RE: [steam_tech] Re: Bulleid details (was British Valves but it drifted too badly... ;-})
>Not quite fair, if I may, and I suspect playing the Devil's advocate is not, of neccessity,
>Bulleid's (original) objectives appeared to be: -
>- total weight of the lokie available for adhesion
Stuart Kean's comments:
This is not much use as there was so little tractive effort available. Other more conventional locos provide more tractive effort for the same axle load.
>- elimination of most of the troublesome and maintenance intensive aspects of the
>conventional lokie boiler
There is no evidence that this boiler would have done that without compromising the great strength of the conventional locomotive boiler; its ability to produce steam quickly at a widely varying rate without hurting itself. Ironically, in my opinion, he demonstrated the solution of many of the problems of conventional boilers by designing the welded MN boiler and introducing the TIA water treatment system.
>- the end of the necessity for both crew members to be immediately adjacent to the boiler
>- the elimination of the need for turntables
This was probably the only real "advantage" of the leader. A laudable aim but the result was a loco too heavy to do the work that many of the tank engines that were bi directional were successfully doing in the UK, and too small to do the main line stuff. Articulated engines such as garratts would have been able to operate in both directions must as effectively.
>- more convenient configuration of the prime movers when necessary maintenance time
>came, and their ready 'removal'/'exchange with pre-renovated units'
Articulated locos would be able to achieve this in part, but more importantly, improvements in materials handling would have been able to effect saving in workshops. Having said that, the LMS target of 5% of the fleet stopped for heavy repairs demonstrates that the British were able to very much control overhauls. The running sheds were another matter, and the detail design of the leader does not appear to me to have facilitated maintenance either in the shops or the sheds.
>ALL of these were in sore need, IMHO, and the failure of the contemprary designers to
>address these genuine necessities drove the final nails into the coffin lid of the steamer,
Welded boilers, roller bearings and maybe cast rather than bar or plate frames together with locomotives that were designed to do the maximum work possible with the minimum of fuel consumption, ability to burn lower grades of fuel together with reliable operation would have done more to extend steam in my opinion than this large tank engine designed by someone who appeared to only look for novelty. And of course, The Great Myth that minimising steam consumption could only come with great complexity and inconsistent steaming was probably the biggest knife in the back of steam.
>-----Original Message-----Behalf Of
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
>rssllbrowndrifted too badly... ;-})
>Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012 10:52 AM
>Subject: [steam_tech] Re: Bulleid details (was British Valves but it
>--- In email@example.com, Bill Bedford <billb@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:29:03 -0000, david461376 wrote:
>> > what business or customer need was Leader supposed to address?
>> They were meant to replace large numbers of old small locos like M7s.
>> Bill Bedford
>> "Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun"
>> -- Clifford Geertz
>I suppose a Garratt was considered out of the question ?
In "Steam Railway" many years ago, the redoubtable Dusty Durrant sketched a
medium garratt that would have done much more than "Leader" could ever do.