it only amazes me, but it also allowed me to write an interesting thesis with some proper theoretical explanations. It filled a gap left by others.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

Interesting that Crewe and eventually Swindon went the plain double chimney route, Brighton/Eastleigh went for Lemaitre and Doncaster/Darlington went the Kylchap route.

 

Just get the impression that the Double-Kylchap system worked better on 3-cylinder locos than those with two or four.

 

But, with a more efficient exhaust back pressure is reduced for a given steam production, thus improving efficiency and reducing steam consumption. After all, if power is adequate then the goal should be to achieve the same power burning less fuel (for an LMS manager of the time). Since Jos' solution hardly represents an increase in complexity, the cost/benefit is sound.

 

How long has this discussion of the chimney exhaust been going on now...? Not that I'm complaining, it's just that for practically a few months now all I've seen in here is this topic! Never knew you could debate and discuss so long about chimneys... quite amazing really.

 

I am very sorry if I am boring you, however, I will "bite" whenever some explanation is needed.
Quite a few people live with fairy tales which need a little contradiction, isn't education also goal of this forum?
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

I like the chimney discussions!

 

Possibly, but let us look at the Gresley A1 class. 180 psi to 220. Short travel gear to long travel. Single chimney to Kylchap. All improvements, all more efficient of course. But then comes the temptation to make use of the extra capacity, and you finish up with the 4472 / 60103 scenario.

 

Yes, but that was in the past! Right now with 70/75 mph restrictions our goal should be to hand over these beauties to
the next generation in optimal condition meaning identical power against less effort!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

I think you'll find I was never criticising the fact people were going on about chimney exhausts, merely just that I found it both humorous and genuinely fascinating that that such a topic could bring up so much discussion.
True I'll admit it's not a conversation that interests me much, but that doesn't mean I'd complain about it, as I know others do like the conversation. So I would not be so hasty to accuse me complaining of these topics as boring, if I were you, as that just isn't true.

Besides, if were talking of a superior exhaust for chimneys, I'd place my money on the Giesl ejector myself...

 

Well, sorry anyway! If you study the Giesl you will find there are reasons why there were quite a few single applications.
If the test results of the 9F are studied that Giesl had a very poor performance at the top end, it was too small, Giesls error!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans