How often does the smokebox and exhaust netting on a coal burning locomotive need to be cleaned and/or inspected??? I assume that small grains of unburned coal and cinders (small bits of coal ash) accumulate in the bottom of the smokebox as the engine is worked, but don't have feel for how often the interior of the smokebox needs to be accessed.
The answer depends in large part on the quality of coal being burned. Good quality anthracite burned clean, so it didn't leave much residue. Some of the sub-bitumenous coals that railroads could buy cheap had lots of non-burnable inclusions that could leave a wheelbarrow load in a smokebox after a comparatively short run.
Early on, the smokebox door would be opened for inspection and cleaning at the end of each run or shift. Later the runs got longer, and some locomotives were fitted with ash hoppers (with doors that allowed emptying) at the bottom of the smokebox.
One event that would lead to an inspection at the earliest convenient moment would be having part of the firebed sucked through the tubes into the smokebox. Wheel slip with minimum cutoff could do it. Then there would be an active fire right under the netting, and it wasn't designed for that.
Chuck
Classic Trains magazine ran a story, if I recall, maybe nine or ten years ago, about a hogger whose older steamer was performing so poorly that he actually walked up front while it wheezed along and opened the smokebox door to find the netting badly clogged. He freed it somewhat and the locomotive soon showed it was steaming much better. I wish I remembered more of the details, but that's the gist of it. Seems absurd on the face of it, but.... I wasn't there, and I know squat about steam locomotives.
I was not aware of that some railroads had ash hoppers on the bottom of the smokebox. Could you reference any roads or locomotive classes that had them???
It seems odd to me that American locomotives had the smokebox door secured with multiple bolts, what with the smokebox needing inspection or cleaning daily, or multiple times per day. All that wrenching to get it open and then closed again. The method used by British and French railways, of a single lever or a handwheel to latch/unlatch the smokebox door seems a lot quicker and more efficient.
In the same way, (at least on roads that did not have outside accessable ash hoppers on the bottom of the smokebox) getting debris out of the common American locomotive smokebox must have been a pain due to having a small diameter door high above the bottom of the smokebox. Every shovelfull of ash had to be lifted up from the bottom of the smokebox to the door. This job would likely have been easier, if the smokebox doors that were nearly the full diameter of the smokebox, as seen on British and French locomotives had been installed.
Bottom line, steam locomotives are criticised for the large amount of manpower needed to keep them running. Yet here we have an one example of a task that needed far more labor input than it should have due to due lack of even basic job analysis on the part of engineering and management. I bet there were many steam locomotive operating tasks that could have had their labor requirements reduced with minor changes to the hardware.
Piper106a It seems odd to me that American locomotives had the smokebox door secured with multiple bolts, what with the smokebox needing inspection or cleaning daily, or multiple times per day. All that wrenching to get it open and then closed again. The method used by British and French railways, of a single lever or a handwheel to latch/unlatch the smokebox door seems a lot quicker and more efficient.
Take another look. American smokebox doors are/were dogged shut. Half a turn to loosen the nut, then rotate the dog clear. Granted that the 'busted clock' lock on modern Japanese locos was faster acting, but it also prevents mounting anything anywhere near the center of the smokebox front. On many roads, that was home base for the headlight.
There is a similar situation aboard WWII era naval vessels. Bulkhead doors which were normally closed and only infrequently opened were clamped shut with dogs. Doors which were frequently used, and only closed when the ship was 'buttoned up' for storm or combat, had handwheels to operate their latches.
Different operating conditions. European and Japanese locomotives locos ran a few hundred kilometers between cleanings. NYC would run a single Hudson or Niagara 1250km Harmon-Chicago. Some Western roads routinely ran a loco 2000+km without change. Nobody wanted the contents of the smokebox to dump out on the pilot beam when the door was opened - especially if there were air brake compressors sited there. (In Japan, the Elesco-type feedwater heater was frequently mounted on the pilot beam, directly under the smokebox door.)
Then, too, on larger roads the major cleaning tool would have been somewhat similar to a vacuum cleaner - suck, not shovel.
Bottom line, steam locomotives are criticised for the large amount of manpower needed to keep them running. Yet here we have one example of a task that needed far more labor input than it should have due to due lack of even basic job analysis on the part of engineering and management. I bet there were many steam locomotive operating tasks that could have had their labor requirements reduced with minor changes to the hardware.
Bear in mind, the steam locomotive was, basically, a nineteenth century idea. Ergonomics wasn't even a concept in the mind of an academic when all but the most recent locos were designed. Most design features crystallized before the days of the USRA, never mind the more recent trend toward efficient initial design.
Somebody starting today with a clean sheet of paper could easily come up with a design that would be more efficient to maintain. It would still require more maintenance manhours per operating hour than diesel or straight electric. That's why oceangoing ships have forsaken steam for diesel or gas turbine engines (unless the steam is generated by the heat of nuclear fission.)
Chuck (Long ago Ship's Engineering cadet)
Chuck, would it have been the practice/policy that the nuts would have to be backed a half turn and then the dogs knocked loose/aside, or could the nuts have been merely a stop for dogs which were knocked loose with a couple of light blows? No nut backing.
What I mean is, the smoke box cover's face, nearest the rim, might have have a slight angle sufficient to allow the working edges of the dogs to wedge the door shut with the opposite of the loosening blows....assuming the nuts were never moved...much. I am sure the nuts would have needed tightening or loosening at times.
Crandell, that's entirely possible. All of those "Condition Y" door dogs rode up on ramps. When closure had to be absolute, a hammer would be applied. For Condition X, only the dog at the location of a normal door handle was set, hand tight. The dogs had handles on both sides for obvious reasons.
Railroad workers approaching a dogged-shut smokebox door were a lot more likely to have a hammer than ratings aboard ship scrambling to contain (or get clear of) damage, although, as cadets, we were required to carry a hefty adjustable wrench...
Since a smokebox runs at a slight vacuum, it's hardly necessary to secure the door as if it will have to hold against the water pressure of a flooded compartment. Just get it shut. If it has a decent gasket it should seal itself.
Hi everyone
Main difference between US steam and European was self cleaning smokeboxes had become common on the former , using a baffle plate to extinguish cinders and emptying continuously through the chimney while running under power . This practice was not used in Europe and in many areas would in fact have fouled regulations to prevent fire hazards and environment pollution ; mind that many areas were then already densely populated with clusters of cities and industries while others were intensely exploited farmlands and both didn’t tolerate steam to spread cinders over line sides , nor was cinder raining practicable with passenger trains having windows to open , neither were shipper customers prepared to receive their cargo complete with a free layer of ash and cinders . In fact , No Smoking was mandatory not just in stations where it was strictly surveyed but also where tracks passed through cities which asked for good firing practice looking ahead and knowing the line and power output demands coming up .
Generally shorter European distances helped a lot to get along with the old practice of smokebox cleaning at the end of a round tour or shift , in services of hard demands of performance , at over 2 tons of coal fired per hour , locomotives had to have smokebox cleaned after each run . As has been remarked by others before , lack of steam loco design ever getting over this age-old manual ordeal by finding some sound mechanical solution remained one major shortcoming of steam traction , especially in Europe .
In Germany , since oilfiring automatically did away with that burden it added to motivation of rebuilding a number of highly exploited Decapod , Mikado and Pacific standard locomotives , the main aspect of course being oil fired locomotives were able to run at full output flat out all through the trip while firebed degradation on ( relatively ) long runs ( over 300 .. 400 miles ) had always remained a factor limiting performance with coal firing if to varying extents . Oilfired three cylinder Pacifics of Osnabrück during their optimum years prior to electrification of the mainline to Hamburg in 1968 averaged daily turns of up to 1200 km ( 750 miles )
Since oilfiring was never applied to the large SNCF standard types ( they preferred stoker firing ) fire handling and accumulation of grate and smokebox residue remained a factor limiting through running of the Mountain types which is why the original through run on the Eastern mainline Paris – Strassbourg meant hard work for the fireman with the EST Mountains that were hand fired in spite of some 3500 to 3650 ihp and applied . These situations were then resolved in a most radical way – by rapid electrification of first class mainlines . On secondary mainlines remaining steam traction just had shorter trips , some 100 – 220 miles , and fire handling with or without stoker was no problem then .
In Tchechoslovakia , the larger classes of post war CSD steam often were stoker fired , yet coal used often was too soft , resulting in fantastic amounts of fines rubbed off by Archimedes screw and again resulting in a lot of back smoke emitted by clean and shiny engines . This was still so when 498.106 Albatross participated with the Vienna 150 years of railway celebration in the summer of 1987 , leading the crew to apply handfiring for much of the trip – if probably not during that impressive return to Vienna on the mainline with the special running several hours late , proceeding uncannily fast through the night with roaring three cylinder exhaust , signal lights dashing by the dark silhouette of the steam locomotive leading straight ahead running solidly smooth , absent any nosing nor longitudinal oscillation – a fine finish to a fantastic all day trip out and around including a good number of photo stops and run bys .
Regards
Juniatha
edited for to keep one font throughout – it wanted to flip-flop per paragraph without my asking
To see the 'older' version of smokebox 'receptacle', look carefully at pictures of older power -- a good example is the as-built NYC Buchanan 4-4-0 999. There is a cylindrical projection downward under the front of the smokebox, presumably equipped with a latch or trap at the bottom to dump the fines. There were patents that purported to recover this material and 'return it to the firebox for burning', although of course this was complicated by vacuum conditions.
The British appear to have been involved in 'self-cleaning smokeboxes' that actually had free openings at the bottom. I always presumed that the 'automatic action' of the draft over the range of speeds and loads was calculated with this amount of free area. What was not discussed (at least where I could find it) was how readily the 'char' in the front end would reignite, given the handy source of "combustion" air coming through the hole, and cause distortion or worse in the smokebox.
I am sure there is a discussion somewhere on the evolution of spark arresting front ends, from the old days of 'diamond stack' char "reservoirs" forward. It does have to be said that the American method of self-cleaning worked nicely to solve the motive power departments' problems, in an age when lots of unburnt fallout was tolerated by 'society'.
I would respectfully disagree. While in the current era, promoters of 'Lean Manufacturering' want you to belive that their methods are NEW!! and INNOVATIVE!!! the truth is Scientific Management, as promoted by Frederick Winslow Taylor, seems to have been an established methology by the time of the First World War. Railroads could have performed time aand motion studies on their operations, but it seems that in the US except for the Norfork and Western Railroad, chose not to run their steam locomotives in a truely 'scientific' manner.
Hi Wizlish
quote >> The British appear to have been involved in 'self-cleaning smokeboxes' that actually had free openings at the bottom. I always presumed that the 'automatic action' of the draft over the range of speeds and loads was calculated with this amount of free area. <<
Well , it was neither self-emptying nor working continuously .
It was meant as a simplification of cleaning and - as important with British steam as long as it was fully respected - a method to avoid ashes splilled over the - supposed to be clean - front end of the locomotive . As smokebox door was opened , the chute could be opened too and chars and ashes be collected to fall straight through the channel into the depot's deposit .
If you would have tried to run with chute open you would probably have experienced a hell of lazy steaming - gee .
At least one Hamburg-Altona crew tried something not to far from this , as is mentioned in the EK book on DB 03 class standard Pacifics : they joined their train at platform with smokebox door 90 degrees open and secured as it properly should and happily set out with smokebox door still fully open . How it was the fireman didn't get hot flames biting into his face once and as soon he decided it was time to put some shovels on I wonder . Yet , as the story goes they proceeded in spite of some unusual difficulties to keep her steaming and it wasn't before a number of stops that the engine finally gave up for fatigue - that made the crew take more than a casual glimpse at the front end which made them discover without too much difficulty what was wrong . I still wonder what about the fireman's duty to take a look ahead as 'left hand 'eye' for the driver and still not noting that big piece of iron hanging to the left of the boiler front , the door that is .
