Atomic Systems

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:19 pm

Here's that picture; it's scanned in from R.C. Riley's 'Great Eastern Album', so my apologies for the quality, but it shows the details we were talking about.

Click the image to zoom in

mccormackpj · Post by **mccormackpj** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:35 am

Thanks Barry - I reckon it is an exhaust injector. The bit above the footplate takes exhaust steam from some connection with the cylinder exhaust in the smokebox and is, I think, an oil separator to remove the gunk that has got into the steam after going through the valves and cylinders. The cleaned steam then passes to the exhaust injector below the footplate. The various pipes would then be an overflow (probably the one lowermost and on the left), a waterfeed (possibly the large horizontal pipe disappearing behind the footstep) and a delivery pipe which would connect with the vertical feed that ascends to the clack valve on the side of the boiler.

I admit this is speculation - I would like to know the truth, so if anyone can shed light, let's hear from you!

BTW, the loco is also fitted with steam sanding: see the two pipes descending from behind the footsteps which join just ahead of the front drivers. One will carry the sand, t'other the steam.

Patrick

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:09 pm

Not being too up-to-date on the detail aspect of all the odds and ends hung off steam locos in their time, this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I always understood that the GER used the Davis and Metcalfe exhaust steam injector, but how that might differ from the gizmo in the photo, I've no idea. I suppose it's not impossible that Stratford fitted the D&M injector, while Beardmore's fitted a different design - unless that thing is a D&M injector?.

mccormackpj · Post by **mccormackpj** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:11 am

The Search for the Meaning of Pipework

I will ask elsewhere to see if we can lay this one to rest. Otherwise we will have to rely on someone more knowledgeable stumbling across this thread in the leaf-litter of the tropical rainforest of the interweb while searching for the Lost City of Vilcabamba.

Patrick

fadedGlory · Post by **fadedGlory** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:35 pm

One thing is sure - my B12 will not carry this pipework, if only to prevent endles queries about its exact nature and purpose

(although the official reason will be: to save on polygons

)

fG

thenudehamster · Post by **thenudehamster** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:49 pm

mccormackpj wrote:The Search for the Meaning of Pipework

I will ask elsewhere to see if we can lay this one to rest. Otherwise we will have to rely on someone more knowledgeable stumbling across this thread in the leaf-litter of the tropical rainforest of the interweb while searching for the Lost City of Vilcabamba.

Isn't that the legendary terminus of the ill-fated New Amazon Mountain Railway (Ferrocarile Amazonas del Monte Nova), first built by the plantation owners in the upper reaches of the Amazon basin, to carry canned fruit from the plantations to the coast? After a strike by the low paid native fruit pickers in its early years, the jungle overgrew the line, maps were lost, and the line's route has been lost to the ravages of nature.

Zackybong1 · Post by **Zackybong1** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:11 pm

Gresley rebuilt version with cut away side covers, round top & longer boiler.

Nice.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:19 pm

just looking at the balance weights (now if Mr Bullied had designed those they wouldn't be necessary...) - would I be correct in thinking that the cylinders were connected to the front driving axle?

Is this normal? every 6- driver inside cylinder loco I've seen has them on the middle axle. This would be the first inside cylinder 4-6-0 though...

Also, in 3 and 4 cylinder 6-driver locos, where does the inside cylinder(s) connect? the middle like the outside ones?

jimbob · Post by **jimbob** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:39 pm

You have to admit the GER knew how to design a fine kettle!

mccormackpj · Post by **mccormackpj** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:54 pm

arabiandisco wrote:just looking at the balance weights (now if Mr Bullied had designed those they wouldn't be necessary...) - would I be correct in thinking that the cylinders were connected to the front driving axle?

Is this normal? every 6- driver inside cylinder loco I've seen has them on the middle axle. This would be the first inside cylinder 4-6-0 though...

Also, in 3 and 4 cylinder 6-driver locos, where does the inside cylinder(s) connect? the middle like the outside ones?

You are right in thinking that the 1500 /B12 class had the drive to the front axle and this is typical for inside-cylinder 4-6-0s. Due to the height of the first axle, it would be difficult to arrange inside cylinders to drive the middle axle. The GCR, CR and L&NWR all followed this pattern, but the GS&WR '362' class of goods 4-6-0 had the drive on the centre axle, resulting in a rather ungainly looking beast. 'Handsome is as handsome does' and they were neither successful nor repeated.

For 4 cylinders the drive is either to the front axle (L&NWR Webb compounds and Bowen-Cooke's 'Claughton', the Dutch 4-6-0s built by Beyer Peacock) or divided inside > front, outside > middle (GWR 'Stars', 'Castles' & 'Kings', L&YR, L&SWR T14, G14 etc, GCR 'Faringdons' and 'Black Pigs').

The NER 3 cylinders 4-6-0s were all front axle drivers, but Gresley's L&NER 'Sandringhams' (the successors to the GER 1500s) were all to the middle axle, resulting in a steeply inclined inside cylinder, as on his Pacifics (Sir Nigel was dedicated to same-axle drive, as was Raven on the NER). The West Coast 3c locos (Scots, Jubilees, Patriots) and the handsome but sad Pickersgill '956' class for the Caledonian were divided inside > front, outside > middle.

You can see that the trend was definitely to drive the front axle with inside cylinders whether there were outside ones or not.

There was a benefit to single axle drive as it achieves both a more even turning moment and a reduction in any damage to the track due to the remaining unbalanced forces. The 'Claughton' is the best-known example of this and was well-known for its smooth running, resulting from it producing no hammer-blow. Churchward split the drive on his 4c locos, a legacy that Swindon carried on for nearly half a century. Placing the outside cylinders above the rear bogie wheels, where the frame is shallowest, required substantial reinforcement to the framing in the shape of a large casting which was used to support the inside cylinder slide bars and the valve gear, thus making a virtue out of a necessity. A benefit of divided drive is that the additional length to accomodate the waggly bits required by all front axle drive is avoided.

Tho' they were well balanced, none of GWR 4c 4-6-0s matched the Claughton for balancing. In fact, had the wrinkles been ironed out of the Crewe design sooner, it would have given a Castle a run for its money! This of course is heresy in my neck of the woods and I would be accused of turning to Derby and worshipping red engines.

But (as always) I am wandering well off topic, so I'd better shut up before the Moderator slaps me hard.

Patrick