A freind and I had a talk the other day about how long from dead cold does it take to fire, build preasure, and operate a steam loco.
I worked in and around boilers for a good number of years, but these were natual gas fired, and took up to about 3 hours on the small units.
So how long would it take to get a steamer going, be it coal or oil fired.
ICRR1964
This was extensively discussed on one of the Trains forums, but on the locomotives I fire, we like to take about 8 hours from dead cold. Of course it can be done faster but we are very concerned about the metal in the firebox and boiler
dd
You might want to check out the San Diego Rail Museum site. They have the complete procedure.
Chuck
There is no set answer. It depends on the size of the boiler, the temperature of the water, the ambient temperature, and how careful you want to be. The faster you heat things up, the more you stress the metal.
The previous post about 8 hrs is probably not a bad place to start, but it's only that.
There was an article in Trains a year or so ago about the smallest Shay, and the owner puts a space heater in the firebox the night before to warm things slowly.
At the other extreme of anecdotal evidence, read an account of the WWI Battle of the Falkland Islands. The boilers in large warships make steam locomotive boilers look like home hot-water heaters. The British got caught with their pants down, in a Falkland Islands harbor with minimal steam raised on their (coal-fired) battlecruisers and cruisers. Upon receiving a report of an approaching German squadron, the Brits lit off the boilers using some, um, unorthodox measures, including putting oil on the coal, rather like lighter fluid. The Germans saw the resulting belches of smoke and thought that the locals had put fire to the Royal Navy's entire (substantial!) coal supplies on the islands to prevent the coal from falling into German hands. No doubt what the British did was very hard on their ships' boilers. Butfor all that they raised steam very quickly--like in a couple of hours, instead of, IIRC, twenty-four hours. Before the day was out, the British sank both of the German armored cruisers and two of the three German light cruisers. For this action Vice Admiral Sturdee got made a baronet, but one can imagine that some of the boilermakers at the Royal Navy dockyards wanted him dealt with somewhat more severly.
I have read a credible account of a cold boiler being warmed by a tiger torch shot into the fire-box for a couple of hours, and when the pressure in the boiler was sufficient to atomize the fuel oil for the burner, the hostler ignited it and had the engine ready about four hours later. So, that's about six hours. Personally, I think that is lots. It depends, though, on the gradient established in the heat transfer to the various parts, the age of the boiler, the metal, its overall condition (particularly the flue pipe welds, stay bolts, etc.).
A gentleman who rebuilds steamers and operates them in Australia, marknewton who frequents the prototype forum for modelers and the general discussion next door at model railroader magazine, feels that the more time you take the better it is...all things considered.
A local railroad used to do it in about 3-1/2 hrs from cold boiler to full pressure (around 180psi IIRC after 40 years). They'd start with a wood fire and then add coal. If the engine had been run the day before it would still be warm and would raise steam in 1-1/2 hr or so. They used house air for the blower until there was enough steam to use for the blower. Once the blower was switched to steam the pressure would come up pretty fast.
Doesn't seem like much time to throw all that heat into the boiler, but guess they made out all right doing it that way.
I guess it would be about the same time as a boiler in industry. I had to fire one up in a place I worked in for a good number of years, it was natural gas fired. After sitting all weekend we would have to fire it from cold, and try and get it up to temp and psi as quick as possible. Even with water treatments and scale remover, It took longer some days for some reason or another.
Thanks for the answers guys, sounds like quite a job to do from dead cold though.
After cold servicing of an engine.
Couldn't they have use preheated water or steam to preheat the boiler jacket?
Most of the round houses were steam or hot water heated.
From my experience with locomotive boilers, it took about four hours to raise steam in the larger boilers (2000 horsepower) from dead cold. Sometimes for no apparent reason it could take much longer. We had an older loco (built 1910) with an all copper boiler which raised steam at an unbelievable fast rate. Somewhere about ninety minutes to two hours was not uncommon.
Regards, Malcolm.
I do not believe a destroyer could get any steam pressure from cold in less than 6 hours.
Then boiler jacket held a great deal of water, plus all the steam piping could not handle the steam that quick.
Steam piping needs time to accumate to the temper change.
spikejones52002 wrote: I do not believe a destroyer could get any steam pressure from cold in less than 6 hours.Then boiler jacket held a great deal of water, plus all the steam piping could not handle the steam that quick. Steam piping needs time to accumate to the temper change.
Totally different breed of boiler. Locomotive boilers have fire tubes surrounded by water, while marine boilers more recent than the 1900s have water tubes surrounded by fire.
I have been told about boilers which were damaged in combat, where the steam pressure and temperatures changed radically over a very short time. They could leave the water tubes sagging like a mess of cooked spaghetti. Re-firing one of those damaged boilers was, to put it mildly, an adventure.
Chuck (long-ago engineering department cadet)
towikawaTT wrote
It does not matter how or with what you heated the water. The physics is the same. Steam is not as easy to handle as hot water is.
The amount of water heated on a ship is a great deal more than railroad engine.
Yes people can do stupid things. Then they hire lawyers to make someone else pay for the stupid thing they did.
selector wrote: A gentleman who rebuilds steamers and operates them in Australia, marknewton who frequents the prototype forum for modelers and the general discussion next door at model railroader magazine, feels that the more time you take the better it is...all things considered.
G'day Crandell,
You're spot on - the longer you take to raise steam from cold, the better, I reckon. When I was running 38ers, I used to start lighting-up about 7.00am the day before a run. I would use house air to start with, but only enough to keep the smoke out of the cab. I wouldn't go onto coal or use the blower until I had at least 75 pounds on.
Another post in this thread talks about raising steam from cold on a large loco in four hours. This is quite possible, but I reckon anyone who did that on a regular basis wasn't fit to be called a fireman.
Cheers,
Mark.
spikejones52002 wrote: It does not matter how or with what you heated the water. The physics is the same.
It does not matter how or with what you heated the water. The physics is the same.
Bollocks. The physics may be the same, but the physical characteristics and behaviour of different types of boiler differ greatly. So do firing rates for different fuels. If you had any practical experience on loco or marine boilers you'd know that.
FWIW, one of the reasons that water-tube boilers became the norm in naval/marine applications is that they could be force-fired up quickly from cold if required, without suffering as much damage as fire-tube boilers. But as Chuck correctly notes, they could still suffer damage if badly mistreated.
Yes Mark I will concede that sometime can be done.
I will also bet you more that enough people suffered from attempting.
I would really like to see any documentation and not stories of someone firing up a dead cold battleship in 2 hours.
In the Victorian Railways it was common practice to light up and raise steam in four hours. Often straight after a boiler washout. To raise steam at a lower rate may be beneficial on some types of boilers. Locomotive boilers are built to handle rapid temperature changes. To light up the day before is unnecessary, bordering on the ridiculous.
Big Wheel Driver wrote:In the Victorian Railways it was common practice to light up and raise steam in four hours. Often straight after a boiler washout.
In the Victorian Railways it was common practice to light up and raise steam in four hours. Often straight after a boiler washout.
Yes, I've seen it done at Bendigo loco. The loco - a "J" IIRC - was blown down, immediately washed out with HOT water, immediately refilled with HOT water, and then was re-lit. The thing never got cold, so a four-hour light up was quite reasonable. But look at the original question, which asks how long to light up from "dead cold"? Four hours from dead cold is not good practice, even in Victoria.
To raise steam at a lower rate may be beneficial on some types of boilers.
Its beneficial on all types of boilers.
Locomotive boilers are built to handle rapid temperature changes.
Only up to a point. Once you start breaking stays you know you are in trouble.
To light up the day before is unnecessary, bordering on the ridiculous.
When you are lighting up a loco that has been out of traffic and is dead cold, it's both necessary and sensible. If you're advocating otherwise, you should surrender your boiler ticket.
(ex-NSWGR boilermaker and boiler inspector)
re: "I would really like to see any documentation and not stories of someone firing up a dead cold battleship in 2 hours."
