Coal fired vertical boiler loco

[andysleigh]

Well, following the article in the recent SMT, i have decided to make a coal fired vertical boiler loco.

Its going to use a couple of old mamod cylinder that i have spare.

[mhlr]

I thought you were gunna use Wilesco cylinders?

[andysleigh]

I thought you were gunna use Wilesco cylinders?

i thought you would mention the cylinders (because they are mamods right)

Because i have two mamod cylinders spare, and they are smaller than wilescos, also can change directrion with a lever, not by pushing it.

This is a diffrent design, which is smaller than the previous one

[mhlr]

Right. Just wondered, as you're last design had Wilesco cylinders that u had spare.

[SillyBilly]

If I ever have a go at one I'd deffiantley go for two upgrade mamod cylinders, that way you only have to buy the mamod frames, cut them in half, allready the holes for the shaft will be true, then you just have to bolt them on with some angle.

[ACLR]

looks like a great project Andy
look forward to the progress

[SillyBilly]

Having read the comments on the 16mm e-group, about the run-time, etc... I am thinking that with two cylinders the water comsumption rises considerably, you'd forever have the top-up bottle in your hand, because you'd want a lap from it atleast, the amount of water you'd be pumping in would cool the boiler=no steam=no blower=back to the electric blower=fail.

Go for the single cylinder, it's proven it'll work.

[andysleigh]

nope

i am sticking with two.

[SillyBilly]

It's a big risk your taking, I hope it works for you.

[alan2525]

Looking at the size of the boiler and the inefficiency of the firebox, I would have thought it would struggle to supply the double acting cylinders with enough steam, especially the extra resistance from the upgraded cylinders with the much stiffer springs and o rings.

Maybe a little twin cylinder made from regular single acting ossies would work better? especially as it'd be suitably geared down and used with the grooved 'extra power' cylinders.

[SillyBilly]

Might you not just aswell build it with one upgraded cylinder rather than messing around producing a two smaller cylinder unit which would probably have the same power output?

[andysleigh]

two cylinders looks better.

and if coal doesnt work , then it shall get a gas burner.

[SillyBilly]

No matter what burner you put in it, it still won't be able to cope with the steam supply.

[Endless, Nameless]

Do I get the impression a mixture of enthusiasm and sheer bloody mindedness may be overpowering engineering ability and quite possibly common sense here?

Or maybe I'm just cynical.

Either way, it's an interesting project and I shall be watching carefully.

[andysleigh]

No matter what burner you put in it, it still won't be able to cope with the steam supply.

so now your assuming that no burner will be able to supply enough steam for two oscillating cylinders????

[SillyBilly]

No, read what I write properley, the boiler's water and steam capacity is likely to be insufficient to power two cylinders.

[andysleigh]

i did read it properley

you said "No matter what burner you put in it, it still won't be able to cope with the steam supply."

To me, that sounds like your assuming that no burner at all can supply enough steam.

And ok, i will use ONE cylinder, even tho i dont really want to, and it doesnt look as good.

[pauly]

I though coal burned at higher temperatures than gas so if a coal burner couldn't handle it a gas burner would be worse.

[made-in-england]

from memory coal does not burn as hot but burns longer and with a more steady supply of heat. May be wrong and confusing it with somting else

[SillyBilly]

you said "No matter what burner you put in it, it still won't be able to cope with the steam supply."

To me, that sounds like your adduming that no burner at all can supply enough steam.

Because from what you wrote about changing the burner implied that a change in burner would improve the possibility of a steady steam supply.