Traction Engine Identification Help Please….

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes, comes up about 5.2mm so araond 5g

Certainly is rail practice with the feed going down to the cylinders

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Bill –

Unfortunately being a coded welder would not be enough. That boiler is essentially irrepairable because the worst welds are in the least accessible place, and raise doubts about the condition of those elsewhere.

The engine is recoverable but only with a lot of expensive work(new boiler), and a lots of designing and sometimes-heavy machining to replace the lost mechanical parts.

 

Dave –

That blower arrangement is normal on a railway locomotive because it has to be operable from the footplate. A locomotive is not good at natural draught, unlike a traction-engine with its tall chimney. Further, the official handbook that was issued by British Railways to their crews makes starkly clear that the blower is necessary at certain times during the journey, to prevent blow-backs that would engulf the driver and fireman in flames. This was particularly so in tunnels, where the roof impedes the exhaust rising from the chimney.

On the other hand, literature dating from road steam vehicles’ commercial days does advise the “steam jet” be used sparingly, to avoid undue strains on the boiler by over-enthusiastic fire-drawing. I am not sure I understand that but it is not for me to argue with the vehicles’ manufacturers – may they Rest in Peace! Though autobiographies by former operators suggest many road engine-men received only very basic training, unlike on the railways, and they and the owners frequently abused and neglected what were after all only tools of the trade, some sold with typically ten-year write-down costs in mind.

So the blower valve was put in about the least accessible place available, without even a reach-rod back to the man-stand. Safely away from wandering hands.

…….

This saga of Bill’s engine is a sad one indeed, and I have been party to condemning a brand-new boiler built faithfully by a skilled metalworker but novice engineman, to shockingly bad drawings.

The builder was a retired copper-smith, a friend of a club member, and he had decided to build a miniature locomotive of (from memory) 3.5″ gauge. He started with the boiler as matching his professional experience.

The pair turned up to give the boiler a hydraulic test. After the social introductions, everyone, including the best craftsmen in the society, complimented the builder on his beautifully silver-brazed boiler with its perfect jointing.

Then when I turned it gently over on a clean blanket so we could observe its innards, we had a cruel shock.

Of LNER pattern, the arched inner firebox was more MacDonald’s ‘M’ than anything Darlington. There were a few stays in the throat-plate and backhead, but none in the water-legs, no sign of any crown, rod or girder stays.

The unfortunate builder had thought to bring the drawing, and we all studied it carefully.

Yes, he had worked exactly to it – including no stays. We also saw no designer’s or publisher’s name on the rather poor photocopy. Goodness knows what the engine’s other drawings were like.

What was odder still, he would not reveal the source of the drawings. We wanted to write to ME to warn others of this disastrously bad “design”.   Sadly assured it could not be repaired and fitted properly, he left with his armful of now-scrap copper, and we never heard from or of him, again.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Tales of boilers where the builder seems to have no idea of the requirements to restrain the pressure inside a boiler by staying Etc seem unfortunately common if what one sees on an auction site we all know is anything to go by. I have a steel boiler that although having, on the face of it good welding and the throat plate and backhead have threaded stays to the normal pattern, the 2 sides have threaded holes from the outside but the bolts only go into the water space in the legs. Never could work out why ? Needless to say it was never steamed. Noel.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Sorry – missed out an important point about the LNER locomotive boiler.

We did ask its builder, and he told us he had hydraulically tested it to working-pressure only… he assured us.

As a coppersmith, and possibly although I don’t know working for the major MoD defence research laboratories local to us at the time, he was likely familiar with pressure-tests, but not with testing miniature boilers.

I would guess he was looking for leaks, but was clearly unaware he was crushing the inner firebox. He had not seen it until we showed him! Thinking about it, as I remember the damage was a severe lengthwise fold, perhaps indicating girder stays but those not connected to the outer firebox, so the metal folded parallel to them.

 

The source of the “design” remains as unknown as why the poor chap would not tell us.

….

There have been sorry wrecks displayed at the exhibition but with one exception they were all steel boilers that failed purely by corrosion – and that will kill any boiler irrespective of how much paperwork you throw at it. This happened to my engine’s original, steel boiler; with pits in the firebox down to 0.03″ thin.

The exception was a large locomotive boiler (7-1/4″ gauge I think), in copper. It was obvious even to my eye that the builder had been unable to heat enough metal rapidly and consistently enough for the silver-brazing to work properly, so losing much of the alloy in partly dissociated, semi-botryoidal deposits away from the joint. The section also revealed the smoke-box tubeplate flange was too small for the shell. Rather than correct it before assembly, the desperate builder had tried to planish the shell down to meet it. Almost predictably the hammering had slightly closed the flange inwards, leaving a very narrow line-contact that probably still did not match the distorted shell.

Back home I looked long and hard at my machined steam-wagon boiler components, all in copper, and ordered one from Western Steam.  I don’t know why I did not ask if they could use at least the outer shell I had made but not assembled: copper boilers do not need material certificates, or did not.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

WHY BOTHER TO CERTIFY A BOILER ? To me the Medina County Fair explosion of a traction engine in 2001 that killed 5, the State in question had no testing system is one reason. For more tales of failure try ” Locomotive boiler Explosions ” by Hewison or the awesome tome by Mc Ewan, “Historic Boiler Explosions” this latter defies belief as to the destruction that can be caused ! If your thinking of building a boiler, buy this book first. Noel.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

My oldest reference-book, dated 1908 I think, has a short section on boiler explosions, all on stationary plant (factories). The notes and engravings were collated from insurance reports.

The most common causes of failures were not intrinsic weaknesses or poor material of the boilers themselves; but neglected corrosion, poor or no maintenance, and sometimes poor design of the boiler settings.

Of the last, this was typically mounting horizontal boilers on brickwork that allowed wet ash to linger against the shell, seriously corroding the plates from outside.

The most common design flaw seemed to have been making the shells too rigid! This led to over-stressing the rivet-joints, causing grooving and eventually breaking.

That book does not deal with traction-engine and locomotive explosions, but too many traction-engine boilers burst thanks to neglect and abuse.

 

….

So why do we “Bother” to certify our boilers?

A little history lesson…….

Our hobby is thankfully very safe, and I know, second-hand, of only one miniature locomotive boiler bursting. There may have been others, I don’t know.

I was told of it by my uncle, and not at his own club’s track but another where he was a guest. He saw the explosion, at a distance. I recall he told me the longitudinal seam had failed, unwrapping the shell with enough force to wreck the chassis. Luckily no-one was injured. Now, this was before the formal procedure for testing boilers was established, and analysis by a materials laboratory concluded the likely cause was excessive hydraulic test-pressure straining the copper boiler beyond its elastic limit, so successive steamings took it to failure at working pressure.

I don’t know when that happened, but in his Manual of Model Steam Locomotive Construction, p.120, Martin Evans stated the boiler should be tested hydraulically to twice working pressure “(or a little less)” , and annually for a locomotive in regular service. This particularly for steel boilers “owing to the possibility of rusting”. Nothing about the weld quality; but the earlier text in that chapter implies using the same construction method for mild-steel or stainless-steel as copper boilers! He considers the problem with stainless-steel would be the difficulty of flanging it….

My copy is of the 1962 revision last reprinted in 1970, so things have changed since. Our modern test regime is based on the PER specifications drawn from industry, and though slightly more stringent than the law called for, it is kinder to the boilers than that evidently thought right fifty years ago.

 

I have also known,. this time personally, of another failure in service; of a steel boiler and only about twenty years ago – so certified more or less to present standards. Corrosion eventually pierced the inner firebox wall, but luckily “all” that happened was the escaping water extinguished the fire. Dissection showed the weakened walls were perhaps held together by the scale and iron-oxide choke.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

The first recorded locomotive boiler explosion was the “Best Friend of Charleston” when the fireman annoyed by the noise of the safety valve, tied it down!

A little more recently, post WW2, one the big articulated used by either B&O or C&O suffered a boiler explosion.  It tore the boiler off the frames and left it upturned on the severely damaged track.

What caused that, I never discovered.

The risk with a boiler under steam pressure is not just the pressure energy contained, (I know someone who lost fingers when a fairly small compressed air reservoir exploded) but additionally the heat energy contained in the steam. That is quite capable of removing flesh!

In UK, because of our strict boiler regulations, a boiler explosion is, AFAIK, unknown.

Long may it remain so!

Howard

[noel shelley]

On noel shelley Said:

WHY BOTHER TO CERTIFY A BOILER ? To me the Medina County Fair explosion of a traction engine in 2001 that killed 5, the State in question had no testing system is one reason. For more tales of failure try ” Locomotive boiler Explosions ” by Hewison or the awesome tome by Mc Ewan, “Historic Boiler Explosions” this latter defies belief as to the destruction that can be caused ! If your thinking of building a boiler, buy this book first. Noel.

After reading Noel’s post I had a look on Abe Books and found a copy of “Locomotive boiler Explosions” for a sub £1 price, so I bought it, and an interesting (and alarming) read it is too.

A curious thing I noticed was that in the many instances of a firebox side collapsing (usually due to poor/no inspection or maintenance), practically all were the left hand side – is there any reason why this side might be more prone to failure, or am I just seeing a pattern that isn’t really there?

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Ummm, we have rather digressed from what to do with this unfortunate traction-engine.

Any resolution?

[Bill MorganParticipant @billmorgan86057]

Well maybe…..maybe…..it may not be such a sad ending for this engine after all, I placed an honestly described action on ebay and when the winning bidder collected the engine last night I asked what he was going to do with it, ‘well, my brother in law is a boiler maker’ was his initial reply. He was very pleased with his purchase and very enthusiastic about rebuilding it with a new boiler etc, he said he would email me photos of the progress and the finished engine, if anyone is interested in seeing them I will post them on here, obviously this isn’t going to happen over night so come back and have a check again now and then.

Thanks again chaps,

Bill.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Oh, that sounds hopeful!

Yes – I’m sure you and I would not be the only ones who would like to view its progress!

[Author]

Posts