The account I mentioned of the WWI Battle of the Falkland Islands comes primarily from Bernard Edwards, Salvo! Classic Naval Gun Actions (2000), which although not intended to be a true scholarly work, seems to be generally accurate. The largest (roughly 20,000 tons displacement) warships involved were the battlecruisers H.M.S. Invincible (1909) and H.M.S. Inflexible (1908), which were roughly comparable in size and powerplants to contemporary battleships. Read the accounts. They were coaling at at about 8 a.m. with few boilers lit, and raised sufficient steam to begin their chase about 10 a.m. Remember, the Germans had a two hour head start with a lot more steam up at that time, the British had an advantage in maximum speed of only roughly 3 kts, and the British had about twelve or thirteen hours of daylight in which to catch and sink the German ships. So basically, the British went from probably around 10-20% steam production rate to probably 80% or better in two hours. And remeber, that was primarily bringing more boilers from cold to steam-producing; whatever boilers were already lit could not have generated anywhere near the necessary steam.
Now the Invincible class battlecruisers were somewhat smaller than U.S.S. Washington (1941), which also used a smaller number of larger boilers. Also, I am not saying their boilers were "dead cold"--I just do not know. But my understanding is that, at least by WWII (again, admittedly usually involving a smaller number of larger boilers), the Admiralty's standard practice was to bring up large warship boilers from cold over a period of 24 hrs.
I guess the point is, all else being equal (and not that it is), the faster you go from the first fire to full steam, the harder you are on the metal. Period. As to what is reasonable, or unreasonable, handling of a boiler, well, I guess it depends a lot whether you are a tourist railroad in 2008 raising steam for a long-planned excursion, versus a commercial railroad in 1950 with a sudden need for extra power, versus the Royal Navy in WWI with a German squadron bearing down on you.
I'm curious as to how the heat-up procedure would differ using direct steaming from a high pressure stationary boiler. In an article in the June 1985 issue of Trains, author Norman Helm describes such a practice, claiming that a loco with a cold, empty boiler could be brought to operating pressure, with a full boiler, in a half hour, with the coal in the firebox fusing from the extraneous heat. It would then require only a piece of burning oily waste to be thrown into the firebox to ignite it. Supposedly, 3 or 4 locos could be done at the same time, if necessary. As described, it sounds to me as if it would be extremely stressful for the boiler.
Wayne
Wayne, we installed a wood furnace/stove in our basement two years back. The instructions cautioned the user to not light a hot fire until after the body and flues had had a chance to warm properly. They said to not build it hot in order to heat a cold building more quickly, but to wait and feed the fire after the surrounding air was warming noticeably.
I think Mark's training and experience is going to be based on many decades of boilermaking and metallurgy. I would guess that boilers and locomotives from, say, 1910 and earlier would not do well if temps were pushed. They would have been somewhat more tolerant between 1910 and 1950-60, and that much more for truly modern boilers. Since most of the engines we like to ride behind are from 1900-1940, I would not feel good being cavalier about getting one going quickly if I had overslept. I might pay a price for holding up a crew and tourists, but we'd be sure to have the boiler in operation for that summer.
I agree with you...it sounds quite stressing and risky.
-Crandell
Crandell, you've just put your finger on a major reason for shifting from steam to diesel locos. Bringing any kind of steam generator from dead cold to full capacity was a slow and inherently hazardous project. Bringing a diesel on line from dead cold involves a starter switch and a warmup time measured in minutes...
Just another nail in the coffin.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - dead center in Japan's transition era)
Dear Mark, Thank you for your appraisal of my boiler management methods. You are obviously well qualified in boiler maintenance and repair.
Sadly I feel your lack of the necessary operating experience renders it difficult for you to form an accurate judgement of my competency as an engineman.
Fortunately more knowledgeable people over the years have seen fit to award me the following certificates.
Victorian Railways Steam Locomotive Driver's Certificate.
Victorian Board of Examiners for Engine Drivers Certificates: First Class Engine Driver Condensing. Second Class Mining Engine Driver.
State Electricity Commission of Victoria: Power Station Unit Plant Operator's Authority.
With My Kindest Regards,
Malcolm
Now we heard from someone with intelligence and the whole story.
If the Battleship or any other steam powered equiptment had multi BOILERS.There were one or more fired up and others shut down. The live ones even if not at full pressure. Would keep the system heated and ready to go.
Then the others could be be fired and brought up much faster. But the system was already tempered.
As for cold Steam railroad locomotive preheated from house heaters.
The steam would be slowly released into the water jacket, with all ports open to hassen the flow. After the jacket was tempered hot water would be injected and fill the jacket completely. Then the fire box would be fired up.
Spike wrote:
It just ain't that simple. It would appear that you don't have a real strong background in power engineering. You need first and foremost to understand the huge divide between what is possible to do to bring up a boiler quickly (when not too concerned with wear-and-tear on, and potential damage to, the boiler), and what is advisable to do (when there is no emergency).
Among the issues that can affect the stress on the boiler are the unequal thermal expansion of the various parts of the metal. The faster you heat one part, the less time it has to transmit heat to the adjacent parts, so they expand at unequal rates, creating more of thermally-induced stress.
And as to "keep[ing] the system heated and ready to go" (what system? specifically, what equipment do you mean? are you capable of describing the system? your comment, "If the Battleship or any other steam powered equiptment had multi BOILERS," suggests the answer is a clear NO) or using steam from one boiler to bring up another boiler: that only works well if you don't need the first boiler's steam for some other purpose. Like generating electrical power for your ship. Or propelling it. And although in terms of energy per a given quantity of water molecules the big need is the latent heat--turning water at 400 deg. F (or whatever is the boiling point at the boiler's pressure) to steam at 400 deg. F, simply pumping steam into the boiler doesn't get you there because you probably have a good many more pounds of water than of steam, even at full operating pressure, and it takes a lot of energy (BTU's or whatever is your unit of choice) to bring that water from ambient temperature to boiling temperature (and again, because of the pressure, the boiling temperature is way above 212 deg. F). So if you have a locomotive service facility that has sufficient on-line boiler capacity to put a boiler-full of steam and very hot water into the locomtive, yes, you can bring it up quickly. But if you have, say, two marine boilers on-line, and you're using them for electricity and limited propulsion, you can't also use them much or well to bring up another, say, ten similarly-sized boilers. A few boilers just can't generate steam and hot water at a fast enough rate to quickly bring up several times their number of similarly-sized boilers. (I'm not saying there's no benefit, only that you should not expect miracles here.)
And again, if you have a cold boiler and quickly pump a bunch of very hot water and steam into it, the metal is going to expand, appreciably. When you don't do it slowly and give each part a chance to reach a new equilibrium along the way, you are harder on the boiler.
Malcolm, if he doesn't get back, Mark has been on the footplate of several classes of steamers himself, usually as the engineman. I don't know the hours, but hundreds wouldn't be inaccurate.
So, this presents a bit of a dichomotomy for the purposes of addressing the original question: How can two people apparently well versed in the same field have such disparate opinions?
With a the double talk dredmann wrote. He states what I orginally wrote.
You can not fast fire a boiler safely no matter on what.
Doubletalk, Spike? Kindly quote any two of my statements where you think I have said opposite things. (I don't think you will find any. Or perhaps more fully-stated, if you think you find them, I suspect it will be because you don't understand them.) It's easy to make accusations, but how about proving them?
As for fast-firing a boiler, safety is relative. How fast? How much risk to the hostler / fireman? How much risk of catastrophic failure to the boiler? How much accelerated wear-and-tear on the boiler?
I have never suggested that one ought to raise steam quickly without a very good reason for doing so. (Recall my original statement, agreeing with eight hours for a locomotive boiler being a starting point?) At best it is somewhat harder on the boiler, wearing it out more than raising steam more slowly would.
I have suggested that there are things one can do to bring up a boiler somewhat more quickly with somewhat less risk / wear. I have suggested that, in extreme circumstances, boilers have been brought up much faster than usual, with no catastrophic damage, and that sometimes this even makes sense (like to the Royal Navy squadron at the Falklands in 1914, at the approach of a German squardon that had inflicted on the RN its first blue-water fleet action defeat in over a century).
Yes you double talked every statement.
All my statemnets said it could not be done in two hour from dead cold.
One side you said it could and the next you say it could not.
All I said after that is if the battleship had multi boilers (which was not in the orginal statement of speed firing) and some were up to steam. Then the battleship could be up on the move faster.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter