John,
If you don't mind I am going to pick up on another thread where a G3S boiler Inspector said in his opinion small boilers were unsuitable for G3 locos.
The statement is wrong on so many levels that it shouldn't really remain unchallenged.
One significant issue is the fact it could dissuade new blood from trying G3 scenic railwaying by leading them to believe that G3 norms are somehow entirely different to G1 and 16mm norms.
In other words, more expensive, more regulated, just plain harder work.
Whilst that might be to some extent true for a large Pacific, it is utterly untrue for what could be seen as an entry level first scenic steamer of a smaller prototype.
'Ginger' encouraged this approach a few years ago, and it is still entirely correct.
Much already exists off the shelf in the G1 and 16mm world which could be easily used on a G3 loco.
For instance, this new supplier recently advertised plans for a batch of both Dee and Project boilers, fully certified, for a price iro a couple of hundred quid each.
http://www.castleinstruments.co.uk/Contact-Us.html
I don't know whether there are any spaces left on those batches, nor how long those prices might hold, but they are also open for one- off builds.
I have one from their Dee batch on order. Modded slightly with the dome bush shifted to suit the prototype, it will slide into my small G3 0-4-4T nicely.
Since the order, I can say communication has been first class, and photos show a very high quality product. Proof will be in the eating, so I will report further when it arrives next month.
With an off the shelf (relatively cheap) batch built certificated boiler, plus off the shelf batch built single or twin cylinder blocks machined to various G1 designs, it would be extremely straightforward to collect the various bits to assemble a G3 scale steamer based on any number of smaller prototypes, without any boilermaking or much machining skills. And all with a bit more space (wriggle room) between the frames than in G1.
Such machined cylinders etc are already available from eg https://www.justtheticketsupplies.co.uk
I have used one of their ready assembled twin cylinder assemblies before, and was pleased with the standard of machining.
The 16mm world is also generating many items suitable for small G3 steamers. Whether Roundhouse boilers and gas systems etc, or 'after market' regulator assemblies etc, there is a great deal that could be used.
An ebay supplier occasionally offers G1 items such as 'Project' type water pumps.
MEL would almost certainly produce G3 scaled laser cut items to any design.
It is probably a slight stretch to say a G3 loco could currently be built with a screwdriver alone, but people shouldn't be unnecessarily misled or discouraged. It should be no less accessible than the other 'garden scales'.
If someone is looking for an entry level, or relatively cheap, live steamer for scenic railwaying, then G3 can be just as straightforward as G1 and 16mm. It's just a question of choosing the prototype.
(ps Another catalyst for growth is of course an opportunity to access tracks which is why an acceptance of the 'new' lighter touch code will help. Sure, people can choose who to invite, but if a Group or Society aims to encourage participation then maybe they should actually take any opportunity to do so. I note this morning that the Australian Rails in The Garden Group state it is likely they will move away from their current codes for Sub Miniature boilers. Their own investigations and risk assessments are leading them to a code which will 'probably not be dissimilar to those recently issued by G1MRA and 16mm Assoc.
So even Aussie Rules might be changing)
For further ideas and inspiration along these lines, there are some articles from old G3S Newsletters available on the G3S website (thanks Ian!):
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0bb4dc_7a8e44d6985846a998b6c5b9e44bcf45.pdf (http://www.gauge3.org.uk/downloads-available-to-members)
http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0bb4dc_6a2ad3259b5642d6923e4bc7f6670394.pdf (http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0bb4dc_6a2ad3259b5642d6923e4bc7f6670394.pdf)
I seem to recall that Adrian Booth converted a Roundhouse 0-4-0T into a G3 steam railmotor some years ago.
I was contacted just a few days ago by a potential convert to G3 from G1 who has been looking at material on g3madesimple.org.uk and gauge3.info and is hoping to produce a small tank loco as per "Ginger's" series on the 0-4-4T.
He said he was encouraged by the "no nonsense" approach to construction and the fact that the boiler is of same design as one he is currently building for a G1 loco.
He watches (and has now joined) this forum and I hope this wrangling will not alter his views on G3.
John.
So do I.
More fresh blood with his approach could do G3 a great deal of good.
Here's a G1 based G3 loco. under construction. Very much taken from Ginger's ideas.
http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/g3-0-4-4t-project-based.5523/
Here's a gross check for Small Boiler usefulness.
A representative small boiler could be one of the GWR Standard boilers. A small one, such as Standard 11 or 21, as used on Metro's, many absorbed locos, and many others.
These boilers are recorded as c. 16ft long overall, barrel and firebox with barrel diameters iro 4ft 3in..
In G3, c. 8.5 in. length, 2.25in dia.
A Project boiler, straight from the plan, has an overall length of 6.5 in., and a diameter of 2 in. It has a declared SWP of 60psi
Accepting the Project's diameter but increasing overall length to, say, 8in., results in a perfectly good Small Boiler for G3 scenic purposes.
Plenty of room also for out of scale insulation within scale cladding.
Calculated 'capacity' of this extended boiler, c. 1.70 bar litre.
That calculation simply assumed the boiler was considered to be a simple cylinder, 8in long x 2in dia. It assumed the smokebox tubeplate was positioned as far forward as possible with no inset.
No correction was made for displacement of firebox crown, fire tubes or other impedimenta.
So a good enough steam producer for small scenic locos and nowhere near the Small Boiler limit. Boilers like this can be purchased, ready certified, for something like £200- £300.
I sometimes think we need a "like" button on this forum!
QuoteI sometimes think we need a "like" button on this forum!
Well, you asked for it.......let's hope it works!
I have activated for all boards, except those which are of the "announcement" variety (admin boards, buy/sell, etc.).
If you experience any issues, let me know.
John.
A Boiler inspector is simply someone who has volunteered to undertake some fairly simple technical tasks. They are required to be competent and correctly equipped, such that they can undertake straightforward procedures that are very well documented. There is no qualification (or test) to become a BI as such - they are appointed but are of course expected to work/stay within their own competencies and experience.
The Society has about 6-7 BI's currently - and if you got them all in a room, I think you would find they probably have very different opinions about quite a lot of things - both technical and other. I certainly do not agree with everything Ralph says for instance - and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't support all of my views.
My point being that it's quite useful to recognise when someone is giving you a personal view - as opposed to an 'official' one - they are often quite different and it is misleading to confuse the two in my view.
Other than that Jamie - I don't disagree with you too much (and that has often been the case) - more the way you chose to make your points....
Regards,
IanT
Sorry, but I'm not smart enough to see the 'off duty' distinction, Ian.
Were I surfing the net for G3 activity, wondering whether or not to dip my toe into scenic G3 live steam, I would sit up and take notice if I stumbled across a G3S inspector baldly stating on a public forum that a Small Boiler is unsuitable for G3.
I would take even more notice if said Inspector went on to call them a danger and declare he won't entertain them.
Like it or not, it is not unreasonable to also conflate an Inspector's opinions with his/ her organisation's, particularly when discussing boiler tests and boiler matters within the Society's area of influence.
And what an impression they give.
But perhaps G3S will enthusiastically embrace the 'new' code and use it to help show potential members it is no more difficult to get involved with G3 steam than it is the other 'garden' gauges.
Maybe it will encourage pockets of new G3 (small) steam activity and support new GTG tracks with Society insurance and guidance etc, all in isolation of mandatory annual visits to the Inspector cohort. (Not discourage such contact, but not mandate it either).
Who knows where relaxing the reins a bit might lead? Maybe Society activity will increase to the point where a BI just can't get to every GTG each year. Nor need to, at least for annual Small Boiler certifications.
Jaime,
You are very vocal in your opinions -but the one thing you have never done is provide is a mathematical first principles proof. So I will do it for you. This is a typical Gauge 1 boiler.
Given Parameters:
The wheels of a locomotive are 50mm diameter.
The bore and stroke of twin double acting cylinders is 25mm x 12.5mm.
The velocity of the locomotive is 1 metre per second.
Assume 100% admission and exhaust.
Working pressure is 5BAR.
I will be using the Greenly factor 100sq inches of heating surface per 100PSI with 1 cubic inch of water boiled per minute.
This translates to: 64,516mm2, 6.89BAR, 16.38mm3 per 60 Seconds.
Revolution of wheels at 1mS-1 gives 381RPM thus:-
The volume of steam going from the boiler is Pi x R squared x H x Strokes x Number per minute
[Pi x 6.25 x 6.25 x 25 x 4 x 381] = 464,675,573mm3 of steam used per minute.
If we assume 5BAR this translates into a boiling temperature of 157 deg C and you would have to boil 14,796 mm3 of water per minute to produce this. At this temperature one volume of water produces 318 volumes of saturated steam.
The heating surface required would be :- [5/6.89] x [14,796/16.38]
This would translate to a 25mm dia centre single flue of 98.49mm long. Which to simplify the maths we will call 100mm(!)
Looking at std tube diameters in 1.6mm seamless Copper.
50mm would give a volume of 196,349 – 49,087 = 147,262 mm3
The running time would be [ 147,262 /14,796 ] = 597 seconds until boiler is empty
The energy from the pistons is 0.1Nmm2 per BAR thus:-
[ 5 x 0.1 x 4 x Pi x 6.25 x 6.25 ] = 245Joules.
Now let us examine the boiler that I am using which is "Design No. 14" from KN Harris's book "Model Boilers and Boiler Making". This was designed originally for a 0-4-4 loco but I have adopted it for a 2-6-0 layout.
The total heating surface is 90,322mm2. The G1 boiler is 7,853mm2 even allowing for the difference in scale (and applying it) the same heating area would only be 19,323mm2.
Running through the same Given Parameters but using the size of pistons that I am using gives the following:-
As my bore and stroke is 30 x 22mm. Volume of steam required becomes:-
[Pi x 11 x 11 x 30 x 4 x 381] = 4,344,916mm3 per minute
Thus I have to boil [ 4,344,916 / 318 ] = 13,663 mm3 of water per minute.
Energy from the pistons is
[ 5 x 0.1 x 4 x Pi x 11 x 11 ] = 760Joules
From the above figures I feel that it would be impossible to power a G3 loco for any length of time with a small boiler as the quantity of steam required and the heating area needed to produce this preclude its fitting unless the loco does not have a long running time. I would prefer a larger less stressed boiler to one that is having to be thrashed... Axle pumps, tender pumps and injectors can be used to provide continuous feed for an undersized boiler. Only the tender pump is not parasitic on the energy produced by the boiler.
Let us also apply the basic rules of thermodynamics. A short fat boiler is more efficient than a long thin one due to the lower ratio of of Volume to Surface area. This is the volume of the container to the amount of external surface area to lose / radiate heat from. A larger boiler also has more defined circulation paths due to the volume of water and the depth of the water. Higher pressures reduce the amount of energy required to boil the water -thus a larger boiler system at higher pressure is more efficient.
My instinct is to follow the figures. IanT has said that of the boilers presented to the Inspectors only one shell was declared to be 3BAR litre. If I went to Borrowash track and declared my 5inch "LanyTank" to be 3BAR litre I would be laughed at. Looking at the figures I have decided that a G3 sized boiler in a G3 loco is the best option. Nowhere have I said that a 3BAR litre Small Boiler was dangerous -those are your words not mine. I have simply stated that 3BAR litre is not applicable to G3 as the boilers simply are too small and lack the evaporative power to be usable. This is my personal viewpoint and as proof that I held it to be correct before I became a Boiler Inspector I would present the time and effort required to produce Design 14 rather than buy a Project boiler.
Jamie, when Ralph (Cabbage) kindly offered to provide boiler testing facilities in his neck of the woods - the Society didn't ask or require him to stop voicing his own opinions in this area. All they require of Ralph is that he performs the tests as laid out in the codes - which I am sure he will do very competently.
The "impression" people will get when they visit this site can of course be manipulated - something I am sure you would wish to avoid. I am therefore very pleased (and unsurprised) to see that Ralph is happy to debate you. I look forward to a lively conversation but please don't present any one persons views here as necessarily representing the Society as a whole or as an organisation.
I've seen and admired your work elsewhere. You decided to leave the Society - which was a pity but so be it. There are a lot of folk in the wider G3 community who don't feel the need to join the Society and that's fair enough - but as someone who has tried to help and support the growth of G3 and the Society - can I suggest the two are in fact linked. So whilst you don't have to agree with everything the 'Society' does (or does not) do, please stop the sniping...
OK - I'll shut up now. Over to you and Ralph - and then hopefully back to the main topic - which I think should be how to encourage the design, development and use of small live steam engines in G3.
Regards,
IanT
Chaps, I have very little experience of actual running of live steam. I have merely consulted with experts for the design of Venture, which has two cylinders made specially as an enlarged G1 design so they will take more steam than G1 cylinders.
The boiler is an enlarged G1 DEE as designed and proved by Dick Allen, but with the firebox reduced in size and the boiler slightly shorter to fit the LNWR 0-6-0. So, it is only slightly larger than a G1 DEE and smaller than some G1 boilers for Pacifics and larger engines.
Roger Marsh has made the first boiler (coal fired), and many have seen it n test at Ampthill where it ran beautifully at scale speeds for at least half an hour. It has run at least twice since then with similar success.
I guess it depends what you want from your Gauge 3 engine. If you want to haul eight or ten coaches at 80mph for an hour, than the Venture boiler will soon struggle, but for pulling four 6-wheeled coaches or a dozen wagons at maybe 30mph for half an hour, then a G1 sized boiler appears to do the job very well.
Also, and probably more importantly, for older engines you just can't fit a larger boiler without being grossly overscale, which is not what "scenic model railways" are all about. Look at Roger Marsh's tiny 0-4-0 saddle tanks – they run supremely well but only with very short trains and for a limited time, which is what the real version was built for.
Mike
Ralph,
Over the last few days, in a thread discussing the 'new' Small Boiler regulation, you made many allusions to safety (or lack thereof).
Here's one from Wednesday.
As a host I have a duty of care to my guests. Some of my most enthusiastic guests (for no fault of their own) often have mental ages below 10...
In my first year of GTG I barred steam engines completely. It is my personally belief that the 3BAR litre rule cannot be ....
I suggested earlier that perhaps you should actually read and properly think through the 'new' code first, because I got the impression you thought Small Boilers were to become UNcertified, an impression rather confirmed by this-.
The insurance company simply insist that your equipment is safe. Certification ensures that!
However, if you now accept that size alone does not make a boiler safe or unsafe, and if you have accepted the 'new' code which no longer mandates an annual visit to an Inspector such as yourself, then there is no more to be said.
Turning to your mathematics, I'm afraid I'm reminded of the aerodynamics of a bumblebee.
I can admire the logic, the beauty even, in such calculations, but I confess I would get distracted from the theory every time a 'Project' puffed past in a scenic setting pulling a few coaches or wagons.
Shouldn't theory concede to empirical data?
The scaled size of a large prototype allows a large boiler. Use the space and the loco will be able to carry out scaled express runs with heavy Teaks, in a SCENIC setting.
Logical, and all good G3 stuff.
But there is no logic in blindly over- boilering a small prototype for SCENIC railwaying.
If someone wants to build a small G3 loco for scaled pottering or 'local duties', it is utterly unnecessary to shoe- horn in an overscale boiler.
Unnecessary expense and complication, and to achieve what, in the SCENIC environment?
Many people would be delighted with a small, tightly radiused garden layout, and a small Tankie asthmatically struggling with the 'pick up goods'. (And if G3S gave them insurance and advice for GTGs, maybe the neighbours would join as well!)
Or indoor steam.
Show people how easy it can be to get involved with G3 steaming, and maybe their second loco will indeed be a Pacific with big boiler, cavernous cylinders and buckets of spare steam.
Agreed Mike.
I don't really need to drag out my Henry Greenly's to know that if I widened the gauge of a 16mm engine by 18.5mm - it wouldn't change the overall characteristics of the engine. indeed Roger Marsh already has done exactly this and his engines run very well.
The member who has designed the <3BL boiler (that I mentioned previously) has cunningly (he is a very inventive engineer) shortened it - even though the outer cladding is longer (e.g. the internal boiler doesn't reach the same point as the external smokebox would suggest). His existing engines are also very efficient and will still tick along at 20-30psi - so he's confident that his boiler will produce enough steam to drive the engine and asked for the 'shell' test to be done at a Wp of 60psi. The combination of the shorter boiler and lower Wp will deliver a large G3 tender loco (SR but cannot recall what the actual loco is) with a <3BL boiler.
My view has long been that the issue of small boiler use in G3 is simply a legacy thing. Most published 2.5" designs (LBSC, Martin Evans, Don Young etc) were intended to be 'driver driven' - not scenic. You have to go back to before LBSC (pre-1930s) to find (mostly non-scale, spiritfired) G3 designs for scenic use. So it's not too suprising that most G3 loco stock comes with a large capacity boiler, operated at high pressure.
16mm have a legacy that is almost entirely small boiler/low pressure - so no surprise - there are lots of them around in 16mm - with maybe only a very few >3Bl engines about (large Garratts perhaps?). As the market for 16mm live steam grew - so did the demand for good quality commercial products - leading to the emergence of peope like Roundhouse. We are now seeing commercial live steam in G3 but generally they have been larger (Mainline) engines that can demand a larger price.
