On Jul 26, 8:35*am, harry wrote:

I think many early boilers operated at such a low pressure (5 or 10
PSI) that water levels and even furnace uncovering was less critical
than in a high pressure boiler. The accidents started to happen when
high pressure steam was introduced. *

Not at all. The counter-example os to look at American boiler
explosions, which largely happened on steamboats with low-pressure box
boilers.

On Jul 26, 12:17*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

And also, possibly, once (to use the term obligatory in uk.r)
elfandsafetymadness stepped in in the form of regulations on construction
and inspection of boilers (when government started to impede industry with
red tape/legitimately question the number of people getting blown up - choose
one explanation according to dogma or sense...)

This just didn't happen in the UK. UK regulation was some Thatcherite
wet-dream, where the private market efficiently self-regulated itself
(one of the very few cases).

Factory owners (for this issue was addressed amongst stationary
engines first) wished to insure against explosions. They didn't mind
explosions so much, there were always plenty more paupers to feed the
dark satanic mills, but it did rather get in the way of business. So
the Manchester Steam Users Association came into being. This was a
mutual insurance society. Boilers of any condition were insured, as no-
one yet knew what good practice was and there were no independent or
competent boiler inspectors to judge boilers anyway. Gradually the
Association worked out best practices for design, manufacture,
maintenance and operation. Premiums also began to be calculated on the
basis of risk, judged from compliance with these practices, not merely
size of plant. Later inspectors also came into being and eventually it
became impossible to insure a dubious boiler, thus uneconomic to
continue operating it.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:41:49 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 26, 12:17Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

And also, possibly, once (to use the term obligatory in uk.r)
elfandsafetymadness stepped in in the form of regulations on
construction and inspection of boilers (when government started to
impede industry with red tape/legitimately question the number of
people getting blown up - choose one explanation according to dogma or
sense...)

This just didn't happen in the UK. UK regulation was some Thatcherite
wet-dream, where the private market efficiently self-regulated itself
(one of the very few cases).

Factory owners (for this issue was addressed amongst stationary engines
first) wished to insure against explosions. They didn't mind explosions
so much, there were always plenty more paupers to feed the dark satanic
mills, but it did rather get in the way of business. So the Manchester
Steam Users Association came into being. This was a mutual insurance
society. Boilers of any condition were insured, as no- one yet knew what
good practice was and there were no independent or competent boiler
inspectors to judge boilers anyway. Gradually the Association worked out
best practices for design, manufacture, maintenance and operation.
Premiums also began to be calculated on the basis of risk, judged from
compliance with these practices, not merely size of plant. Later
inspectors also came into being and eventually it became impossible to
insure a dubious boiler, thus uneconomic to continue operating it.

Many thanks for that. I understand it a lot better now (gosh, it's good
to find out when you're wrong...)

OK. I'd been extrapolating - without due evidence - from marine practice,
where the practices laid down by the Admiralty for their boilers formed
the basis of what the insurance companies used as "good". This produced
a very rapid drop in the number of boiler explosions in UK-registered
ships - quite different from the US where such things weren't happening..

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

In message
, at
08:09:05 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, bob remarked:
Just think how old-fashioned, bizarre and quaint a smartphone or an iPad
will look in 20 years, never mind 150...

Indeed, just watch a movie from the late '90s and wonder how we ever
managed with such bricks of phones. Go back to the mid '90s and even
top end phone still had things like extendable aerials. That's not
even 20 years ago.

On the other hand, most "tower" PCs, laptops, keyboards and mice, are
just the same as they were in the mid 90's. Not everything changes.

Even more recently, CRTs were still commonplace,
but these days they are already starting to look dated.

My last CRT monitors went a couple of years ago, but my first LCD was as
relatively recent as 2001 (and I'm still using it, albeit on a server
where the small screen size isn't an issue).