However , as the saying goes : nothing is too unlikely to happen !
Juniatha Tchechoslovakia
Actually, Juniatha's using the German spelling of Czechoslovakia.
At any rate, "Czechoslovakia" doesn't exist as a country anymore, they split up.
It's now Czecho and Slovakia.
Or maube "Czecho" was the sixth and now forgotten Marx Brother, after Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo, and Gummo.
Firelock76Actually, Juniatha's using the German spelling of Czechoslovakia.
Actually, it's not the German spelling with that 'v' -- it would be a 'w'... and it would end in -ei, not -ia. No matter; we know what she meant.
I wish I knew much more about those Czech 4-8-2s.
Well guys , you took a lot of care about my spelling of former CSD country , seems though , you didn't care a dime about the 'rest' of my text , i e you didn't care about the information I wrote . Maybe next time it would suffice if I'd just post a word in a somehow strangely contorted spelling and it would get me more response than any lengthy technical description discussion or design .
Thanks for the nice picture and link to video of 498.1 class - the video sound is totally spoiled by air stream noise , otherwise one would have 'heard' the engine ran without any clatter or knocking from rods and with a very low and soft exhaust . Its nice though to see those delicate spoked wheels and light rods in motion .
Have a nice evening all of you
= J =
Not true that all we care about is your spelling. The prior post was very enlightening about the self-cleaning smokebox, the difference in cleaning requirements between oil and coal firing, and some of the challenges posed in stoking the friable Central European coal. It was thorough in its treatment of the topic that exotic spelling was the only thing left for your steam locomotive comrades to talk about!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Hey, I just remembered something. Back in the old days of the Southern steam program they used to clear a clogged cinder screen on 4501 by dropping an M-80 down the smokestack!
Jeez, they must have had a ball running that thing years ago! Fun, fun, fun!
Juniatha ... seems though , you didn't care a dime about the 'rest' of my text , i e you didn't care about the information I wrote .
I thought very highly of it, and thank you for it. I had nothing to add to what you wrote, and so added nothing at the time. Please don't assume that anything technical you provide is not fully and completely appreciated whether or not you see us comment on it... or on peripheral 'details' instead.
Ok guys , thanks for your reassuring replies and appreciation .
And have another nice evening .
"NYC would run a single Hudson or Niagara 1250km Harmon-Chicago."
True in the case of the "20th Century Limited" which bypassed Cleveland via the lakefront trackage but every westbound steam era train that operated through Cleveland Union Terminal had the locomotive from Harmon cut off at Collinwood and a fresh locomotive put on at Linndale. In between those 2 points, CUT 2-C+C-2 electric motors handled the train. Obviously eastbound trains reversed the procedure.
[/quote]
tomikawaTT Piper106a It seems odd to me that American locomotives had the smokebox door secured with multiple bolts, what with the smokebox needing inspection or cleaning daily, or multiple times per day. All that wrenching to get it open and then closed again. The method used by British and French railways, of a single lever or a handwheel to latch/unlatch the smokebox door seems a lot quicker and more efficient. Take another look. American smokebox doors are/were dogged shut. Half a turn to loosen the nut, then rotate the dog clear. Granted that the 'busted clock' lock on modern Japanese locos was faster acting, but it also prevents mounting anything anywhere near the center of the smokebox front. On many roads, that was home base for the headlight. There is a similar situation aboard WWII era naval vessels. Bulkhead doors which were normally closed and only infrequently opened were clamped shut with dogs. Doors which were frequently used, and only closed when the ship was 'buttoned up' for storm or combat, had handwheels to operate their latches. In the same way, (at least on roads that did not have outside accessable ash hoppers on the bottom of the smokebox) getting debris out of the common American locomotive smokebox must have been a pain due to having a small diameter door high above the bottom of the smokebox. Every shovelfull of ash had to be lifted up from the bottom of the smokebox to the door. This job would likely have been easier, if the smokebox doors that were nearly the full diameter of the smokebox, as seen on British and French locomotives had been installed. Different operating conditions. European and Japanese locomotives locos ran a few hundred kilometers between cleanings. NYC would run a single Hudson or Niagara 1250km Harmon-Chicago. Some Western roads routinely ran a loco 2000+km without change. Nobody wanted the contents of the smokebox to dump out on the pilot beam when the door was opened - especially if there were air brake compressors sited there. (In Japan, the Elesco-type feedwater heater was frequently mounted on the pilot beam, directly under the smokebox door.) Then, too, on larger roads the major cleaning tool would have been somewhat similar to a vacuum cleaner - suck, not shovel. Bottom line, steam locomotives are criticised for the large amount of manpower needed to keep them running. Yet here we have one example of a task that needed far more labor input than it should have due to due lack of even basic job analysis on the part of engineering and management. I bet there were many steam locomotive operating tasks that could have had their labor requirements reduced with minor changes to the hardware. Bear in mind, the steam locomotive was, basically, a nineteenth century idea. Ergonomics wasn't even a concept in the mind of an academic when all but the most recent locos were designed. Most design features crystallized before the days of the USRA, never mind the more recent trend toward efficient initial design. Somebody starting today with a clean sheet of paper could easily come up with a design that would be more efficient to maintain. It would still require more maintenance manhours per operating hour than diesel or straight electric. That's why oceangoing ships have forsaken steam for diesel or gas turbine engines (unless the steam is generated by the heat of nuclear fission.) Chuck (Long ago Ship's Engineering cadet)
The N&W Js had less maintenance cost than the Southern E units. I would imagine that something like smoke box cleaning or cleaning the boiler tubes and flues could be done by drones nowadays.
dinodanthetrainman The N&W Js had less maintenance cost than the Southern E units. I would imagine that something like smoke box cleaning or cleaning the boiler tubes and flues could be done by drones nowadays.
When firing steam locomotives.. was it not done, from time to time, when a locomotive was working'hard' for the fireman to throw a scoop of sand into the firebox?
I was told on a couple of occasions that this was done to clear out the carbon deposits from the boiler, and smoke boxes....
I did not know enough about the reasoning for this practice; I just accepted what I had been told by people, I thought should know(?)
Sam, I don't know for sure, but I think that sand was used mainly on oil-burning locomotives to clean deposits off of the flues. Maybe oil fires produced oily combustion products that stuck to the flues, and maybe coal fires had enough solids to constantly scour the surfaces. I'm just guessing......
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
How was the smokebox accessed on locomotives like the Allegheny where the whole face of the locomotive was covered by air pumps and I-don't-know-what-all?
They had a small door sandwiched between the air compressors.
Paul of Covington Sam, I don't know for sure, but I think that sand was used mainly on oil-burning locomotives to clean deposits off of the flues. Maybe oil fires produced oily combustion products that stuck to the flues, and maybe coal fires had enough solids to constantly scour the surfaces. I'm just guessing......
I also understand that the sand not only scoured the soot away,it also pitted the surface of the flues.
Johnny
All this discussion about cleaning smoke boxes because of the despoits left by the burning of coal...seems to show the advantages oil fired engines..sure eliminates a lot of time consuming maintainence
As someone old enough to have followed steam when it was still common, I can attest to the efficiency of the American self-cleaning smokebox. Walking along a station platform on the N&W meant a crunching sound as your shoes crushed cinders and if you left the platform you might sink an inch or two into the soft accumulation of cinders. I visited many steam servicing facilities and rarely ever saw an open smokebox door. The cinders were all over the countryside, not at the bottom of the smokebox. Since opening the smokebox door was not as frequent as you might think, needing to release the many dogs that held it tight was not a major handicap. The dogs helped keep the smokebox door from leaking air which would have hindered the draft. If there had been a serious problem, I think steam designers had enough ingenuity to find a solution. Sometimes a European type door clasp was used here -- the B&O, for example, used British styling on some locomotives.
Back when I was able to stand by the J that was going to take #42 out of Bristol, I was warned that when the engine started to move I would be showered with cinders--as the draft from the exhaust threw them out of the stack.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.