It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:06 am 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1543
Russ,

Thanks for that information. This situation with D&S has me wondering just how effective spark arrestors can be, and how much that has been limited by cost constraints. I have generally assumed they are only partly effective and fires still get ignited from sparks, but just less often. Then beyond that point, damages are paid and business continues as normal.

But in the case of D&S, this fire issue threatens to shut down the railroad, or at least end coal fired steam. Have the stakes ever been that high before? With the stakes being that high, and D&S willing to spend millions of dollars to address the problem, maybe money could better be spent on simply making coal fired locomotives less likely to start lineside fires.

So with that thought, I am wondering what could be done to reduce the problem to near zero with special spark arrestor equipment.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:04 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 2279
Most of you have forgotten more about steam locomotives than I'll ever know, so take this comment as such. However, I am wondering if there is a modification to the firebox that could keep sparks from going through the flues and up the stack in the first place. Or some other modification in practice that while possibly limiting draft might cut down on the sparks produced in the firebox, like cut the draft way down. Is this even possible, much less at 10k feet? Could two poorly operating steam engines do the work of one operating correctly during fire season? I heated with wood for a winter at 8k feet in Colorado and know that the best heat is when you close the draft and dampers and just have burning coals (as in, so hot you can't sit within ten feet of the stove), but I'll bet this wouldn't work on a locomotive.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:19 pm 

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:34 pm
Posts: 2758
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
The problem is the size of the grate area requires a certain level of intense firing to achieve the necessary BTU for steam production. That high firing rate means strong air currents and unburned coal exiting with the exhaust.

A much larger grate (and firebox) would allow a much lower draft and firing rate, reducing burning cinders. This would be an entirely different looking locomotive, and possible not even a feasible locomotive within the structure gauge of the right of way.

Compare to a marine boiler, where the firing rate is much more sedate.

_________________
Steven Harrod
Lektor
Danmarks Tekniske Universitet


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:58 pm 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1543
A couple years ago, I raised a question on another forum regarding a device that I have seen in an old photo. It shows a large rotary disc valve on the locomotive smokebox door for the purpose of admitting outside air to the smokebox. This is done at times when the engine is working hard and tending to pull so much draft through the firebox that it lifts coal off the grates. By opening the smokebox rotary valve, it caused the smokebox to draw in outside air, and this reduces the amount of air being drawn in through the firebox grates.

Then someone else found the patent on this device and posted illustrations. I must have this on my computer, but I will have to ponder where it is. The device has a specific name. In the meantime, here is a photograph showing a locomotive with the smokebox air induction valve clearly shown. It is shown here as the third photo from the top of the page showing Hecla & Torch Lake 2-8-0 locomotive named Manitou. The valve appears to be fully open in the photograph:

https://www.pasty.com/reflections/id212.htm

As I recall, its primary purpose was to avoid wasting fuel by sucking it out of the stack unburned. I guess the question is whether this can reduce wasting fuel while still running with a wide open throttle. It seems to me that this device introduces a whole new level of control to the power production. Other than this photo and the patent that was disclosed, I have never seen or heard of a reference to this device. But it does seem like it would offer benefit in reducing hot emissions by reducing extreme draft if it is not fully needed.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:51 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Strasburg, PA
Ron Travis wrote:
I am wondering what could be done to reduce the problem to near zero with special spark arrestor equipment.

The short answer is that if there was anything else to be done (that worked), it would have been made standard equipment on most steam locomotives many decades ago.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:36 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:26 pm
Posts: 236
I guess we can assume then that the Anderson front ends (on the 480's) don't prevent line side fires any better than the Master Mechanic front ends (on the 470's).

They could convert an engine to the gas producer combustion system. They may have considered a proposal to convert to the GPCS in the past to reduce smoke. I don't remember the details. Since the GPCS reduces the amount of air going through the fire bed, that would reduce the cinders being lifted from the fire bed and ejected from the stack.
Tom Hamilton


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:01 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:10 pm
Posts: 23
I'm not at all familiar with US spark-arresting practice, but have US railroads ever utilized a rotary spark arresting apparatus like the one shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/BOBXqDPUnJY

This video is of C11-207 operating at the Tobu Railway. These rotary spark arresters were pretty much standard-issue toward the end of steam on Japan National Railways in the early 70s.

Shogo


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:53 am 

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Strasburg, PA
Shogo Takizawa wrote:
I'm not at all familiar with US spark-arresting practice, but have US railroads ever utilized a rotary spark arresting apparatus like the one shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/BOBXqDPUnJY

This video is of C11-207 operating at the Tobu Railway. These rotary spark arresters were pretty much standard-issue toward the end of steam on Japan National Railways in the early 70s.

Shogo

That looks to be a draft inducing fan, used to fire up an engine from cold, then removed when steam is raised. Is that not the case here? Does this engine operate with this device still in place?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:43 pm 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1543
I can understand the point that steam locomotive spark arrestor design is as effective as it can be since it has been perfected over so many years of experimentation and thousands of practical applications. However, that development has probably been subject to economic constraints for both the first cost and maintenance of the equipment. So maybe the spark arrestor art is only as good as it needs to be rather than as good as possible.

Surely the spark arresting situation with D&S is more urgent than was the case with much of the spark arrestor development in the past. With the D&S, one major fire has produced calls to end the burning of coal and invest millions of dollars on new diesel motive power. Indeed, the company is willing to consider and address these changes. So, I feel that this is a new backdrop for the potential advancement of spark arrestor state of the art, and I am just wondering what it possible.

A few questions come to mind. Has the water spray system used on D&S locomotives been commonly used throughout spark arrestor history? If so, why was it not eventually used in all spark arrestor systems? Are there drawbacks to the water spray system? If so, what are they? If the D&S water spray system does not douse all burning emissions, what would happen if the water spray was increased? Would the same water volume with more spray nozzles improve the effectiveness?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:58 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm
Posts: 2279
Shogo Takizawa wrote:
I'm not at all familiar with US spark-arresting practice, but have US railroads ever utilized a rotary spark arresting apparatus like the one shown in this video?

https://youtu.be/BOBXqDPUnJY

This video is of C11-207 operating at the Tobu Railway. These rotary spark arresters were pretty much standard-issue toward the end of steam on Japan National Railways in the early 70s.

Shogo

Very interesting, are you sure it is used as a spark arrester and not for draft as Kelly speculated, is there any technical data on its use as a spark arrester? I tried to find a discussion using this 蒸気機関車回転スパークアレスタ効率 which goolge translate says is steam locomotive spark arrester efficiency in Japanese but couldn't find anything.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:15 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 6399
Location: southeastern USA
In the woodburning days in the US, a conical casting pointing down with fins cast into it to encourage a whirling effect into the exhaust stream to make the cinders centrifugally fly out towards the sides of the balloon stacks and fall down into the collectors is the closest thing I know of that we have tried in terms of a rotary solution. A whirling fan to slap them down? Possible..... I'm interested also.

_________________
“God, the beautiful racket of it all: the sighing and hissing, the rattle and clack of the cars over the rails. These were the sounds that made America the greatest country on earth." Jonathan Evison


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:22 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 11482
Location: Somewhere east of Prescott, AZ along the old Santa Fe "Prescott & Eastern"
Before we rehash them all over again, two past threads of relevance to the topic now at hand (stacks and cinder-reduction):

www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32466

www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29015

Personally, I'll just lobby for an Argent Lumber Co. steamer from South Carolina Lowcountry to take over during drought season. <:-)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:52 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:10 pm
Posts: 23
PMC wrote:
Very interesting, are you sure it is used as a spark arrester and not for draft as Kelly speculated, is there any technical data on its use as a spark arrester? I tried to find a discussion using this 蒸気機関車回転スパークアレスタ効率 which goolge translate says is steam locomotive spark arrester efficiency in Japanese but couldn't find anything.


I believe the best way to look up Japanese discussions via google would be 回転式火の粉止め.
Historically, Japan has never been the most innovative in steam traction so I doubt we would be able to find much on the actual operating efficiency of the device.

Image

I have managed to find a photographic description of the apparatus by its manufacturer, Riken Metal Industries Co. LTD. from 1954. I will add a translation of the description on the bottom of the image:

(1) Rotating wing
(2) Rotation Axle
(3) Main Frame
(4) Wire Mesh
(5) Stack Fastener (Not shown)
(6) Lubricator
(7) Smoke Deflection Plate

As you can see, the device has no external motorized power source and is driven by the exhaust as it passes through the Rotary Wing, which is essentially a free-rotating fan welded to a wire mesh.

You can see in the attached Youtube video of JNR 4-6-2 No. C57-1 on the Yamaguchi line that the locomotive is operating with the device spinning away at the top of its stack.
https://youtu.be/T06qRnvbBAk


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:26 am 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1543
What is the theory behind the rotating blades that are driven by the exhaust gases? How exactly are the blades intended to prevent the passage of sparks? If gases can pass through the blades as they rotate, why can't hot embers do the same?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Residents Sue D&S Over Fire
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:56 pm 

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:41 pm
Posts: 165
Ron Travis wrote:
What is the theory behind the rotating blades that are driven by the exhaust gases? How exactly are the blades intended to prevent the passage of sparks? If gases can pass through the blades as they rotate, why can't hot embers do the same?


I don't believe the blades have any effect on prevention of sparks from exiting the stack. That would solely the job of the screens. My estimation would be that the blades are their to produce a vortex within the smokebox below the petticoat to aid in drafting efficiency lost via the screens. I surmise it follows a similar vortex (cyclone) drafting theory as demonstrated by the Anderson Cyclone style front ends. Could be wrong. Just a guess.

DC


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlderGulch12, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], toolmeister and 108 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: