steam locomotive watering

Yes, and they were called "condensor" locomotives.  I don't know where they were used more widely than on the S. Africa railways, but I am pretty sure they were built and used on other rails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive_condensing_apparatus

-Crandell

And there were the "fireless cookers" which were charged with steam and the steam was pumped  back around the steam boiler/tubes (there is term there that escapes me).  Theoretically the used steam was reheated by the unused steam and reintroduced into the main boiler once again until all was gone and the engine was "recharged".

Thanks for the wikipedia link, it sounds like such a device used more energy than was gained by water savings and was impractical except in specialized situations.

selector

Yes, and they were called "condensor" locomotives.  I don't know where they were used more widely than on the S. Africa railways, but I am pretty sure they were built and used on other rails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive_condensing_apparatus

-Crandell

As Crandell says, Union of South Africa was the area that comes to mind when condensing steam locomotives are mentioned, as the rails traversed large expanses that had little water. As the Wikipedia article mentions, there was much energy loss in transporting and condensing the used steam. One adverse factor that is not mentioned is the necessity to clean the steam of unwanted matter, such as cylinder lubricant, before returning the condensed steam to the tank. The overall economics had to be taken into consideration before planning to use condensor locomotives.

Johnny

Johnny

I suspect one problem is that by the time the technology came along to allow condenser engines, you already had diesel engines. In the US, railroads like the Santa Fe that ran thru desert climates were among the first and most prolific buyers of diesels because of the problems the RR had providing water for their steam engines in the dry country.  

wjstix

In the US, railroads like the Santa Fe that ran thru desert climates were among the first and most prolific buyers of diesels because of the problems the RR had providing water for their steam engines in the dry country

One of the problems of obtaining water in the Southwest was that all too often the water that was available was alkaline, which made it necessary to treat it before it went into the boiler.

Johnny

 The "Wiki" link posted by Crandell refers a few times to the condensing apparatus fitted to many sub surface tunnel locos in the UK in the 19th.c particularly.  The need for these locos ceased, in the main, when the system on which they operated changed to electric operation in the very early 20th.c.

It is interesting today, when we hear talk of polluted atmospheres and a hatred of cigarette smoke (particularly in the UK) to think that when the early sub surface lines were first in operation in the UK the fuel used was coke and not coal.  Those who suffered from asthma and some other bronchial ailments often went into to sub surface stations to inhale the fumes.    It was thought to be beneficial!

Regarding "fireless" locos they usually worked in industrial locations over here in areas where a danger from open fires/flames etc. was prohibited, i.e.  lumber yards, explosive/firework manufacturers, large  town gas producing plants,and so on. 

 

 

henry6

And there were the "fireless cookers" which were charged with steam and the steam was pumped  back around the steam boiler/tubes (there is term there that escapes me).  Theoretically the used steam was reheated by the unused steam and reintroduced into the main boiler once again until all was gone and the engine was "recharged".

 

I'm not sure if this is actually correct.  They were charged with water, not steam, from a stationary boiler, at quite high pressure.  While the nominal boiling point of water is 212F, this is at atmospheric pressure, and the boiling point becomes a lot higher as the pressure increases.  My understanding is that the fireless cooker has a pressure tank of superheated water and a little bit of steam at high very pressure at the top.  As the steam gets used, the pressure drops a little, more water flashes into steam, and the water cools slightly.  I see no advantage to trying to capture the "used steam".

Eventually the temperature and pressure will drop to the point where a recharge is desirable, so back to the stationary boiler.  Many factories had large boilers providing steam for a number of other purposes so this worked quite well. 

Water, when it changes from liquid to steam, is incredibly expansive and I expect that the fireless cooker could work for several hours on one charge.  The power available has been demonstrated from time to time in a rather spectacular fashion by locomotive boiler explosions, often from much lower pressure boilers. 

Perhaps someone else can confirm or correct details of my description.

John

Filling an engine with water then not providing enough heat to turn it into steam does not make sense.  No, the engines were filled with super heated steam at high pressure, and and water was the result of condensing. The water was then routed through tubes inside the high pressure steam chamber and some was turned back into steam.  But as the process continued, the steam lost its heat, the chamber filled with water, pressure dropped below operating level.  Check back issues of train.  The most notable operation of fireless cookers in the US was at Wanamie, south of Wilkes Barre, PA at a steel works believe, and the locomotives had been locally made by Vulcan...lasted into the 1950s'.

henry6

the engines were filled with super heated steam at high pressure

You think when a fireless cooker is fully charged, the boiler contains no liquid water? Just steam at... what temperature and pressure?

henry6

Theoretically the used steam was reheated by the unused steam and reintroduced into the main boiler once again until all was gone

The exhaust from the cylinders eventually got back into the boiler? What would force it in there?

henry6

Filling an engine with water then not providing enough heat to turn it into steam does not make sense.  No, the engines were filled with super heated steam at high pressure, and and water was the result of condensing. The water was then routed through tubes inside the high pressure steam chamber and some was turned back into steam.  But as the process continued, the steam lost its heat, the chamber filled with water, pressure dropped below operating level.  Check back issues of train.  The most notable operation of fireless cookers in the US was at Wanamie, south of Wilkes Barre, PA at a steel works believe, and the locomotives had been locally made by Vulcan...lasted into the 1950s'.

