"The man in the iron mask" (Themanintheironmask)
08/13/2014 at 03:11 • Filed to: None
5
7|
"The man in the iron mask" (Themanintheironmask)
08/13/2014 at 03:11 • Filed to: None | 5
| 7 |
Bluecold
> The man in the iron mask
08/13/2014 at 04:08 |
|
Weren't most steam locs equipped with a water tube boiler instead of a flame tube boiler?
|
The man in the iron mask
> Bluecold
08/13/2014 at 04:42 |
|
I understand what you mean, but i dont know the answer.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> Bluecold
08/13/2014 at 11:28 |
|
I would guess most have a flame tube boiler. If you GIS steam train and look they all seem to have the stack on the very front and the boilers are all fed from the back. Flame tube would make the most sense from an engineering perspective as it would allow for the easiest feeding and cleaning of the fire chamber.
http://wallpaperpanda.com/wallpapers/GTa…
camaroboy68ss
> Bluecold
08/13/2014 at 16:02 |
|
I think it depended on type of fuel used in the firebox.
Slave2anMG
> Bluecold
09/05/2014 at 08:50 |
|
Water tube boilers did not hold up well at all in railroad service - the service was too rough and caused leaks. Apart from 20 Alco-built 4-8-2 built for the New Haven in 1927, all others were experimentals. The New Haven engines were all reboilered within 3 years. The experimentals built were nearly all reboilered with 'conventional' boilers within a couple of years of being built - B&O, Canadian Pacific, Delaware & Hudson and New York Central come to mind. The exception was a B&O 4-6-2 that kept its watertube boiler for many years but was also, eventually, converted to a conventional boiler.
|
Bluecold
> Slave2anMG
09/10/2014 at 09:49 |
|
Cool to know, thanks!
|
Slave2anMG
> Bluecold
09/11/2014 at 14:46 |
|
De nada. Esoterica train geekery at work for >you< :)