Anyone here still watching a CRT television?
--
Roland Perry

On Jul 26, 11:03*am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:02:44 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

To tackle a couple of Harry's points first (for some reason his post wouldn't
allow commenting directly.. odd)

1.
Most boilers were low pressure back then, but all "Trevithick" engines (to
an early 19th century steam engineer a "Trevithick" was any engine working
by steam pressure as opposed to vacuum - it was as generic as "diesel" is
today..) worked at 25psi or above. All the early locomotive boilers I have
found a figure for were intended to work at 50psi - though one has to remember
that the (a) the boiler couldn't sustain pressure when the engine was working
- pressure would be dropping as the engine ran, to be recovered at halts (b)
the safety valve would be fixed down while the engine was running (because a
deadweight valve would otherwise bounce and cost steam that was needed - and
tying the valve down was safe[1] because the boiler couldn't supply enough
steam to maintain pressure when the engine was working - boiler capacity being
defined more by water requirements than steam requirements in the earlies...).

2.
There was much greater latitude for water level variations in those boilers than
modern ones - had to be, I would think, if they were to work at all. However,
the large single flue tube would be horribly vunerable to water surges in
such a small, short boiler as the engine rocked wildly on the short rails (3'
rails, no suspension on the locomotive, short wheelbase..). Really, these
things were working on the very edge of practicality, and must have been
horribly prone to all kinds of disarrangement..

On 26/07/2011 08:35, harry wrote:
How would they make the glass tube in the very early days? *Must have
been a major problem.

Glass working is a very ancient technology, making the gauge glasses
would have been relatively simple compared to the problems of
constructing a high pressure boiler. *It was the sort of job you'd
happily sub-contract to the local glassworks and think no more about it..

There must have been an issue there, given how long it took for gauge glasses
to appear - it's not as if there wasn't a major glassmaking centre (Sunderland)
just down the way from the collieries where the Tyneside pioneers were working,
after all..

As it was, it doesn't seem to have been until the middle 1840s at the earliest
when they started to appear, and they don't seem to have been universal until
well after that. Making glass that you could be sure was stable and flawless
enough to resist that pressures involved (it's that "could be sure" bit....)
at a reasonable cost (because they'd always managed without up until then,
after all...) would have been the thing. In the first days of gauge glasses
I suspect they ordered from the glassworks and then /did/ think about them.
Extensively. Often at about 2am...

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

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level. Even so, as the water would flash off on release, it would be
hard to tell.
So what have they got on preserved locos? (Early ones I mean)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Jul 27, 2:50 am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:32:10 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

They were a powerfully good way of advertising a product, and
emphasised that firm/company was right on top of new technology.
Modern, and all that..

Having looked at a photo of a South Devon Pearson loco I'm not so sure
:-)

Just think how old-fashioned, bizarre and quaint a smartphone or an iPad
will look in 20 years, never mind 150...

Old-fashioned, bizarre and quaint steam tram after 120 years:
http://i52.tinypic.com/20gl3s1.jpg

with cast iron cylinders!

In message
, Sam
Wilson writes
I remember being told about a fusible plug coming away on a preserved
Black 5 on the S&C some years ago. IIRC correctly the plug had been
cross-threaded and no one noticed. The loco wasn't fitted with a
rocking grate and I was told the crew had to shovel the fire out through
the cab rather than just being able to drop it.
The usual way to drop a fire is by removing about six bars of the grate
and scraping the entire fire into it. Fire-droppers had a special
hooked fire iron to whip out the bars with and could drop a complete
fire in a matter of minutes. You couldn't shovel out a fire as a fire
iron is of no use towards the firehole doors and a standard shovel would
just catch fire if you attempted to remove burning coals with it.
--
Clive

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/07/2011 22:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
08:09:05 on Tue, 26 Jul 2011, bob remarked:
Just think how old-fashioned, bizarre and quaint a smartphone or an iPad
will look in 20 years, never mind 150...

Indeed, just watch a movie from the late '90s and wonder how we ever
managed with such bricks of phones. Go back to the mid '90s and even
top end phone still had things like extendable aerials. That's not
even 20 years ago.

On the other hand, most "tower" PCs, laptops, keyboards and mice, are
just the same as they were in the mid 90's. Not everything changes.

Even more recently, CRTs were still commonplace,
but these days they are already starting to look dated.

My last CRT monitors went a couple of years ago, but my first LCD was as
relatively recent as 2001 (and I'm still using it, albeit on a server
where the small screen size isn't an issue).

Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

I still have a CRT monitor I'm about to dispose of though it is still in
good working order. It's 4:3 and it's cheaper to replace it than get it
modded to 16:9

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:30:32 -0700, harry wrote:

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level. Even so, as the water would flash off on release, it would be
hard to tell.
So what have they got on preserved locos? (Early ones I mean)

Locomotion (1825, preserved 1850) has a two trycocks. The Hedley
(Wylam) engines don't have anything at all at the driver's end. I've
not found a photograph that shows the fireman's end well enough to
be sure whether there's anything there or not (Puffing Billy ceased work in
1862, Wylam Dilly had an extension to the fireman's end of the boiler
added in the 1860s and ceased work about 1865 - if anyone in London
or Edinburgh wants to pop into their respective museums, take a
picture of the fireman's end of these engines and upload it, then
it'd be appreciated!).

Side- and end-drawings of the Killingworth Stephenson engines (from
Wood) show no try-cocks at all, not even in the 1831 edition of the
book. The drawings are very detailed, and everything else seems
to be present and correct.

Stephenson's Billy got a new boiler in the 1870s, so although it's
an early engine the boiler practice is of a much later era.
Agenoria (1829, ceased work in the 1860s) has at least one trycock.
I've never seen a picture of the backhead of Invicta (1829),
though that end of the engine was subject to much modification
later in life.

Ahah. A breakthrough! Bailey and Giltheroe's book on the archeology
of Stephenson's Rocket state that it is fitted with a gauge cock
(try-cock) - so one of them - AND sight-gauge holes (all on the back-head).
A contemporary account says:
".. and there is a small glass tube affixed to the boiler, with
water in it, which indicates by its fullness or emptiness when
the creature wants water..."
So Rocket had a gauge-glass when running on the L&M.
Isaac Boulton - who saw Rocket running at Rainhill - says that there
wasn't a gauge glass there at first. Could it have been retro-fitted.
Northumbrian, built in 1830, certainly had a gauge glass from new.
More complication: there are holes (plugged) for a gauge glass on
the RH side of Rocket's boiler. Could it be that the first gauge
glass (the first locomotive gauge glass of all?) was mounted there, and
only later moved to the backhead, after the boiler and firebox were
modified to work with a higher water level (which involved fittng
a dome, amongst other things - Rocket having been stated to have
problems with priming..)
There are twin try-cocks on the front (chimney-end) of the boiler
of Rocket (why at that end?).

OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines
operated on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that
for such short runs the practice was to put a certain amount
of water in the boiler at the start (one known from experience
to be 'what she went well with'), then top up again at the end
of the run?
On the S&D (Locomotion) the runs were much longer, so something
was needed to allow the crew to check boiler levels en route
- thus the two try-cocks.
Presumably something better still was thought necessary for the
higher speeds and longer continuous runs that Rocket and her kin
would have to do, so the gauge-glass was introduced (there may
also have been worries about the multi-tube boiler being more
vunerable to water level issues).
I still can't figure out why Rocket has the two try-cocks at the
chimney end and only one at the back, though...

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

On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines
operated on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that
for such short runs the practice was to put a certain amount
of water in the boiler at the start (one known from experience
to be 'what she went well with'), then top up again at the end
of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

On the S&D (Locomotion) the runs were much longer, so something
was needed to allow the crew to check boiler levels en route
- thus the two try-cocks.
Presumably something better still was thought necessary for the
higher speeds and longer continuous runs that Rocket and her kin
would have to do, so the gauge-glass was introduced (there may
also have been worries about the multi-tube boiler being more
vunerable to water level issues).
I still can't figure out why Rocket has the two try-cocks at the
chimney end and only one at the back, though...

If she had a gauge glass from nearly new perhaps the single try-cock at
the back was an auxiliary fitting. The two at the front may have been
there for maintainence purposes (a quick check of the water level when
filling up at the start of the day or something.

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines operated
on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for such short runs
the practice was to put a certain amount of water in the boiler at the
start (one known from experience to be 'what she went well with'), then
top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping on
the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..

On the S&D (Locomotion) the runs were much longer, so something was
needed to allow the crew to check boiler levels en route - thus the two
try-cocks.
Presumably something better still was thought necessary for the higher
speeds and longer continuous runs that Rocket and her kin would have to
do, so the gauge-glass was introduced (there may also have been worries
about the multi-tube boiler being more vunerable to water level
issues).
I still can't figure out why Rocket has the two try-cocks at the
chimney end and only one at the back, though...

If she had a gauge glass from nearly new perhaps the single try-cock at
the back was an auxiliary fitting. The two at the front may have been
there for maintainence purposes (a quick check of the water level when
filling up at the start of the day or something.

That would figure, and I can imagine the back try-cock being there as
a double-check for reliability (and maybe as something to keep the driver
happy - not relying entirely on new and unknown technology!). Reliabilty
mostly though - Rocket just had to keep running for the duration of the
trials...

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

On 27/07/2011 10:29, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines operated
on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for such short runs
the practice was to put a certain amount of water in the boiler at the
start (one known from experience to be 'what she went well with'), then
top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping on
the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..


Fanny Kemble, who definitely had the hots for George S, doesn't mention
him whipping out his mallet when he took her for a ride.

Now there's an excuse, We'll have to stop, my try-cock's run dry!


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

On Jul 26, 10:30*pm, harry wrote:

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level. *

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a
wooden float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the
outside. As pressures were low, leakage and mis-reading due to
pressure effects weren't a problem. This was used on ships too, but
was unsuccessful on locomotives (although it was tried), owing to the
float being shaken around - it worked when stationary though.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:00:42 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 10:29, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines
operated on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for such
short runs the practice was to put a certain amount of water in the
boiler at the start (one known from experience to be 'what she went
well with'), then top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation
though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping
on the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..


Fanny Kemble, who definitely had the hots for George S, doesn't mention
him whipping out his mallet when he took her for a ride.

:-)

OTOH, Rocket did have that new-fangled gauge-glass.

Now there's an excuse, We'll have to stop, my try-cock's run dry!

The pet-cock might have needed some manipulation (to keep the feed-pump
working, of course..)

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:06:11 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:30Â*pm, harry wrote:

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level.

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a wooden
float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the outside.
As pressures were low, leakage and mis-reading due to pressure effects
weren't a problem. This was used on ships too, but was unsuccessful on
locomotives (although it was tried), owing to the float being shaken
around - it worked when stationary though.

That would mean a small hole in the top of the boiler, then? That should be
reasonably easy to check for on the surviving locomotives if it was used
(the photographs of the inside of Wylam Dilly's boiler in ER2 that I'm
looking at don't seem to show any such thing, though, nor is there any
sign of it in the diagram of boiler plates from both the surviving Wylam
engines in the same article..).

I'm getting more and more sure there's some subtlety in the way these early
machines were operated that I'm missing - some lost art of working those
boilers...

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

Andy Breen wrote:
I'm getting more and more sure there's some subtlety in the way these early
machines were operated that I'm missing - some lost art of working those
boilers...

'Twas ever so. New tchnology comes along, and the old ways get lost.

How many people can properly set the mixture on a gas lamp nowadays just
by looking and listening?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:21:51 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Andy Breen wrote:
I'm getting more and more sure there's some subtlety in the way these
early machines were operated that I'm missing - some lost art of
working those boilers...

'Twas ever so. New tchnology comes along, and the old ways get lost.

How many people can properly set the mixture on a gas lamp nowadays just
by looking and listening?

I could a few years ago, back when the electricity supply out here could be
a bit intermittent and (bottled) gas lamps were one of my standbys. Not sure
I could do it now, at least not without a few goes.

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:00:42 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 10:29, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines
operated on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for such
short runs the practice was to put a certain amount of water in the
boiler at the start (one known from experience to be 'what she went
well with'), then top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation
though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping
on the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..


Fanny Kemble, who definitely had the hots for George S, doesn't mention
him whipping out his mallet when he took her for a ride.

Now there's an excuse, We'll have to stop, my try-cock's run dry!

It's probably just as well she never met Trevithick. I mean, the guy
already had his own pr0n-star name[1], and he was famous for his
four-way cock..

[1] "Captain Dick"
[2] Used to control the admission and exhaust of steam from the cylinder,
later replaced by other engineers with the slide-valve.

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

On Jul 27, 9:51*am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. *I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

As mine is a fairly basic 21" model, I'm getting tempted to get a
better one (still CRT) from Freecycle, though. Not quite up for
spending 200+ quid on a flat-screen when they will only get cheaper.

Neil

On Jul 27, 12:15*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a wooden
float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the outside.

That would mean a small hole in the top of the boiler, then?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...nuff_Mills.jpg

From the left, level gauge with pulley for the wire, deadweight and
lever safety valve, stop valve and manhole.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:51:04 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:15Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a
wooden float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the
outside.

That would mean a small hole in the top of the boiler, then?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...nuff_Mills.jpg

From the left, level gauge with pulley for the wire, deadweight and
lever safety valve, stop valve and manhole.

OK. Such things should be easy to check for on surviving early locomotives
(sadly, I don't have one to hand...).

I'm not seeing such a fitting (or signs of one) on the photographs of
the Wylam engines, Agenoria or Locomotion that I can call on from here,
but I've not actually got any close-ups of the boiler top in any of those
cases..
--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself

On 27/07/2011 12:21, John Williamson wrote:
Andy Breen wrote:
I'm getting more and more sure there's some subtlety in the way these
early machines were operated that I'm missing - some lost art of
working those
boilers...

'Twas ever so. New tchnology comes along, and the old ways get lost.

How many people can properly set the mixture on a gas lamp nowadays just
by looking and listening?


Anyone used to a bunsen burner perhaps.

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

On Jul 27, 10:29*am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines operated
on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for such short runs
the practice was to put a certain amount of water in the boiler at the
start (one known from experience to be 'what she went well with'), then
top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping on
the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..

On the S&D (Locomotion) the runs were much longer, so something was
needed to allow the crew to check boiler levels en route - thus the two
try-cocks.
Presumably something better still was thought necessary for the higher
speeds and longer continuous runs that Rocket and her kin would have to
do, so the gauge-glass was introduced (there may also have been worries
about the multi-tube boiler being more vunerable to water level
issues).
I still can't figure out why Rocket has the two try-cocks at the
chimney end and only one at the back, though...

If she had a gauge glass from nearly new perhaps the single try-cock at
the back was an auxiliary fitting. *The two at the front may have been
there for maintainence purposes (a quick check of the water level when
filling up at the start of the day or something.

That would figure, and I can imagine the back try-cock being there as
a double-check for reliability (and maybe as something to keep the driver
happy - not relying entirely on new and unknown technology!). Reliabilty
mostly though - Rocket just had to keep running for the duration of the
trials...

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

If you release boiler water. it instantly flashes off into steam.

Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. (Never
had to)
I suppose theoretically there would be a different noise and volume of
steam.

On 27/07/2011 19:14, harry wrote:
If you release boiler water. it instantly flashes off into steam.

Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. (Never
had to)
I suppose theoretically there would be a different noise and volume of

Sounds like one of those things the average person would never be able
to differentiate but to someone who used the system all the time, they
would be able to tell the difference.

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

On Jul 27, 12:06*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:30*pm, harry wrote:

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level. *

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a
wooden float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the
outside. As pressures were low, leakage and mis-reading due to
pressure effects weren't a problem. This was used on ships too, but
was unsuccessful on locomotives (although it was tried), owing to the
float being shaken around - it worked when stationary though.

Hmm. That was before my time. I can see how that would work.
Automatic water level controls and alarms work on a similar principle
but with metal floats.

On Jul 27, 12:45*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:51*am, Andy Breen wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. *I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

As mine is a fairly basic 21" model, I'm getting tempted to get a
better one (still CRT) from Freecycle, though. *Not quite up for
spending 200+ quid on a flat-screen when they will only get cheaper.

Neil

The picture quality on the new TVs is astounding, as is sound quality.
Pity there's only **** to watch.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:14:04 -0700, harry wrote:

On Jul 27, 10:29Â*am, Andy Breen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:33:36 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 27/07/2011 09:20, Andy Breen wrote:
OK. Hypothesis. The Wylam engines and the Killingworth engines
operated on short runs - 2-3 miles maximum. Could it be that for
such short runs the practice was to put a certain amount of water in
the boiler at the start (one known from experience to be 'what she
went well with'), then top up again at the end of the run?

Sounds a practical answer.

I'd be interested whether Harry reckons it could work - from the point
of view of getting steam from the boiler, not from any perspective of
what anyone in the last century or so would consider safe operation
though!

I'm wondering if they actually used the stillman's old trick of tapping
on the boiler with a wooden mallet to 'sound' for the water level..

On the S&D (Locomotion) the runs were much longer, so something was
needed to allow the crew to check boiler levels en route - thus the
two try-cocks.
Presumably something better still was thought necessary for the
higher speeds and longer continuous runs that Rocket and her kin
would have to do, so the gauge-glass was introduced (there may also
have been worries about the multi-tube boiler being more vunerable
to water level issues).
I still can't figure out why Rocket has the two try-cocks at the
chimney end and only one at the back, though...

If she had a gauge glass from nearly new perhaps the single try-cock
at the back was an auxiliary fitting. Â*The two at the front may have
been there for maintainence purposes (a quick check of the water
level when filling up at the start of the day or something.

That would figure, and I can imagine the back try-cock being there as a
double-check for reliability (and maybe as something to keep the driver
happy - not relying entirely on new and unknown technology!).
Reliabilty mostly though - Rocket just had to keep running for the
duration of the trials...


If you release boiler water. it instantly flashes off into steam.

Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. (Never
had to)
I suppose theoretically there would be a different noise and volume of
steam.

Perhaps one of those things that could be spotted with practice?
The learning process might have been interesting, and there might have been
some attrition..

Thanks for that point of information about boiler cocks. This is exactly
the sort of thing that's making me think that there must have been a whole
- now long lost? - set of skills and practices which were necessary to
make these things work. All of which, I've suddenly realised, must have
been built up in a few months or so (how many of the enginemen handling
these things can have seen even a stationary Trevithick-type engine before?).

No wonder George Stephenson made it a core business practice to provide a
trained driver with each locomotive (or, I think, any engine) sold.. That
probably did more for reliable working than anything else, and must have
greatly helped in his building up a reputation.

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

On Jul 27, 12:51*pm, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:15*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a wooden
float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the outside.
That would mean a small hole in the top of the boiler, then?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...r_safety_valve,...

From the left, level gauge with pulley for the wire, deadweight and
lever safety valve, stop valve and manhole.

Fascinating. I wonder how the hole where the wire went through was
made steam tight? Mush hada very big float to overcome the friction.
The plates seem extra-ordinarily thin. Interesting brickwork precludes
inspections too.

On Jul 27, 1:53*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 27/07/2011 12:21, John Williamson wrote:

Andy Breen wrote:
I'm getting more and more sure there's some subtlety in the way these
early machines were operated that I'm missing - some lost art of
working those
boilers...

'Twas ever so. New tchnology comes along, and the old ways get lost.

How many people can properly set the mixture on a gas lamp nowadays just
by looking and listening?

Anyone used to a bunsen burner perhaps.

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

Any one that uses oxy-acetylene welding equipment.

"Andy Breen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

+3.

I'm of the mindset that I don't throw out items that work and meet my needs.
Current living room telly second hand from a relative, getting on for 20
years old. Bedroom telly bought with a month's overtime in 1998. And still
got an old and working Hitachi set which was a Christmas present in I think
1988 - no remote but works fine. Was my monitor for the Commodore 64 for a
good while!

James

James Heaton wrote:
"Andy Breen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

+3.

I'm of the mindset that I don't throw out items that work and meet my
needs. Current living room telly second hand from a relative, getting on
for 20 years old. Bedroom telly bought with a month's overtime in
1998. And still got an old and working Hitachi set which was a
Christmas present in I think 1988 - no remote but works fine. Was my
monitor for the Commodore 64 for a good while!



I did throw outr a 1978 telly recently.
I COULD have put an STB on it..but the rest are all CRT.

One I even bought new.

James

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Jul 27, 12:45*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:51*am, Andy Breen wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. *I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

As mine is a fairly basic 21" model, I'm getting tempted to get a
better one (still CRT) from Freecycle, though. *Not quite up for
spending 200+ quid on a flat-screen when they will only get cheaper.

Neil

The picture quality on the new TVs is astounding, as is sound quality.
Pity there's only **** to watch.

Indeed out Bravia is superb, much better than any others I've seen and
thats on a good standard def signal..

As said.. Pity about the programming....
--
Tony Sayer

No wonder George Stephenson made it a core business practice to provide a
trained driver with each locomotive (or, I think, any engine) sold.. That
probably did more for reliable working than anything else, and must have
greatly helped in his building up a reputation.


Yes don't suppose in those days they read the 'effing manual either then


Mind you they prolly had a decent excuse in they couldn't read it
anyway;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article
s.com, Andy Dingley scribeth thus
On Jul 26, 10:30*pm, harry wrote:

The only way I can think of determining water level without a sight
glass, would be by having trycocks above and below the aimed for water
level. *

The standard way for a very long time on stationary boilers was a
wooden float on the water level, linked through a wire or cord to the
outside. As pressures were low, leakage and mis-reading due to
pressure effects weren't a problem. This was used on ships too, but
was unsuccessful on locomotives (although it was tried), owing to the
float being shaken around - it worked when stationary though.

I was told that in days of olde when the Cambridge water co built their
first reservoir up on Lime Kiln Hill they used a long pole with a flag
thereon which rose and fell depending on the water level.

An engine man some distance away used that seen via a telescope to judge
how much water to pump uphill..

And no I don't know what they did on foggy days, suppose they had a
bloke on a horse ride up there to have a butchers;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:16:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

No wonder George Stephenson made it a core business practice to provide
a trained driver with each locomotive (or, I think, any engine) sold..
That probably did more for reliable working than anything else, and must
have greatly helped in his building up a reputation.


Yes don't suppose in those days they read the 'effing manual either then

Wouldn't be one (how could there be, with the first engines..). "Write it
if you get the chance". Stephenson does seem to be the first to think
about transferring expertise in how to work a locomotive (mind, wasn't he
copying what Boulton and Watt had done with stationary engines - supply
someone trained to worK the engine as part of the package?[1]).


Mind you they prolly had a decent excuse in they couldn't read it
anyway;!...

It's noticable how many of the early engine drivers became great men in the
developing railways - Daniel Gooch and Edward Fletcher were two of Stephenson's
drivers... Really, in terms of career progression (if you didn't meet an early
end) it must have been a bit like being a computer engineer in the early
1960s (or the Web 2.x lot a few years ago..).

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

On 27/07/2011 19:19, harry wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:45 pm, Neil wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:51 am, Andy wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:35:32 +0100, John Williamson wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:11 +0100, Roland
wrote:
Anyone here still watching a CRT television?

Yep. I watch so little TV I can't be bothered changing it.

Neil

+1

+2

As mine is a fairly basic 21" model, I'm getting tempted to get a
better one (still CRT) from Freecycle, though. Not quite up for
spending 200+ quid on a flat-screen when they will only get cheaper.

Neil

The picture quality on the new TVs is astounding, as is sound quality.
Pity there's only **** to watch.

Sound quality on many flat panels is pretty dismal actually... they
often don't have the case volume for a decent speaker enclosure.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message
,
harry writes
If you release boiler water. it instantly flashes off into steam.
Whether you could tell the difference as to whether steam or water was
present on opening the cock is an experiment I've never tried. (Never
had to)
I suppose theoretically there would be a different noise and volume of
steam.
Western engines only had one sight glass and two cocks, the bottom one
dribbled water, it did not flash into steam but evaporated about 6 to 12
inches down the boiler casing in the cab.
--
Clive