On Jul 15, 11:54*am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:20:48 +0000, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote: [harry opined:]

A steam explosion inside a locomtive fire box would be virtually
guaranteed to kill the fireman/driver as all the burning coal could
well be blown out of the firing hole into the locomotive cab.

So in recent years have you any examples of preserved steam operated
railway operations that have had *boiler explosions that have injured or
killed people in the railway world, perhaps excluding India which hasn't
got the good a track record ;!....

Don't know about rest of the world's record, but the last actual railway
boiler explosion in the UK seems to have been 1962 (Wonkypedia quoting
from a published source).

Boiler explosion or firebox collapse? Actual (external) explosion of the
boiler barrel seems to have been (commendanbly rare for over a century
- the benefits of elfandsafety gorn madde, of course..).

Firebox collapse is will be damned unpleasant for those on the engine,
but much less deletrious for the surrounding neighbourhood.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University * *"The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unlikely. As someone else mentioned, the fusible plug should prevent
that.

On Jul 15, 12:21*pm, TBirdFrank
wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.

On Jul 15, 1:02*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:20*am, Nick Leverton wrote:

Melting of fusible plugs (thus releasing boiler pressure steam into the
firebox)

Although dropping the plugs into the box is indeed "boiler pressure
steam", the plugs are sized small enough to be noticeable from the
footplate, but certainly not hazardous. In one famous boiler explosion
(the Coronation at Lamington in 1948) the plugs had dropped some time
earlier and no-one noticed. The 1962 explosion was very similar - a
Coronation where the plugs had dropped and finally the firebox
crownsheet softened and pulled over the stay heads.

If a fuseable plug is in good order and fails,normally it will put the
fire out.
They are designed to do just that.
They can get blocked and this may not be seen if they are not removed
and examined as they should be annually.

On Jul 15, 1:05*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:54*am, Andy Breen wrote:

Boiler explosion or firebox collapse? Actual (external) explosion of the
boiler barrel seems to have been (commendanbly rare for over a century
- the benefits of elfandsafety gorn madde, of course..).

It actually seems to have had a single cause - the avoidance of
grooving, longitudinally inside the boiler barrel. Much of this was in
turn down to one simple design change - boilers went from being
wrapped with an overlap (then riveted) to being rolled as a butt joint
without any overlap, and the joint strengthened by an external cover
plate instead. Despite now being two joints and actually weaker (in
terms of simple strength) the old design had a problem of being non-
circular. Under pressure, flexing was concentrated in the groove of
this joint, which in turn led to erosion localised here.

We used to have our boiler welded joints Xrayed,. The weld penetration
was astonishingly poor. But the experts said it was OK

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:03:02 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 12:21Â*pm, TBirdFrank wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.

Except there were. Only in the early days, I'd admit, but the first
commercially successful locomotives (and the first locomotives to
be built as more than prototypes, and the first exported..) had
cast-iron boilers.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Jul 15, 1:54*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but
it was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive
ones back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first
exported - had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University * *"The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.

On Jul 15, 2:12*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:03:02 -0700, harry wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:21*pm, TBirdFrank wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.

Except there were. Only in the early days, I'd admit, but the first
commercially successful locomotives (and the first locomotives to
be built as more than prototypes, and the first exported..) had
cast-iron boilers.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University * *"The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

Yes, you're right the Penydarren locomotive is thought to have had a
cast iron boiler.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..


I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.


Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin
of Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.


--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:21:30 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:12Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:03:02 -0700, harry wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:21Â*pm, TBirdFrank
wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.

Except there were. Only in the early days, I'd admit, but the first
commercially successful locomotives (and the first locomotives to be
built as more than prototypes, and the first exported..) had cast-iron
boilers.


Yes, you're right the Penydarren locomotive is thought to have had a
cast iron boiler.


As did the Murray/Blenkinsop machines at Middleton (and elsewhere!)
and, IIRC, the Gateshead "Trevithick" and its immediate descendent,
the Wylam 'Black Billy'. Sunsequent Wylam 2-cyl machines, together
with all of Old George's locomotives and all the varied Chapman/
Buddle machines, used wrought iron though. Presumably plates of a
suitable size got cheap enough somewhere between 1812-13 and 1814-15..
--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

harry wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:21 pm, TBirdFrank
wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.
Not even yer original rockets?

Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54 pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake
Boilers are not cast iron just for starters
Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..

I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.


Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin
of Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.


Don't forget that when that was designed, 10 psi was an amazingly high
boiler pressure. The replica of Stephenson's Locomotion on the Waggonway
at Beamish has a modern boiler made of modern materials but looks like
the old design, and runs at twice the original pressure. Its safety
valve is set to blow at 15 psi.

As far as I know, locomotives all had wrought iron boiler barrels from
the earliest days, with stationary engines using cast iron for parts of
theirs. Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

harry wrote:


http://uk.ask.com/web?q=boiler+explo...rc=0&o=0&l=dir

That's a good reminder of how crap AskJeeves is compared to Google!

--
Tim Watts

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:53:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:21 pm, TBirdFrank wrote:
Welding - cast iron - boiler explosions???

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

In days of yore there were steam cast iron boilers. But not on
locomotives.
Not even yer original rockets?

Rocket was far too late to use it. I'm not sure there was much use of
cast iron for locomotive boiler barrels after 1813 or so.

--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:17:08 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54 pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake
Boilers are not cast iron just for starters
Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive
ones back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first
exported - had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..

I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.


Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin of
Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.


Don't forget that when that was designed, 10 psi was an amazingly high
boiler pressure. The replica of Stephenson's Locomotion on the Waggonway

Except for Trevithick and his followers, for whom 50psi was
normal (the Pen-y_darren and Gateshead machines worked at 50psi,
as did CMWC)/

at Beamish has a modern boiler made of modern materials but looks like
the old design, and runs at twice the original pressure. Its safety
valve is set to blow at 15 psi.

Locomotion, like the rest of Stephenson's machines, was designed to work
at 50psi. In normal use, the safety valve was tied down when the engine
was moving and only released at standstill (pretty well universal practice
pre-1828-ish).

As far as I know, locomotives all had wrought iron boiler barrels from
the earliest days, with stationary engines using cast iron for parts of
theirs. Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

Except, as I say, for Trevithick and the users of his patents.
--
Andy Breen, not speaking on behalf of Aberystwyth University "The
internet, that wonderful tool for bringing us into contact with things
that make us wish we could scrub our brains out with dental
floss.." (Charlie Stross)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:39:48 +1200, Gib Bogle wrote:

You must be new here.

Naaah.

Matty IS someone working in a museum, who repairs
ancient things, and the boiler he's talking about is undoubtedly a
restoration job.

I know, I know:-) Take a look at the post I was responding to...

*I* think Matty should just talk to the expert welder. One man I knew was an
expert welder, as in had a license to prove it. To keep it, he'd be called in
every two years, and would be given a welding job at random, like "eight-inch
steel steam pipe, overhead weld" and the equipment he had to use, like gas or
stick. They'd then X-ray the weld and cut it open, looking for faults. His boss
would hire him out to other companies when there was tricky work to be done.

One of the more memorable jobs he told me about was was a welding a copper cross
for a church roof out of thick, solid copper bars. So: big TIG welder,
water-cooled tip, and two guys with big gas torches heating the copper so the
TIG had a chance. Add a bucket of cold water on each side to dip his gloves in
every so often, and double leathers.


Thomas Prufer

On Jul 15, 2:12*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

Except there were. Only in the early days, I'd admit, but the first
commercially successful locomotives (and the first locomotives to
be built as more than prototypes, and the first exported..) had
cast-iron boilers.

Which ones? Most of Trevithick's had cast iron shells (still with a
wrought iron endplate), but I can't think of any others, or of any
"first exports" (which one?) that were cast iron. Certainly the
Tyneside builders were using wrought iron from the outset - although
they still managed to have boiler explosions, including Locomotion
itself.

There is some possibility that Brunton's Mechanical Traveller (the one
with the walking legs) was built with a cast boiler, but it had been
fitted with a wrought iron boiler just before it was destroyed by a
boiler explosion.

On Jul 15, 2:39*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

As did the Murray/Blenkinsop machines at Middleton (and elsewhere!)

There's a well-known period illustration of a Blenkinsop machine
showing a boiler that's clearly riveted from plates.

and, IIRC, the Gateshead "Trevithick" and its immediate descendent,
the Wylam 'Black Billy'.

Puffing Billy & Wylam Dilly survived a long time, along with their
wrought iron boilers. I don't know which you mean by the "Gateshead
Trevithick", but none of the Gateshead-built locos have any evidence
for using cast iron.


Presumably plates of a
suitable size got cheap enough somewhere between 1812-13 and 1814-15..

Price didn't change significantly - although everything, and
especially provender or iron goods, became cheaper after Napoleon,
hence the number of cast iron bridges dated 1816. What did happen is
that ironmasters could make _bigger_ plates, allowing the introduction
in the mid-1830s of the "long plate" boiler. This had plates long
enough that a whole boiler barrel could be made of four parallel
staves, without the need for either endwise joints or else very short
barrels (as Stephenson used with Rocket & later).

On Jul 15, 2:06*pm, harry wrote:

If a fuseable plug is in good order and fails,normally it will put the
fire out.
They are designed to do just that.

Rubbish, but then it's an AOL poster.

They can get blocked and this may not be seen if they are not removed
and examined as they should be annually.

According to several operating practices (depending on whether you're
boat or rail, US or UK) they're inspected monthly and may be
_replaced_ every six months (depending on the number of days in steam).

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:19:13 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:39Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

As did the Murray/Blenkinsop machines at Middleton (and elsewhere!)

There's a well-known period illustration of a Blenkinsop machine showing
a boiler that's clearly riveted from plates.

Yep. Just checked in the ER procs., and there seems to have been a change in
boiler construction between the first two and later engines at Middleton.
The first engines there certainly had cast boilers (from both illustrations
and contemporary descriptions).

and, IIRC, the Gateshead "Trevithick" and its immediate descendent, the
Wylam 'Black Billy'.

Puffing Billy & Wylam Dilly survived a long time, along with their
wrought iron boilers. I don't know which you mean by the "Gateshead
Trevithick", but none of the Gateshead-built locos have any evidence for
using cast iron.

The 1808 machine ordered(?) by Wylam but never delivered and subsequently
used to drive the foundery blower. Black Billy was the 1813 Wylam machine
- single cylinder and flywheel, possibly built on the 1812/13 test chassis.
Puffing Billy and Wylam Dilly came in 1814, after Black Billy had been
working more or less unsatisfactorily for a while.
Checking the ER procs. suggests that Black Billy may also have had a
wrought iron boiler, so the date for suitable boiler plates becoming
available may be more like 1812-13 than 1813-14.


Presumably plates of a
suitable size got cheap enough somewhere between 1812-13 and 1814-15..

Price didn't change significantly - although everything, and especially
provender or iron goods, became cheaper after Napoleon, hence the number
of cast iron bridges dated 1816. What did happen is that ironmasters
could make _bigger_ plates, allowing the introduction in the mid-1830s
of the "long plate" boiler. This had plates long enough that a whole
boiler barrel could be made of four parallel staves, without the need
for either endwise joints or else very short barrels (as Stephenson used
with Rocket & later).



--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:27:33 +0000, Andy Breen wrote:


Checking the ER procs. suggests that Black Billy may also have had a
wrought iron boiler, so the date for suitable boiler plates becoming
available may be more like 1812-13 than 1813-14.


Scratch that - got the article in front of me (ER3, Rees & Guy, p206)
and the boiler construction of 'Black Billy' is one of those
things not known..

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On 7/16/2011 12:54 AM, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but
it was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive
ones back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first
exported - had cast iron boilers, after all..

Pretty hard to cast a boiler, shirley?

On 15/07/2011 11:20, Nick Leverton wrote:
In ,
tony wrote:
[harry opined:]

A steam explosion inside a locomtive fire box would be virtually
guaranteed to kill the fireman/driver as all the burning coal could
well be blown out of the firing hole into the locomotive cab.

So in recent years have you any examples of preserved steam operated
railway operations that have had boiler explosions that have injured or
killed people in the railway world, perhaps excluding India which hasn't
got the good a track record ;!....

Don't know about rest of the world's record, but the last actual railway
boiler explosion in the UK seems to have been 1962 (Wonkypedia quoting
from a published source).

There was a blowback incident on the NYMR a few years ago, caused by an
exhaust steam weld that failed in the smokebox. Only minor injuries but
could have been much worse if the fireman had been firing at the time:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...7_Grosmont.pdf


There was a blowback incident at Didcot around 20 years ago involving
5597. Crew were badly scalded IIRC.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In article ,
Matty F wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:44 pm, fred wrote:
In article
,
harry writes

Assuming you are in the UK and not Zimbabwe.

Point of order Harry, Zimbabwe is one of a very few commercial railways
to run steam locos in continuous line service until now. Most steam
preservation outfits would give their eye teeth for Bulawayo shed's
facilities. Steam overhauls are (AFAIK) contracted out to ZECO
Engineering but repairs are still dealt with on shed. Bulawayo shed
takes safety seriously. However I don't think NRZ goes back to the days
of cast iron steam manifolds.

Any regular who takes an interest in what is contributed here will know
which country the op hails from.

I have recently moved to Afghanistan, where this miniature steam
engine is on static display and never fired up. I have decided to make
a new pipe out of wood, as nobody will know the difference.

We shall have to add a new 3'6" gauge chapter to the Afghan Railways handbook.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 04:54:55 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Jul 15, 10:26*am, tony sayer wrote:

So in recent years have you any examples of preserved steam operated
railway operations that have had *boiler explosions that have injured or
killed people in the railway world,

US traction engine event - people killed, including bystanders. About
5 years ago.

Wasn't that boiler missing the "usual precautions" ?

On Jul 15, 11:20*am, Nick Leverton wrote:

Melting of fusible plugs (thus releasing boiler pressure steam into the
firebox) has occurred a couple of times in preservation, but the RAIB
don't seem to have reports on them for some reason.


Why do people assume RAIB have to have reports on everything ?

--
Nick

In message , Nick Leverton
writes
Melting of fusible plugs (thus releasing boiler pressure steam into the
firebox) has occurred a couple of times in preservation, but the RAIB
don't seem to have reports on them for some reason.
Fusible plugs are to put the fire out and shouldn't cause a blow back.
I've only seen one example of where the plugs melted, and put the fire
out efficiently is what they did, without a blow back. It was an 82xxx
on a Bristol TM to Bath Green Park train, and the incident happened at
Mangotsfield where the rising gradient from Bristol suddenly becomes a
falling one towards Warmley, causing the boiler water to slosh to the
front of the boiler and uncover the plugs.
--
Clive

On Jul 15, 8:23*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 15, 2:06*pm, harry wrote:

If a fuseable plug is in good order and fails,normally it will put the
fire out.
They are designed to do just that.

Rubbish, but then it's an AOL poster.

They can get blocked and this may not be seen if they are not removed
and examined as they should be annually.

According to several operating practices (depending on whether you're
boat or rail, US or UK) they're inspected monthly and may be
_replaced_ every six months (depending on the number of days in steam).

