Water Tube Boilers

Advert

Water Tube Boilers

Home Forums Beginners questions Water Tube Boilers

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #113202
    Phil H 1
    Participant
      @philh1

      I am currently reading a book called 'Model Locomotive and Marine Boilers' by Martin Evans. A chapter towards the back of the book shows a very simple 'water tube' gas fired design for a 2 1/2" gauge locomotive and the book suggests that similar designs could be applied to larger scales – say 3 1/2" gauge. The design appears to be far easier to build than the traditional coal fired version and seems to use a much smaller proportion of very valuable copper/ silver solder.

      Is anybody familiar with the performance of these types of boiler and why with such high material costs is this type of boiler not gaining in popularity e.g., is the performance simply not good enough. Any views?

      PhilH

      Advert
      #6599
      Phil H 1
      Participant
        @philh1
        #113285
        nigel jones 5
        Participant
          @nigeljones5

          do you have a sketch/picture? I had a go at water tube boilers some time ago, it all depends on what type of water tube boiler you mean?

          #113299
          Phil H 1
          Participant
            @philh1

            Good idea Fizzy so here it is. You might not be able to see all the detail but it is 3 1/4" diameter and 10" long. Its firebox section is obviously narrow enough for 2 1/2" gauge but this could surely be made wider. It is not far off the size of a boiler that would fit Rob Roy – maybe. However, I am still reading the book and the next chapter might hold the key. Chapter 8 is about the testing of boilers and it might give an insight into performance.

            water tube boiler 001.jpg

            #113306
            John Baguley
            Participant
              @johnbaguley78655

              I suspect that for a larger loco expected to do some work i.e pull people around, you won't get enough heating surface to produce the steam output required. Probably be ok for a loco pulling a few wagons or coaches around?

              John

              #113324
              Phil H 1
              Participant
                @philh1

                John,

                Yes, that is my suspicion but there is a suggestion from the book that this is not necessarily the case. I guess without doing some sums – it is difficult to see why the heating surface is lower because heat from the burner is able to heat the small bore water tubes, the bottom and sides of the inner vessel and the exhaust fumes are able to heat its entire length all the way to the smokebox. Without sums, instinctively, the area seems much higher???!!!

                PhilH

                #113436
                nigel jones 5
                Participant
                  @nigeljones5

                  Without sums, instinctively, the area seems much higher???!!!

                  and therein lies the problem. There is a very finite amount of boiler space (for water) which scaled up to a bigger gauge would mean a very fast turn around, thus making heating difficult. Think of a little mamod boiler, small amount of water and runs for ages, but step this up a few fold and you cant heat the replacement water fast enough.

                  #113481
                  Phil H 1
                  Participant
                    @philh1

                    Fizzy – I am definitely not with this (by the way – Im sure it is me not understanding it – not your explanation) because If you took this to its extreme i.e., kept reducing the water volume but increased the heating area – the likely result is flash steam isn't it?

                    I am going to try a few estimates/ calculations to understand what is going on. I am quite sure that something is wrong with the idea or everyone would be doing it (unless people simply with to stay with tradition of course).

                    Thanks so far guys.

                    Philh

                    #113483
                    nigel jones 5
                    Participant
                      @nigeljones5

                      I also built a 7 1/4 Brotan boiler, have a search for that one.

                      #113632
                      MICHAEL WILLIAMS
                      Participant
                        @michaelwilliams41215

                        The problem for simple type water tube boilers is the same as for firetube boilers with only one big flue – it doesn't matter how much heating surface you have the bulk of the heat in the gas flow just goes down the centre of the flue and uselessly out of the chimney .

                        For effective steam raising the hot gas flow has to be forced into contact with whatever constitutes the heating surface in any partcular boiler design and also has to pass over the heating surface with as near as possible ideal conditions for heat transfer .

                        In full size water tube boilers many water tubes are used , arranged quite close together in banks and often semi enclosed in ducting so that the hot gasses have no option but to pass over many tubes before exiting to exhaust . This is the normal arrangement where forced hot gas flow is used .

                        There is an alternative way of managing gas flow in full size boilers and that is to use an abnormally big firebed and very slow combustion rates so that the hot gasses spend a relatively long time in contact with tubes before exiting to exhaust . Most effective with solid fuel but possible with any fuel . Hot gas flow is usually unforced .

                        Forced means blower or high chimney designs with induced convection . Unforced means natural convection .

                        The above is general – there are many boilers which use some of each concept and some boilers which use novel designs .

                        Many boilers incorporate systems of baffles to direct hot gas flow .

                        Water tube boilers have been extensively used in land based power stations and in ships boilers . Use in locomotives has been limited , experimental and usually not that successful .