Well it doesn't make sense to thermodynamics students either, never the less a tank of water at the same pressure and temperature as steam (saturated) of the same volume has a lot more energy. Take for instance an overheated car and some fool takes off the pressure cap thereby reducing the system pressure to atmospheric. The water in the radiator flashes to steam. The steaming absorbs the heat of evaporation and the remaining water will be 212 degrees or the temperature at which water starts to boil at that pressure. At lower pressures water boils at lower temperatures that's the secret of how to get distilled water on ships from the 190 degree engine jacket water in an evaporator. It take a long time to explain the steam cycle to a bunch of engineering students.

Ok, so it has been several decades since I studied the fireless cookers of Wanamie..So I BINGed it  and dug and dug and got following information, first from a web page on fireless cookers, and then from an NRHS site. The simplicity I remembered wasn't that simple, yet it all is quite simple:

 

Harry Valentine Email: harryc@ontarioeast.net or harrycv@hotmail.com has sent me this thought provoking paper. Serious science or pie-in-the-sky dreams. Let him know what you think. Click here for afterthoughts and more afterthoughts (22nd February)The traditional wood, coal and oil burning Stephenson type steam railway locomotive had a fireless derivative which graced the shunting yards, the "fireless cooker". This engine was essential a giant thermos bottle laying on its side and was dependent on a remote firebox as its heat source. Maintenance and operating costs of a fireless cooker were low, due to the absence of the firebox and smokebox, two of the high maintenance items on a traditional steamer. Energy recharging of the cooker engine was done by passing steam through a heat exchanger line, which ran in coiled fashion through this type of locomotive combination "boiler"/water tank. Prior to recharge, the combination boiler/water tank would be 80% filled with water. It would then be connected to an external steam line, which would heat the water in the tank to temperatures of 400º F (200º C), with internal tank pressures rising up to 400 psi (pounds per square inch). The cylinders would operate at pressures of 150 psi. After a recharge, the steam heater line was disconnected and the driver would open the throttle, resulting in the sudden generation of "flash steam" inside the boiler/water tank, as a slight pressure drop occurred. Like its counterpart which carried an on-board firebox, the cooker too required the occasional boiler washdown to remove scale.

And from THE NRHS:

TYPES OF FIRELESS LOCOMOTIVES

There were two types of fireless locomotives; one used steam, the other compressed air.In a fireless steam locomotive, in place of a boiler, the locomotive is fitted with a cylindrical tank which is charged with steam and hot water from a stationary plant. The storage pressure usually approximates the working pressure of a locomotive boiler; but the pressure of the steam is considerably reduced before it enters the cylinders. These locomotives are simple in construction and, as they cannot explode, they are exceedingly safe to handle. As a rule, but little equipment must be installed for their operation, as the majority of industrial plants are supplied with the boiler capacity necessary for charging the locomotives.The reservoir/tank stores heat in the form of hot water and steam.Steam is charged into reservoir at valve marked Charging Connection. admitted bottom through a perforated pipeso that temperature entire body gradually raised. The time required to take on a full charge can vary from 10 to 30 minutes, depending on the charging pressure, the size of the reservoir, and how low the charge was before being refilled.When the reservoir is fully charged, 85 percent or more of its volume is filled with hot water and the remainder with steam. As steam is drawn off and used in the cylinders, pressure in the reservoir drops and some of the hot water flashes into steam. This newly created steam draws its heat of vaporization from the hot water which remains in the liquid state and, as a result of the vaporization; the temperature of that water is reduced. This continues until the temperature of the water drops to the point below which it will no longer vaporize into steam at sufficient pressure to be used in the cylinders. The cylinder proportions are such, however, that the locomotive can move itself on very much less than the normal working pressure. Normally, one charging, or one full plus several partial chargings, will keep a fireless locomotive at work for a full day. Steam for charging may be obtained from any available source, such as the plant’s steam supply, and is delivered to the locomotive reservoir through a flexible charging connection. One centrally located charging connection is usually sufficient, but where the locomotive operates over a large area more than one charging station may be desirable from the standpoint of convenience and economy.The reservoir contains only a few working parts, these include the charging pipe, check valve, throttle and throttle rod, and dry pipe.Prior to recharge, the combination boiler/water tank would be 80 percent filled with water. It would then be connected to an external steam line, which would heat the water in the tank to temperatures of 400º F, with internal tank pressures rising up to 400 psi .The cylinders would operate at pressures of 150 psi. After a recharge, the steam heater line was disconnected and the driver would open the throttle, resulting in the sudden generation of “flash steam” inside the boiler/water tank, as a slight pressure drop occurred. Like its counterpart which carried an on-board firebox, the fireless too required the occasional reservoir washdown to remove scale. This could be minimized or eliminated with the use of distilled water. Another way this cost can be reduced and efficiency can be improved is by switching from an open system of exhausting waste steam and refilling the water storage tank, to a closed system which recycles the water.A second category of fireless locomotive is the compressed air type. Basically, it’s a locomotive whose boiler has been replaced with one or more compressed air cylinders. The cylinder would store air compressed to 600 psi and through a step-down valve, the cylinders were driven with 150 psi. Except for the medium, a compressed air locomotive’s advantages were identical to those of a fireless steam locomotive.

 

That makes sense.  Thanks for digging out the information.  There seem to have been a couple of alternative approaches to the fireless cooker. 

The first has the "boiler" simply filled with water/steam from a charging source at relatively low pressure.  So it is not actually a boiler, just a pressure vessel. When the pressure runs low somehow the water/steam in the "boiler" will have to be replaced.  Perhaps this could be done by creating a return system (two connections) with the charging plant to get the heat and pressure back up.  For light duty assignments this might suffice; probably less satisfactory when the work is heavy and for a full shift.

The second is a true boiler, with the heat source being the steam from the charging plant.  By bringing the pressure in the boiler up to 400psi this will provide plenty of energy.  The actual steam connection is at a lower pressure - I certainly would be reluctant to handle temporary connections at 400psi.  Replenishing the water in the boiler was likely required less often than the return to the heat source. Low water is not the same concern as it is with the conventional locomotive, where the fire beneath makes it imperative to keep the crown sheet covered.

A closed system with condensing apparatus would surely be of minimal value, except perhaps when distilled water is used.  There will be no way to reintroduce the water into the boiler without using some of the stored energy. (A perpetual motion machine is not possible, but that hasn't stopped folks from trying.)  Furthermore as someone else pointed out, the used steam will include contaminants such as traces of oil.

 John

An injector or a feedwater pump driven by steam would still do the job of getting water from a consensation storage tank back into the boiler just as it would on the non-condensing engines.  Same principle, same circumstances, same characteristics, just perhaps a different steam pressure...not sure about that.  The condensate would have to be sufficiently cooled that the venturi effect in the injector worked as intended, there being a sufficient disparity between the steam jet temperature and the injected water.

-Crandell

Boilerless (Fireless) Locomotives were like a Thermos Bottle.

It just stored steam (No boiler or tubes) and released it to the drive cylinders.

It took on steam from a boiler building.

They did not reclam the steam condensation. That  would deminish the stored heat.

Very true, and I should have pointed out this problem myself.  You would be better off in a fireless loco to just use straight steam until that supply is exhuasted, minus what it would take to get back to the replenishing platform.   Injecting cooled condensate with your precious charge of steam would add more water to the boiler for a short while, but it would have the non-salutary effect of also using some of that steam to effect the injection and cooling its parent charge in the boiler with the injected water to boot.  Not an efficient way to do things.  Far better to keep your boiler sealed except for the throttle and intake for steam.

A condensing locomotive, on the other hand, keeps producing steam and can inject condensate, presumable the whole point of having the condensor in the first place.

If I remember the TRAINS article of years ago correctly, there is an arguement of whether or not these are real locomotives in as far as the question of whether they generate their own power.  On one side are those who claim "no" because the charge and recharge came from off the locomotive.  On the other side are those who claim that since the steam is so hot and so pressurized, that used steam...whether condensed or not...gets reheated (charged?) by the process and therefore it does generate power for itself although it diminishes over time.

henry6

If I remember the TRAINS article of years ago correctly, there is an arguement of whether or not these are real locomotives in as far as the question of whether they generate their own power.  On one side are those who claim "no" because the charge and recharge came from off the locomotive.  On the other side are those who claim that since the steam is so hot and so pressurized, that used steam...whether condensed or not...gets reheated (charged?) by the process and therefore it does generate power for itself although it diminishes over time.

 

Now that is really splitting hairs.  They are converting stored energy into motion.  In the case of a fireless cooker the energy is stored as a steam/water mix.  In an electric locomotive it comes over a wire (or 3rd rail).  In an internal combustion engine or a steam locomotive the energy is stored in the form of hydrocarbons.  In a distant era there were also battery powered doodlebugs and very limited use in locomotives with several power modes.  As for ancient times when horses provided the motive power, well maybe they weren't locomotives.

John

Splitting hairs or not, the excercise is to define locomotive and apply that definition to the fireless cooker.