You are in cloud cuckoo land. Stationary boilers are often
continuously fired for months at a time .
They are only used in solid fuel boilers where it's not possible to
have an instant shutdown in the event of low water.

The mass of burning coal is swiftly extinguished by steam if the plug
melts.

Gas and oil fired steam boilers don't need them.

On Jul 15, 10:16*pm, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 7/16/2011 12:54 AM, Andy Breen wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but
it was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive
ones back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first
exported - had cast iron boilers, after all..

Pretty hard to cast a boiler, shirley?

No they were very common for low pressure steam heating of buildings
pre WW2 especially in America,
The technology is still in use but only for water boilers.

They use similar technology to cast iron radiators.
Trevethicks first loco in Merthyr Tyfil had a cast iron boiler
apparently. But it was very low pressure. The thing only ran at 2mph.

On Jul 15, 10:32*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
Matty F wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:44 pm, fred wrote:
In article
,
harry writes

Assuming you are in the UK and not Zimbabwe.

Point of order Harry, Zimbabwe is one of a very few commercial railways
to run steam locos in continuous line service until now. *Most steam
preservation outfits would give their eye teeth for Bulawayo shed's
facilities. *Steam overhauls are (AFAIK) contracted out to ZECO
Engineering but repairs are still dealt with on shed. *Bulawayo shed
takes safety seriously. *However I don't think NRZ goes back to the days
of cast iron steam manifolds.

Any regular who takes an interest in what is contributed here will know
which country the op hails from.

I have recently moved to Afghanistan, where this miniature steam
engine is on static display and never fired up. I have decided to make
a new pipe out of wood, as nobody will know the difference.

We shall have to add a new 3'6" gauge chapter to the Afghan Railways handbook.

Nick
--
Serendipity:http://www.leverton.org/blosxom(last update 29th March 2010)
* * * * "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
* * * * * * * * -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

#I havenot beento Zimbabwe but I have been to Kenya a good few years
back.
They were still running narrow gauge coal fire atriculated locos then.
I found after they must have been Beyer Garrets.
Never got chance to see one close up.

I did go to see the "Big Boy" at Omaha Nebraska. It was on TV a while
back being moved.
Monstrous device. Sad to see it rotting away, perched on a hill by the
river.
You could look into the cab but not go in.

On Jul 15, 11:16*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:20*am, Nick Leverton wrote:

Melting of fusible plugs (thus releasing boiler pressure steam into the
firebox) has occurred a couple of times in preservation, but the RAIB
don't seem to have reports on them for some reason.

Why do people assume RAIB have to have reports on everything ?

--
Nick

Pressure vessels, especially steam are subject to all sorts of laws,
rules and regulations so it is surprising.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:17:08 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54 pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake
Boilers are not cast iron just for starters
Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..

I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.


Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin
of Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.


Don't forget that when that was designed, 10 psi was an amazingly high
boiler pressure. The replica of Stephenson's Locomotion on the Waggonway
at Beamish has a modern boiler made of modern materials but looks like
the old design, and runs at twice the original pressure. Its safety
valve is set to blow at 15 psi.

As far as I know, locomotives all had wrought iron boiler barrels from
the earliest days, with stationary engines using cast iron for parts of
theirs. Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

That seems very low. My facts may be wrong but I think 30ft of water
creates 1 atmosphere of pressure, which is about 14 lbs/sq.in.
So the cast iron boiler on the ground floor of my house is under
about 15 ft of head from the loft cold tank, which equates to around 7
lbs/sq. in.
What have I got wrong?

Guy Gorton

On Jul 16, 10:24 am, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:17:08 +0100, John Williamson



wrote:
Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54 pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake
Boilers are not cast iron just for starters
Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..

I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.

Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin
of Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.

Don't forget that when that was designed, 10 psi was an amazingly high
boiler pressure. The replica of Stephenson's Locomotion on the Waggonway
at Beamish has a modern boiler made of modern materials but looks like
the old design, and runs at twice the original pressure. Its safety
valve is set to blow at 15 psi.

As far as I know, locomotives all had wrought iron boiler barrels from
the earliest days, with stationary engines using cast iron for parts of
theirs. Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

That seems very low. My facts may be wrong but I think 30ft of water
creates 1 atmosphere of pressure, which is about 14 lbs/sq.in.
So the cast iron boiler on the ground floor of my house is under
about 15 ft of head from the loft cold tank, which equates to around 7
lbs/sq. in.
What have I got wrong?

Guy Gorton

nothing - run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!

Jim K

On Jul 16, 10:24*am, Guy Gorton wrote:

Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

That seems very low. *

No, this was the sort of pressure used. Early boiler feedwater wasn't
pumped in, it was fed by a gravity cistern up in the rafters of the
engine shed (it was raised here by the pumping engine itself).

The distinction in strength between Newcome or Watt's boilers and the
first high-pressure boilers (such as Trevithick''s "strong steam" of
25psi) is that the newer boilers also had a margin of safety over-
design to them. Trevithick knew that safety valves were unreliable and
often adjusted by enginemen (this wasn't even seen as a bad practice
at the time), so he not only designed for 25psi, but he designed to
not fail at 25psi, and to survive overpressure too.

The first haystack or balloon boilers used by Newcomen and Watt
weren't even iron, they were copper brewer's mash tubs with lead lids
fitted. These had a fairly benign failure on over-pressure, as their
seams would leak or split without causing the whole pressure vessel to
explode. As a result, fear of boiler explosions was much less in the
early days, despite them being more common, as the injuries would only
be scalding (possibly fatal) to a few enginemen, rather than the
expensive destruction of the engine house. The real concerns over
boiler explosions didn't begin until pressures had raised and engines
were working as expansion engines.

On Jul 15, 10:16*pm, Gib Bogle wrote:

Pretty hard to cast a boiler, shirley?

Yes, they could only be cast by a few expert foundries (Coalbrookdale
being the obvious example), owing to their large size. Coalbrookdale
could cast these because of their past experience making try pots for
whaling. Even then, it was only the outer shell and cylinder being
cast - the inner flue was sheet iron work (being of smaller diameter,
it was inherently stronger).

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:02:27 +0100, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 8:23 pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 15, 2:06 pm, harry wrote:

If a fuseable plug is in good order and fails,normally it will put the
fire out.
They are designed to do just that.

Rubbish, but then it's an AOL poster.

They can get blocked and this may not be seen if they are not removed
and examined as they should be annually.

According to several operating practices (depending on whether you're
boat or rail, US or UK) they're inspected monthly and may be
_replaced_ every six months (depending on the number of days in steam).

You are in cloud cuckoo land. Stationary boilers are often
continuously fired for months at a time .
They are only used in solid fuel boilers where it's not possible to
have an instant shutdown in the event of low water.

The mass of burning coal is swiftly extinguished by steam if the plug
melts.

Gas and oil fired steam boilers don't need them.

And I thought throwing steam onto hot coal/coke was the way to make
producer gas?

--
Rod

Guy Gorton wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:17:08 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:12:52 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 15, 1:54 pm, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:
shurely shome mistake
Boilers are not cast iron just for starters
Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

[1] Does the replica of the Gateshead machine that masquerades as the
Pen-y-Darren machine have a cast boiler? Trevithick certainly used
'em..
I think you will find they were wrought iron for many years. Merthry
Tydfil was renouned for it's wrought iron.

Coalbrookdale, OTOH, was a specialist in casting. Pretty sure the
Trevithick stationary engine in the Sci. Mus. - that kissing-cousin
of Catch Me Who Can - has a cast boiler.


Don't forget that when that was designed, 10 psi was an amazingly high
boiler pressure. The replica of Stephenson's Locomotion on the Waggonway
at Beamish has a modern boiler made of modern materials but looks like
the old design, and runs at twice the original pressure. Its safety
valve is set to blow at 15 psi.

As far as I know, locomotives all had wrought iron boiler barrels from
the earliest days, with stationary engines using cast iron for parts of
theirs. Then again, early stationary engines normally ran at a maximum
of about 3 or 4 psi.

That seems very low. My facts may be wrong but I think 30ft of water
creates 1 atmosphere of pressure, which is about 14 lbs/sq.in.
So the cast iron boiler on the ground floor of my house is under
about 15 ft of head from the loft cold tank, which equates to around 7
lbs/sq. in.
What have I got wrong?


I think you haven't got anything wrong at all.

Remember the very FIRST steam engines were atmospheric engines, So the
maximum cylinder pressure was about 14psi!

To go to a steam system at similar pressures was the obvious next step.

And there is no reason to go further if its a stationary engine with
plenty of water. And plenty of coal as well.

The need for pressure arises out of the need for efficiency so that a
locomotive can do reasonable distances carrying its own coal and water,
particularly water.

To put it simply there is more energy in high pressure steam than low.
And with the steam exhausting to atmosphere, and being lost, that means
there is more power and energy to be extracted from the coal for a
given amount of water, in a high pressure setup.

An ancillary consequence is that high pressure cylinders running faster
are lighter and more compact than low pressure ones All of which makes
sense for locomotion!



Guy Gorton

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 15, 10:16 pm, Gib Bogle wrote:

Pretty hard to cast a boiler, shirley?

Yes, they could only be cast by a few expert foundries (Coalbrookdale
being the obvious example), owing to their large size. Coalbrookdale
could cast these because of their past experience making try pots for
whaling. Even then, it was only the outer shell and cylinder being
cast - the inner flue was sheet iron work (being of smaller diameter,
it was inherently stronger).


As an engineer, I LOVE these little factoids. And thread drift.

Everybody has put a little bit in, and the resultant picture at least
has given me a much better understanding of early steam.

In message
,
Andy Dingley writes
The distinction in strength between Newcome or Watt's boilers and the
first high-pressure boilers (such as Trevithick''s "strong steam" of
25psi) is that the newer boilers also had a margin of safety over-
design to them. Trevithick knew that safety valves were unreliable and
often adjusted by enginemen (this wasn't even seen as a bad practice
at the time), so he not only designed for 25psi, but he designed to
not fail at 25psi, and to survive overpressure too.
Very low pressures are entirely feasible considering that the steam was
only used to raise a piston which through a beam allowed what it was
working on (Man engine etc.) To drop, the steam was the condensed by
spraying in cold water and the atmospheric pressure on the other side of
the piston did the work.
--
Clive

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
To put it simply there is more energy in high pressure steam than low.
And with the steam exhausting to atmosphere, and being lost, that means
there is more power and energy to be extracted from the coal for a
given amount of water, in a high pressure setup.
True and remember that a lot of heat is taken in phase changing the
water to steam at the same temperature.
--
Clive

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:16:26 +1200, Gib Bogle wrote:

On 7/16/2011 12:54 AM, Andy Breen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:05:17 -0700, Matty F wrote:

shurely shome mistake

Boilers are not cast iron just for starters

Not (usually..[1]) in locomotive applications for many years, but it
was the standard material for many boilers - including locomotive ones
back in the earlies.

The first commercially successful locomotives - and the first exported
- had cast iron boilers, after all..

Pretty hard to cast a boiler, shirley?

Why? They don't seem to have had any trouble doing so in 1808?

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/imag...5/10301641.jpg

How hard is it to cast a cylinder anyway? They'd been doing it for years.
Cast one big cylinder for the casing, a U-shaped one for the flue, bolt
on (cast) end-plates and bolt the flue into the end plate. Voila. A vey
sophisticated boiler for the day.

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself