• British steam in the 1960s

  • Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of Canada and the United States.
Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of Canada and the United States.

Moderators: Komachi, David Benton

  by george matthews
 
philipmartin wrote:This American is surprised to see a lot of inside connected engines working.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g8Nquc7g1E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFa8FytDUSc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I am glad to say there are no more steam locomotives in timetabled service on the main network. Nasty converters of coal to carbon dioxide.
  by philipmartin
 
george matthews wrote: Nasty converters of coal to carbon dioxide.
Perhaps, but I think they are fascinating. Where would the world be if they hadn't existed?
  by george matthews
 
philipmartin wrote:
george matthews wrote: Nasty converters of coal to carbon dioxide.
Perhaps, but I think they are fascinating. Where would the world be if they hadn't existed?
Where will the world be if we don't phase them out as soon as possible?
  by johnthefireman
 
george matthews wrote:Where will the world be if we don't phase them out as soon as possible?
As far as I'm aware they have already been phased out of timetabled mainstream service throughout virtually the whole world. China still has a small number, decreasing rapidly, and Zimbabwe runs a handful due to diesel shortages and the weak economy, but apart from that they are used only on heritage and tourist operations. I doubt whether there are more than a few hundred operational steam locos left in the world, and most of those run only occasionally on pretty short journeys.
  by philipmartin
 
It is possible to view steam locomotives as helping to destroy life on this planet and still appreciate these marvelous machines, (true, it helps if you are a railfan.) In the thousands of years that man has existed, steam was only harnessed two hundred years ago and in its various applications gave us a start on the unimaginable material wealth we enjoy today.
Plus, the Railway Roundabout video is very good. I would expect a person familiar with the places shown to get even more enjoyment from this video than I do.
  by philipmartin
 
On the footplate of 71000 Duke of Gloucester Winchfield to Eastleigh in 2006. I don't believe the fireman does this every day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHuYeYttBb8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GCR (46521)'Take A Ride on The Footplate'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJbbGBE09s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by george matthews
 
philipmartin wrote:It is possible to view steam locomotives as helping to destroy life on this planet and still appreciate these marvelous machines, (true, it helps if you are a railfan.) In the thousands of years that man has existed, steam was only harnessed two hundred years ago and in its various applications gave us a start on the unimaginable material wealth we enjoy today.
Plus, the Railway Roundabout video is very good. I would expect a person familiar with the places shown to get even more enjoyment from this video than I do.
The carbon dioxide crisis really got going with the invention of steam. I see no reason to praise it.
  by philipmartin
 
These videos are good, from the point of view of a railfan. In one of them I became reacquainted with the British term "stoker" for fireman. In one of the Jeeves series, there is an American millionaire family named Stoker.
  by johnthefireman
 
I wouldn't have thought stoker was a quintessentially British term for fireman, although it may have been used occasionally; we normally say fireman, and to be honest I thought stoker was a US term (and it is definitely the Afrikaans term). The word stoker was used on steamships.

We use "driver" where in the USA I believe you use "engineer".
Last edited by johnthefireman on Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by philipmartin
 
Stoker for locomotive fireman is not a North American term. I use "driver" in a British context, but not an American one. The Boers must have gotten "stoker" from Kitchener and his friends.
  by talltim
 
The only time I have come across stoker with regards to steam trains is automatic stokers, i.e. a mechanical replacement for the fireman. Not sure they were ever used int he UK, there's not room in the locos.
  by philipmartin
 
We have them in North America. It's an auger from the tender to the fire box that shoots coal into the fire box.
The fireman operates it. A steam engine without a fireman: that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Here's a brief wiki article and a photo of one.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/appliances/stoker.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some South African 15Fs had them. This may not come as a surprise to John.
"The pre-war Class 15Fs were hand stoked and were delivered without smoke deflectors. The original twenty-one Berliner and Henschel-builts remained hand-fired for their full working lives. On the pre-war NBL-builts, on the other hand, provision was made in the design to later convert them to mechanical stoking. A mechanical stoker was tested on number 2923 before the remaining locomotives of that group were all equipped with such stokers by the late 1940s. Their brake systems consisted of steam brakes on the engines and vacuum brakes on the tenders." wiki.
  by johnthefireman
 
philipmartin wrote:The fireman operates it. A steam engine without a fireman: that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
As you say, the fireman operates it. The fireman has other tasks, including maintaining the level of water in the boiler and double-checking the signals with the driver, so it's not a steam engine without a fireman.

I've operated mechanical stokers on the South African 15F, 25NC and GMAM classes. It's basically a screw or worm gear that brings coal from a trough under the bunker to just below the firehole door, where there are adjustable jets of steam to blow the coal to where you want it in the firebox.

Mechanical stokers certainly save you a lot of muscle power, but they are tricky beasts. You have to keep your eye on them otherwise you suddenly find steam dropping off and a mountain of unburnt coal in the wrong place. They seem to have been designed for optimal running at high speed with heavy loads, and you can achieve a nice steady thin fire which looks almost liquid. But when you're running slowly with light loads you often find that you can't run the stoker slowly enough (it keeps stopping) so you have to keep switching it on and off. You also have to watch out for jams. There are times when you have to fire by hand, eg when it jams, when running very slowly, when shunting, and packing the back corners of the firebox before a journey or before a steep uphill gradient. When you do have to hand-fire a mechanically-stoked loco it really is a bugger, as the firehole is at the wrong height, the firehole door gets in the way (it's a flap rather than the usual sliding doors) and the stoker itself prevents you standing where you really need to stand for firing.

One night I got called out with another fireman to relieve a crew who had had to hand-fire a mechanically-fired 15F all day because the stoker had jammed with fine coal dust which had become a solid mass; the loco also had a leaking tube. Driver, fireman and pilot (who happened to be an old steam driver himself) all took turns at firing. They were absolutely knackered. The two of us then spent the whole night on our hands and knees in the bunker scratching away at packed-coal dust, then running the stoker until it jammed again, then scratching away some more. Finally, by the time the crew booked on again next morning, we were able to hand them a loco with a working stoker, much to everyone's relief.
  by philipmartin
 
John- thank you for sharing your first hand experience with us. Knackered- I'll have to add that to my vocabulary.