A staybolt less locomotive boiler
http://www.rad45.org/Wellrohrkessel.html

Mike Tillger

Are you having staybolt problems, Mike? I don't think too many people want to talk about it now. I posted a drawing a couple days ago and asked for educated responses to a couple questions, and either nobody is educated or doesn't care.

I think the entire boiler would need to be designed around this style of firebox, which means retrofitting it to an existing frame might be problematic. It doesn't seem to have caught on in its country of origin, where Tross' ideas seem to have taken precidence.

dave

No staybolt issues in my life at the moment, just thought I'd offer a novel approach found on a website from the past to a much discussed issue.

Dave, I don't think any ones replying to your prior post, not because of a lack of education, but more a lack of experience with the new designs. Engineering only goes so far in our older boilers, it seems empirical knowledge was used more back in the days. If only some of those chief designers little black books would have survived as well as all of the standard practices with notes on why things were changed through the years, what a wealth of knowledge we could have learned from. It seems many of the new boilers are suffering from a lack of design proficiency, caused by the lack of demand for new steam locomotive boilers.

Mike Tillger

Thanks Mike - I'm pleased you are not having staybolt problems, but kind of sorry we don't have a practical problem to brainstorm. We need a rolling laboratory or two out there to try things on.

Tross' work was in production and operation for a long while in Germany and his technology used in other locations as well. I think we can find out enough about it to satisfy ourselves about what it is and how it works. What is still murky to me is its adaptability to solving problems in our realm - less about productivity and maximizing power, more about efficiency, cost and reliability. Same goes for fillet welded stays - not new, just not used much here.

Wasatch seems to have done more work on this stuff than any other US based firm, and perhaps John or Matt will add some facts in when it suits them.

I think the recent Meiningen boiler failures story is less about the style of technology than about quality control, based on what I have been told by people involved in the Australian project. Parts were not made to size or fit together in proper alignment. The entire UK situation is muddy to say the least, and I'm not buying the idea that it was a result of more frequent fireups and shutdowns than a locomotive in daily service wouod have had. I've maintained boilers a century old that can handle that just fine provided you take your time.

dave

dave

Dave,

I'm listening as I can. A little more recently than in the past. It is hard for allocate time for working, admin, reading, and research when often in this industry one has all those responsibilities. Many of us, like you, do ourselves what was expected to be done by a staff.

My comment is that the Stephensonian Locomotive appears to be limited by certain inherent factors which preclude commercial use and therefore a commercial level of R&D except when A) the cost of labor is low and the cost of fuel is low; and/or B) a higher price can be charged per ton mile/trip or operating day than a diesel electric.

I believe sufficient improvements to the Stephensonian locomotive can be made to weigh a financial decision in favor of the steam locomotive if logical factors between it and another form of motive power are already close. One has to understand that R&D has a learning curve and be prepared for failures on the way to success as even proven modifications can be difficult to implement to a class of or even each individual locomotive. A team has to be very committed.

The FCAF in Argentina is a good example of this process and success.

As you know, there is no one ingredient or recipe for success.

For boilers, I would look at the French TIA water treatment or one of the regimes that developed from it. That and decent operating practices seemed to get the French a lot of time and miles out of a variety of different boilers including American ones.

As for staybolts in particular, I think a big factor of installation method should be what method a shop can do best as long as it meets your regulator's requirements. I am not a fan of a method that puts a lot of heat into the material in the breakage zone. As for staybolt design, I think an adaptation of the Tross-Henschel double conodial bolt is going to reduce staybolt breakage from bending stress in locomotive boilers that have had a history of it due to either design, firing rate, or operating conditions.

If only some of those chief designers little black books would have survived as well as all of the standard practices with notes on why things were changed through the years, what a wealth of knowledge we could have learned from. It seems many of the new boilers are suffering from a lack of design proficiency, caused by the lack of demand for new steam locomotive boilers.

I think that statement points to something that is generally missing in a great many fields, some technical, some not.

The ancient Greeks - who seemed have a penchant for such distinctions-divided in knowledge into two different elements:

Episteme' aka: (Physics, Know What,Theory, Book Knowledge)

Techne' aka: (Engineering, Know How, Do, Practical Knowledge).

Anybody trying to preserve or resurrect some archaic art, must confront the fact that techne plays a vital if not primary role in that effort.

David Weitzman's book "Superpower" alludes to this in several aspects of locomotive construction @ Lima, especially in the discussion of casting methods, and how important and difficult it was to learn to recognize and react appropriately to the physical appearance of individual castings in order to ensure a successful piece.

The bottom line is extensive and continuous practice is paramount in preserving a complex practiced art, because there's a great deal of knowledge that is acquired only through practice and cannot be transmitted in written form. Once the practice is diminished or broken you can lose essential knowledge and without compelling reason, (meaning resurgent economic demand) it can be lost. Then it can be only regained with extraordinary technical effort and economic expenditure.

Much of steam era industrial knowledge is already gone.

It's probably safe to say that most steam era industrial knowledge was techne, especially since most (if not all) of the trades involved with steam locomotive production and maintenance (and operation as well) used (and still use in some cases) the apprenticeship method of teaching and most of the knowledge regarding steam locomotives (production, maintenance, and operation) was developed or acquired on the job and/or on the shop floor.

That's why preserving that knowledge and those skills is even more important than simply just preserving the equipment, since there's often no way to restore that knowledge or those skillsets without repeating the time- and labor-consuming process of developing that knowledge and those skillsets (which, unfortunately, may not even be possible anymore in some cases).

Matt A., Great Link- Dr. Greenslade had the actual stresses imposed on staybolts well defined by 1940. If only Flannery had a few more years of new boiler construction to implement what they had learned by 1952, which was basically how to live with a high net bending load by decreasing peak load on the shaft at any one point. Matt J.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Greenslade of Flannery was born in North Idaho, where I live. Perhaps someone on this form is good at finding surviving relatives. Then maybe we can find the answer to this thread in one of his notebooks!

GREENSLADE, Grover Rawle, Born May 21 1886 in Moscow,Idaho,USA, Died Apr 16 1970 in Florida,USA

Matt A. has noted that everything we need to know on the matter of stay bolts was produced by the scientists AT FLANNERY. (Matt A., I am not debating you, so no need to come after me on my following comment!)

In the steam days, selling parts to locomotive builders was common. A few names; Elesco, Nathan, Pyle-National, Flannery, Nicholson Thermic Syphons.....the list goes on and on. All (ok, I can not prove that, but most) all of these companies put advertisements in books and magazines. One such book is the Locomotive Cyclopedia which hit on bits and pieces of new technology in the steam industry. These books are collectors items today.

What Matt A. has posted is not so much an agreed practice by all of the scientists in the USA regarding stay bolt technology or practice for the time. What Matt has posted is Flannery's "pitch sheet" showing why the studies and technology they had were better than what anybody else had at the time. Nicholson Thermic Syphons..."the heart of the locomotive" had the same thing. In both cases, there were studies done that actually debated the facts found in these "self made" advertising reports.

As such, the truth about the Flannery article posted by Matt A. is; Though written and studied by the scientists at Flannery, it was not commonly known as the industry standard for the same topic. None the less it is a good document and a good basis for discussion. I just think when we debate certain topics we need to consider the source of the document and the reason behind the source. I am simply noting that the source wrote and published this stuff in an effort to sell as much or more than any other reason.

Kindly,

Just the insight into their methodology is fascinating, and can help guide our continuing thoughts on the matter.

dave