Traction Engine Identification Help Please….

[MichaelRParticipant @michaelr]

A lot has been said about the boiler of this engine and “rightly so” but that safety valve is very suspect to me, it has no chimneys to house the valves and the lever that should hold the valves in the chimneys is jammed upside down onto what may be the valves, how it works I wouldn’t know, I don’t think that it is a original designed safety valve a boiler inspector would may be question the valve before any test.

Just my thoughts.

MichaelR

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Wouldn’t that Juliet have a 7″ boiler, some 40% larger than what is being discussed here? And we have not even seen the size and number of tubes yet.

Even if an independant inspector could look at a sand blasted old steel boiler he would find it difficult to see what weld prep was used and if the prep was deep enough or of the correct type. Same applies to the metal if it is boiler plate or just mild steel. At the every least he may want to derate the working pressure whatever that may be.

Also without any signs of a manhole it is going to be hard to see what the crown stay arrangement is though I suppose a small camera might be able to go in through one of the fitting holes. Same would apply to the condition of the inside as most steel traction engine boilers have a man hole.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Not all traction engines have chimneys to the safety valves. Model and full size Fowlers don’t and is it upside down, most tend to curl upwards or do you mean the spring should be below the lever when you say it is upside down, again see the Fowler style. Possibly missing the two clevis type parts where the small holes are.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I’d not worry too much about the safety-valves either though I think I’d want a lock-nut on the stem.

It’s hard to tell the exact shape of the lever, but in that form its contacts with the valve heads ought be semi-circular.

.

I take you point about the problem with establishing the structure of the welds, if this boiler is of steel. I am not though really convinced that mild-steel is somehow any different for having certificates of conformity – they supposedly say only that the metal consistently meets an industrial standard, not whether it is suitable for a given application. It still goes rusty! Far more important is the structure and weld quality, and no, those will be very hard to assess.

Do we really know what this boiler is made from, though?

I don’t have the original drawings for my loco but do know it was built more or less just by copying the LBSC ones by time-two on the dimensions – but copying fairly liberally. Its original boiler, back in the early-1980s, doubtless used whatever off-cuts of standard pipe and hot-rolled steel plate happened to be available, though it was welded properly.

I’ve just tried to obtain the basic sizes of its replacement boiler, of copper. It had to fit the same space including smokebox diameter (also apparently made from ordinary steel pipe) and slightly <6″ width between the frames, so its shell is of 6″ internal diameter, roughly 17″ long between tube-plates. Whatever LBSC had specified.

As far as I can measure it by tape-measure, the grate is only about 7″ long by 3.5 – 4″ wide. (The grate and ashpan do not fall clear of the locomotive; the grate swings down to drop the fire. So not easy to measure.) 9 half-inch tubes, 3 superheater flues.

So not very dissimilar to this traction-engine, at least in overall size.

[Bill MorganParticipant @billmorgan86057]

Again, thanks to all that have spent the time to send me these detailed replies, I honestly didn’t expect such a response. As soon as I am able I will get a magnet and do some investigation on the boiler and also try and take some photos inside the smoke box, fire box and ash pan. Thank you again gentlemen. Back soon, Bill.

[Author]

Posts