However, there is absolutely no reason why excellent small G3 engines cannot be built (with <3BL boilers) apart from perhaps a lack of good/interesting small modern G3 designs. I think the dilemma is that we cannot interest the larger live steam commercial producers with our current demand volumes - so we first need to build a base of 'builders' to generate more interest in G3 live steam. I know many feel that 'building' stuff is going out of fashion and want RTR - but unless we are lucky enough to have some small firm make a giant leap of faith in this area - the 'owner-builders' have to first lead the way I believe.
What we need is more published designs for small G3 live steam engines (preferably easy to build) that can really start to move G3 away from LBSC's Passenger Hauling legacy...
Regards,
IanT
I agree with every word of that.
Focus on what G3 is about.
The other 'garden gauge' Societies have tried to break down barriers to entry (safely) where they were perceived, and their membership and activity levels surely reflect that. And the manufacturers followed to everyone's benefit.
Unnecessary regulation or dogma helps no-one.
They have also undoubtedly benefitted by not having had their focus deflected in an entirely irrelevant direction by the needs of 'ride on' activities.
If the number of people becoming involved with some kind of G3 activity increase, I guess the manufacturers should follow.
G3 is nicely on the cusp of model railways and model engineering, and should be exploiting the best bits of both in a SCENIC model railwaying environment.
There is a great deal to be said for , and interest to be had in, encouraging new ideas and techniques; the greater the numbers of participants, the more likely we are to see them.
But to get there, I would suggest that currently one of the cheapest and simplest entry levels ways into (safe) G3 SCENIC steaming would be to utilise the economies of scale that purchasing a (certificated!) G1/ 16mm type boiler, and/ or other ex G1/16mm components, can bring, and using them in an appropriate design.
And bluntly, use the expertise built up around what does and doesn't work, and bring it to G3.
(As one example, the boiler, valve gear, cylinders, etc from a particular, currently available large G1 design fit almost perfectly within the outlines of a G3 small 2-4-0 I would like to build one day. Even the driver diameters are pretty well identical. And yes, the boiler is <3bar litre)
To discourage that particular approach is misguided.
Jaime,
You have used my own words to attack me and used them out of context. Again with the Mathematics you voiced opinion rather than facts, what you have never done is ask why I have made those comments....
1: As a host I have a duty of care to my guests. Some of my most enthusiastic guests (for no fault of their own) often have mental ages below 10...
I consider myself fortunate to be chosen for Wednesday afternoon treats for a few pupils from St
Andrews Special School during the summer. A pupil plus ECO will sit on the grass and drink orange squash with ice cubes and eat sandwiches and chocolate cake. Due to "excitable bladder" I limit the number of guest to five plus five ECOs. Down's Syndrome and other intellectual problems do not preclude the enjoyment of watching trains.
2: In my first year of GTG I barred steam engines completely. It is my personally belief that the 3BAR litre rule cannot be ....
I admit this! I had no idea how a steam loco would react on my track since they were an unknown quantity. My track was never designed to take steam locos but high speed running of Diesel and Electric traction of no more than a 2-D0-2 bogie with no larger wheels than 50mm. As to how a 75mm driver would handle the 3metre radius gauge widened curves I did not know. The late Dave Lowe brought his Brit "02" and we did some cautious testing. We found that it WAS possible to get "02" around the tight corner -but only in reverse. Having proved the largest commercial steam loco was tenable and would not leap off the corners etc -I lifted the interdict
3: The insurance company simply insist that your equipment is safe. Certification ensures that!
To quote you
"With an off the shelf (relatively cheap) batch built certificated boiler," If you read the text all I am insisting on are certified boilers. If you were to present me with a boiler lacking a serial number, a TUV or CE mark and no paperwork then I feel that I have a duty to certify it as safe -regardless of volume or working pressure before I let it run on my tracks.
4: I note this morning that the Australian Rails in The Garden Group state it is likely they will move away from their current codes for Sub Miniature boilers.
Yes I know they are, I have seen a copy of the new regs... You really wouldn't like them as it also includes classification of boiler testing required by gauge of track, boiler diameter and 8 types of boiler and YES G3 track is outside the limits for simple testing. By all means go and check!!!
I see that you have started using SCENIC in capitals as if this is supposed to indicate that I am referring to locomotives used for tractive purposes. All (bar one) of the steam locomotives that have been on my tracks have been SCENIC. The one non SCENIC locomotive (a Green Arrow) which belonged to the late Dave Lowe and we found it could not take any of the curves. The loco remained under my son's baby grand until the next owner collected it.
5: Turning to your mathematics, I'm afraid I'm reminded of the aerodynamics of a bumblebee.
Interestingly enough so did the inventor of the Ekranoplans of the Soviet Union. The simple fact is that the thrust from the wings is used to provide air flow over the body of the bee. The shape of the bee provides a lifting body. This also explains why the engines of an Ekranoplan are at the nose end...
6: However, if you now accept that size alone does not make a boiler safe or unsafe.
I have never said that. Again I repeat, "Those Are Your Words Not Mine".
7: Show people how easy it can be to get involved with G3 steaming, and maybe their second loco will indeed be a Pacific with big boiler, cavernous cylinders and buckets of spare steam.
Southern Magyar is my first steam loco. It is based on the "very easy" beginners LBSC design called "Southern Maid". The boiler has been altered from coal firing to gas firing, and the boiler design from Stephenson to that of Brotan, (which would be more prototypically correct for a MAV or KKStb loco of the Austro Hungarian Empire period). The boiler is smaller and shorter than it should be -but is disguised under a large wrapper. The cylinder size is smaller too. It was designed to pull 3 double bogie coaches (Berne Gauge) for about 45 minutes. Since Brotans produce "wetter" steam than the Stephensons it also has two large superheaters and a "Clench" steam drier. When the loco is complete and running to my satisfaction I will take it out to GTGs. I would EXPECT the host to look at it sideways and insist on the documentation. As this is something I would do myself.
Could it pull me? To be honest I don't think so. This has nothing to do with my lack of waist but more to do with my design aspects for it. I had a small boy who used to delight in having his tricycle pulled along the garden path by my SM32 "Lady Anne". So I will leave it up to you to decide if it is SCENIC or simply a well designed powerful little loco?
I also have some ideas for running G1 equipment on G3. But I warn you Jaime -you will foam at the mouth, because the original by line of the entries on this forum was;
"Everything I build was real -Unfortunately..."
Ralph,
The "Three BAR Litre" rule is I believe useless at our scale.
Your words.
Is there within your contribution now a re-appraisal of that opinion?
If not, there really is no point carrying on a discussion.
ps Because the empirical data (a bumblebee does fly) disproved then accepted theory, the theoreticians had to work out why. Lift producing fuselages- think Thunderbird 2- were the result. Empirics drove the theory.
It's not an unusual process, is it? It starts with observing something , then trying to understand why and how.
Much healthier than first calculating something won't work, then ignoring all evidence that it does.
pps Ekranoplans exploit ground effect. Most 'cruise' engines were actually positioned somewhere aerodynamically neutral, not in the nose. And ideally high enough to escape water spray.
Some designs did have additional engines positioned toward the nose; their efflux was used for general thrust, but importantly was (or could be) deflected to augment airflow below the Lift- producing stub wings; this extra flow of air increased the ground effect 'cushion'.
This is the primary purpose of the cluster of forward positioned engines on some designs.
Indeed, they were perhaps most used during take off, where the efflux had a ready yet constrained path between wing and sea. There would have been no way to direct air under the fuselage (until airborne).
The stub wings were able to generate the required amount of lift to support weight, but only within ground effect. Ground effect reduces Induced Drag to the extent that their short stubby wings had L/D ratios normally only achieved with long thin wings (eg as sailplanes).
But only within ground effect- try climbing, drag increased and it would settle back to equilibrium.
Some also had a proportion of engine efflux ducted below the fuselage to form a sort of hovercraft- like cushion of higher pressure air, but that wasn't specifically exploiting a 'Lift producing fuselage' in any meaningful sense either.
It would take a deliberately poor design to produce absolutely no Lift at all from a fuselage, but all in all, the Ekranoplans really don't owe too much to the bumblebee.
ppps I think you are referring to the current Aussie code and latest amendments, the one to which the garden gaugers are wanting to move away from. As they say, they want to come up with their own code, which 'shouldn't be too dissimilar to those recently issued by G1MRA and 16mm Assoc. .
Ralph,
Sorry, I'm not as clear as I thought-
Are you now accepting both parts of this?
However, if you now accept that size alone does not make a boiler safe or unsafe, and if you have accepted the 'new' code which no longer mandates an annual visit to an Inspector such as yourself, then there is no more to be said.
I assumed you had, but am not so sure about the second bit now.
If you have, then it's just
The "Three BAR Litre" rule is I believe useless at our scale.
which remains in dispute. (Apart from Aussie Rules, bumblebees and Ekranoplans)
First of all let me produce Exhibit "A", which are copies of the Australian Association of Live Steamers Volumes 1.0 Part 3 for 2006 and Volume 2.0 Part 3 for 2017. These were mailed to me 02-09-17 by Mr Phil Gant with his covering letter...
(http://thumb.ibb.co/j1DtE7/IMG_20180413_163517.jpg) (http://ibb.co/j1DtE7)
Having no other guide I built the boiler for Southern Magyar to an old copy of the 2006 specifications sent to me by family in Cairns.
From the 2006 1.0 Code -Page 1
Item 1.1.1 This Code is intended to serve those hobbyists who design build and / or operate miniature steam boilers of 77mm (3") external diameter or less, have a volume of one litre or less and operate at a pressure of 520kPA (75PSI) or less.
Item 1.1.4 These models for reasons of power or practicality, are generally incapable of hauling passengers. In the case of steam locomotives, boilers covered by this Code are those that are normally fitted to models with a track gauge not exceeding 45mm.
YES I do know I broke 1.1.4 sentence 2(!)
Exhibit "B". This is the original article and design brief for Design14 from KN.Harris's book "Model Boiler and Boilermaking". This is I believe, as I have seen PDFs on the internet, to be out of copyright and may be downloaded for perusal.
(http://thumb.ibb.co/j6JRZ7/IMG_20180413_172152.jpg) (http://ibb.co/j6JRZ7)
The total length is 240mm and the diameter 77mm. A "Project" boiler is typically about 205mm with a diameter of 50mm.
You ask "Is there within your contribution now a re-appraisal of that opinion?"
The answer has to be no.
This is because the 3BAR litre rule is too small to provide either enough water, or steam at a usable pressure to be useful. The Australian 5BAR litre rule however is a very useable rule for G3 (13.5mm) scale work. I follow the facts and figures. I do not use opinion in any design that I make. The 3BAR litre rule will work well for any G1 (10mm) scale or SM32/45 scale loco of that I have no doubt -as I have designed a few for friends. As I have said before, once you pass from G1 (10mm) to G3 (13.5mm) it would seem that you pass the limits for small model boiler work and have to use techniques from the larger scales.
You want to use G1 (10mm) scale boilers and fit them to G3 (13.5mm) scale locos -I have no problem with that. I assume you are happy with the fact that it will be underpowered and overstressed. But what you have to remember is that you are using a G1 (10mm) scale boiler then the 3BAR litre is applicable. If you apply the 3BAR litre rule to a G3 (13.5mm) scale boiler then you must accept low pressures, (meaning more fuel is used to boil water), short running times, (less enjoyment after having to raise steam) and lack of power, (see MW's prior entry on the subject of Venture).
Here I state for the record.
The mathematical calculations I have performed show to my satisfaction that the 3BAR litre rule is far too low to be successfully applied to a G3 (13.5mm) scale boiler, although it will work satisfactory with Gauge 1 (10mm) scale and SM32/45 scale boilers. If the rule was increased to 5BAR litre then this would be perfectly workable at G3 (13.5mm) scale.
Once I have been through the BI course in Peterborough I will examine, test, and certify as required by the Orange Book.
Ralph,
That's good, I hadn't misdirected you then.
To correct your misunderstanding, your comment
Yes I know they are, I have seen a copy of the new regs... You really wouldn't like them as it also includes classification of boiler testing required by gauge of track, boiler diameter and 8 types of boiler and YES G3 track is outside the limits for simple testing. By all means go and check!!!
does not refer to the 'new' regs for Small Boilers.
First, they don't exist yet. (As I explained).
You are showing the current codes which the (some?) garden gaugers want to get away from. Why? Because in their opinion, they have become 'unnecessarily erroneous and bureaucratic', and they consider them too reflective of inappropriate influence from the 'larger ride- on scales'
Sounds familier, no?
