Has anyone looked at which engines had an additional metal covering over the smokebox as well as that over the bolier?
My point is that if you look at many engines, or possibly the majority, they had the cast steel showing, that made them more supcepticle to rust, & as such often had different paint treatments to help them in that regard, also to help in appearances especially for passenger engines.
The metal covering ove the smokebox also had a small affect on deadening the direct heat, if the crew had to walk past it on the running board>
whilst the British engines had the metal covering which gave them a smoother appearance.
Here in OZ, our 38cl in NSW were fitted with metal sheeting over the smokeboxes, & where the only engines so fitted. The non streamlined ones, had variations of green over the boiler sections with black painted smokebox coverings whilst others had an overall green including the boiler & smokebox. Both styles wore the same in service.
Some UK locos were lagged - the LNER favoured them on some of their more modern and larger engines. Some BR Standards had them as well - the Standard Class 8 4-6-2 was built with a lagged smokebox as far as I recall, and the Franco-Crosti boiler 9F 2-10-0s were certainly lagged.
A fair few modern US locos did have lagged smokeboxes. But the situation with UK engines is less clear-cut. Some locos were lagged - the LNER favoured them on some of their more modern and larger engines, and some BR Standards had them as well. But a common UK practice was to use flush-head rivets on smokeboxes, which could give the impression of a lagged smokebox. Bulleid's Pacifics had mostly welded smokeboxes, which also presented a smooth appearance when they were de-streamlined.
Indeed. I wanted to make the distinction between the insulating material and the sheet metal covering over that. I must admit I'd forgoten about the terms you mentioned.
Wolf wrote in news:45904469$0$1613 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.newshosting.com:
*snip*
I read on the Trains Magazine forum some time ago that the graphite layer would get heated by the fire and solidify, providing a surface much harder than the metal it surrounded.
I don't know for a fact that it's right, but I'm just submitting what I remember of what I read.
The main point was that I said many or most, not all.
Re the Britsh engines of the photo's that I have seen of a vast number, they all seem to have the steel sheeting.
Likewise my point with U.S engines. Most photo's & in the books that I have tend to show the cast steel type smokebox.
I am not of the view that they would have had lagging around the smokebox, as looking at photo's its pretty obvious that there would not have been enough room to fit any between the smokebox & cover sheeting. Bearing in mind that the lagging that was used in the steam days was heavy asbestos, & would not have compressed into the thin gap.
To test this theory, I would suggest viewing photos of the various engines & see just how thick the steel sheeting is ove the smokebox, & I think that you will find that there is nil or minimal gap therein.
I've got in another forum the information that the smokebox was not isolated as the boiler was. They did not have paint suited for that heat
100 years ago. So they used a mixture of oil and graphite to protect the thin. Later they got used to that typical graphite color and used paint of that color. A similar answer has been posted here too.
From my point the question is answered. Thanks to all the helpful answers.
What's all this knocking of rivet counters for? Do you have any particular need to dumb down the entire world or is it just your deepseated feelings of inadequacy? :-)
I cannot speak for modellers of other nationalities, (I'm British if you havent guessed by now!) but an authority (W:A:Tuplin) wrote that within the same class of locomotive it was possible for an engine to have a different rivit pattern, different amount of boiler tubes and so on, and that further more it didnt make an iota of difference to the locomotive! it ws the building gang that constructed the loco that more or less decided where rivits etc where to be placed +/- an inch :) this from a man who did his apprenticeship on such a gang for the Great Western Railway, now I have to admit to being a bit pedantic here but frankly I would be inclined to take his word for it rather than that of a guy who wasnt even born when certain lococs had been scrapped, melted down dropped encasing high explosive on Germany melted down again exported and imported as a japanese motorcycle......tomorrow a frying pan.....It is impossible to recreate exactly ANY model it will always be a matter of compromise especially seeing as how our steam locos are driven by electricity (appologies to the Swiss who mounted pantographs on some steam engines during WW2....) By the way the same loco that Tulpin spoke about could have its rivits float about during its working life of some 90 years or turn from being an 0-4-4 to a 4-4-0 (broad guage to "narrow guage" clever folks those GWR people!) so rivit counting is just simply not worth the bother because they will never never ever get it right with respect to models, but every club should have atleast one person who really does know this stuff simply for a handy reference otherwise ...... I now expect to get buried under a blizzard of protests.... I'm a railway fundamentalist so I doubt I'll move my postion Trevithic rules ok?! Valé Beowulf
I like to build models - I by far prefer models of steam era and prototypes from say a hundred years ago interest me the most because ... well, errr, um ... I like them better. I seem to prefer electric power because that allows me to operate them in a manner which most closely resembles the way the real ones probably moved. After building a few 'near enough' I wondered to myself "why not build them more accurately?" The effort required is little different to building them near enough. Can I build them precisely to scale? Hell no! Bits like the cab side sheets would buckle the first time the model was picked up. Odd hand rails and boiler fittings would snap off. Have I the space to lay prototypical curves? Actually, yes, but I figure the layout would lack operating interest if I restricted myself to that degree, therefore the axles need more sideplay. Can I maintain all my track, turnouts etc etc to scale prototype standards? No, so wheel standards need to be coarser. However, on the subject of rivets (and bolts, screws, boiler stays etc) it can be informative to understand why they are where they are so that I can make a better model. I have built a model from photographs of one class but not the same loco only to find later that there were detail differences - who can see both sides of a loco at once? Not me, but it irritated me that my loco wasn't right. Someone I know of built a generic model (of a specific class) and later discovered that the prototype he numbered it as was built for an exhibition and had flush mounted countersunk rivets! The NZR L class started as a 2-4-0t from several British builders, got rebuilt as 4-4-0t with larger drivers and assorted boilers that were spare at a variety of works, and then had a trailing truck added to carry an extended coal bunker. In that formation they proved to be quite useful branch line locos so the NZR built several more, some using excess spares ... Being on various branchlines scattered widely, minor repairs were done away from the main works ... I'm definitely going to need photos of just one specific loco to model one of those, preferably taken on the same day!
Yes, I count rivets, but I don't neccessarily include them all on my models and I do know which ones are missing and why. I'm reminded of one of those jokes in the Railway Modeller circa 1965; Bissel is saying "so long as the chimney is in front of the cab, who cares?" Well, I care to the point that a model should look like it's prototype - if it's a rivetted steel wagon it should have rivets, if it's a welded prototype it shouldn't. If the axle guards don't have enough rivets in much the right places they look to me as though they shoui\ld fall off (which bothers me)
I know I have different standards to (some) others - I can live with that so long as they don't insist I should change my standards to match their standards or lack of standards. When they insult me for being different I reserve the right to respond.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.