                        Large water tube boilers are often called Yarrow boilers – though strictly that term describes a three drum water tube boiler .

                        Hybrid boilers have been made with fire tubes and water tubes .

                        There are conceptual variations of the water tube boiler possible :

                        Lower part of water drum has large number of tubes sticking out radially on underside open to boiler and closed on outer end . Bit like lots of test tubes sticking out .

                        Similar but sticking out bits are solid metal .

                        Conjugate version of the test tube one with the tubes going radially inward into boiler . Generally much shorter and fatter tubes – more like tea cups .

                        Lots more – ask any questions you like .

                        Regards ,

                        Michael Williams .

                        #113638
                        Sub Mandrel
                        Participant
                          @submandrel

                          At one time there was a interest in stainless steel monotube boiler design that would fit inside a normal boiler shell. As I recall the safe working pressure was about 1000psi and that combined with the very small water volume made it exceptionally safe, although it wasn't popular with testers who didn't know how to treat it. It may have been Geoff Sheppard or another ME editor who was involved.

                          Neil

                          #113660
                          Phil H 1
                          Participant
                            @philh1

                            Use in locomotives has been limited , experimental and usually not that successful .

                            Michael,

                            Thanks for the answer and interest in my question. I think the section above is the crucial bit because as you point out in your answer – basically, all boilers have heat exchange surfaces with water on one side and a hot, heating gas flowing past the other.

                            I guess my question should be modified to ask – is anyone aware of any ME articles where a set of different designs have been tested against eachother. I would imagine that such tests might well have been carried out many years ago but as Neil suggests – there might be a more recent examples.

                            I understand that a well designed water tube might not be as good as a typical Stephenson type design but is this really so significant e.g., a large Stephenson might be capable of pulling 12 passengers comfortably but a different design might only be able to pull 8 comfortably??

                            Along with different boiler designs, there is also the build quality of the engine chassis, cylinders and valve gear to take into account and of course – engines also vary in size from say 0-4-0 to 4-6-2.

                            Do we actually know that an alternative design will not be good enough or do we only suspect (maybe with good reason) that an alternative is not practicle?

                            PhilH

                            #113661
                            MICHAEL WILLIAMS
                            Participant
                              @michaelwilliams41215

                              (1) For an experimental engine it would certainly be possible to design a water tube boiler that was effective . To do so , however , it would be nescessary to design one on sound principles – trying to develop the standard Smithies / LBSC design would be a waste of time .

                              (2) An effective water tube boiler is likely to be a funny shape in cross section – not the usual round . May not matter on an experimental engine .

                              (3) Never heard of any proper comparitive tests though odd people have built water tube boilers when their conventional boilers wore out .

                              (4) Most famous (and bad tempered ) trial which proved nothing at all was the ' Battle of the Boilers '

                              between Greenly and LBSC .

                              (5) If you can read :

                              " Advanced Steam Locomotive Development – Three Technical Papers "

                              L.D.Porta – pub Camden

                              MikeW

                              #113696
                              michael howarth 1
                              Participant
                                @michaelhowarth1

                                I built a small (1" scale) water tube boiler for a traction engine for a grandson in Australia. It was spirit fired and roared away at a tremendous rate. So much so that it outpaced me and the inevitable happened…….it upended itself in the shrubbery and the spilt meths caught a bush alight. This caused a bit of a rethink, in view of the wildfires that occur in Oz…….only recently to thisevent, a fire originating from a spark from an angle grinder had destroyed 30 homes. I therefore converted it to run on butane. In theory it had a far greater heat input but it never had the same performance as on spirit. Whichever the fuel, it was quite greedy and it was also very heavy on water consumption.

                                Mick

                                #113720
                                Phil H 1
                                Participant
                                  @philh1

                                  Guys,

                                  As suggested by Mike, I did an initial search and found two articles. One called 'Battle of the Boilers' and a Wikipedia article on the same subject.

                                  The first article was inconclusive. It said that Bassett & Lowke (spirit fired water tube) versus LBSC (fire tubed) both built a test locomotive and both were successful. The larger B&L engine ran longer but the LBSC ran with a heavier load.

                                  The second article suggested that the fire tube engine could pull about 200lb load (at small scale) whereas the typical spirit fired engine could manage about 30lb.

                                  PhilH

                                Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
                                • Please log in to reply to this topic. Registering is free and easy using the links on the menu at the top of this page.

                                Advert

                                Latest Replies

                                Home Forums Beginners questions Topics

                                Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)
                                Viewing 25 topics - 1 through 25 (of 25 total)

                                View full reply list.

                                Advert

                                Newsletter Sign-up