They hope to produce their own codes for 'Sub Miniature Boilers', and they anticipate their new code will not be too dissimilar to those recently introduced here by G1MRA and 16mm Assoc.
Perhaps also we can put Ekranoplan's aerodynamics aside by accepting the engines weren't put on the front because of bumblebees? Because they really weren't.
Turning now to the important stuff, however-
Small Boilers for G3.
You state
The mathematical calculations I have performed show to my satisfaction that the 3BAR litre rule is far too low to be successfully applied to a G3 (13.5mm) scale boiler, although it will work satisfactory with Gauge 1 (10mm) scale and SM32/45 scale boilers. If the rule was increased to 5BAR litre then this would be perfectly workable at G3 (13.5mm) scale.
Whatever your calculations, I find the logic behind your conclusion and your utter refusal to accept evidence to the contrary completely unfathomable, so I really cannot see any point in continuing the conversation.
Perhaps it's enough however, that you do not believe Small Boilers to be unsafe, and that you would be content with the 'new' code which will not require annual visits to an Inspector.
John,
Yes, I'll do it, thanks.
Jamie and Ralph.
I am not sure this wrangling is of very much interest to the majority of forum members or that it will have any effect upon the the application of the "Orange Book" directives (which appear to satisfy demands in relation to <3 Bar-litre issues).
The primary purpose of this forum is to help members construct and operate model trains. : This thread which started out with useful comments is now straying into an esoteric argument involving material from another hemisphere.
I am not going to use the "red pencil" but allow forum members to vote using the "LIKE" button.
If members feel the thread should be TERMINATED, CLICK THE "LIKE" BUTTON ON THIS MESSAGE.
If you feel it should be allowed to CONTINUE, CLICK THE "LIKE" BUTTON ON THE PRECEDING MESSAGE.
Mike's suggestion of the new button has found a new use already!
John
Before I vote for termination or otherwise, can I make another suggestion / plea?
There are some positive and useful parts of this thread, which are pertinent to its title and have shown endorsement of the ideas and means of achieving 'small boilered' G3 locos - which I believe would be good to keep and hopefully be expanded on further.
Can these parts either be put into a new thread, or the protagonists of the inputs which have deviated away from these agree to have the moderator use his 'red pencil' to remove them from this thread?
I am very disappointed that, once again, it has come to this. It is little wonder that people are put off using forums, given the nature of some recent posts.
Andy
You're right Andy, it's all rather depressing.
And once again, I'm the common denominator amongst all the locked threads unfortunately, so I'll step away from the keyboard.
I think this malarkey takes social skills I just don't have!
Andy,
There are useful parts of this thread .... it has become a "can't see the wood for the trees" situation.
Jamie,
Stick at the keyboard .... it is just an unfortunate coincidence that your threads have been controversial!
Perhaps you would care to extract the useful bits from your messages and create a new thread, "Application of Smaller Boilers in G3" (or similar)?
John.
John,
The only things I've said which might have some relevance (apart from the aerodynamics of Ekranoplans) is
1. The 'new' Small Boiler code is welcome and can be used to help encourage growth of activity.
2. Within the Small Boiler world, simple proven G1 designs already exist and boilers can be made and certified by Society Inspectors, or purchased cheaply, fully certificated, from professional manufacturers.
3. These boilers can often fit well into G3 scale models of small prototypes.
4. Numerous prototypes could be fitted with <3 bar litre boilers and turn in adequately scale performance.
5. These same small models could also 'pick and mix' other off the shelf G1 items such as cylinder blocks etc
6. Published designs for a large G1 loco can often be adapted to use for a small G3 loco. Certainly the important working bits.
7. 16mm designs, boilers, parts etc, have to some extent evolved along different lines, which opens up another source of the necessaries.
8. Using these items could encourage new blood into G3. Once in, they may want to build bigger and enjoy the additional complexity of bigger boilers etc
9. It's not either/ or. If someone wants to start with a Pacific, then that's excellent as well. Find a set of drawings or use a large boiler design.
10. G3 needs to move on from its 'legacy' of ride on activity and focus on scenic railwaying.
come on, i ran a kingscale 14xx at ralphs with no boiler cert on an open day without any questions??
Which reminds me.
I've just checked a set of the published 14XX G3 drawings.
They show a 2in. dia. boiler, 8in. overall length- just about exactly the same as my example yesterday for a GWR Standard boiler.
Therefore, well within the <3 bar litre limit.