Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[Bluedot]

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

[Europa1]

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I believe on some of the massive US locomotives an archimedes screw was used.

[TheLordJohn]

Why can't PH just leave the website as it was?
I hate to be a neanderthal in the 'modern age' but change for the sake of change is a PITA.

[SpeckledJim]

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I guess labour was cheap, and a bloke can fine-tune and distribute the coal in the furnace more accurately and efficiently than a machine could? You had a relatively well-paid bloke driving the train, so a cheap stoker was a useful chap to have around.

And the coal was stored on the opposite side of the fire-plate to the furnace, so moving it forward by machine might have been pretty difficult.

[Halmyre]

SpeckledJim said:

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I guess labour was cheap, and a bloke can fine-tune and distribute the coal in the furnace more accurately and efficiently than a machine could? You had a relatively well-paid bloke driving the train, so a cheap stoker was a useful chap to have around.

And the coal was stored on the opposite side of the fire-plate to the furnace, so moving it forward by machine might have been pretty difficult.

Not to mention the power needed to drive any such mechanism.

[Funky Panda]

Massive steam ships still had stokers shoveling huge amounts of coal.

[TheLordJohn]

Reference the firemans' job on a steam railway engine - it's actually quite a fine art to make sure it is correct.
As per the 'Handbook for Railways Steam Locomotive Enginemen' if it isn't right, it affects how the engine runs.
Too large lumps of coal are no good, not spread across the gate correctly/evenly, hot spots/cool spots if it isn't distributed correctly etc.
There's actually a good couple of sections to do with it.

[bristolracer]

TheLordJohn said:

Reference the firemans' job on a steam railway engine - it's actually quite a fine art to make sure it is correct.
As per the 'Handbook for Railways Steam Locomotive Enginemen' if it isn't right, it affects how the engine runs.
Too large lumps of coal are no good, not spread across the gate correctly/evenly, hot spots/cool spots if it isn't distributed correctly etc.
There's actually a good couple of sections to do with it.

Yes quite an art to it, a good stoker was invaluable to a driver-making sure sufficient fire and therefore power was available to the driver at the right times.

Be interested to know how much shovelling Clarkson did,proper stokers were/are seriously fit.

[droopsnoot]

TheLordJohn said:

Why can't PH just leave the website as it was?
I hate to be a neanderthal in the 'modern age' but change for the sake of change is a PITA.

It's not as if the change of skin actually improves on the things that want improving, just makes it look a little bit different.

[Halmyre]

bristolracer said:

TheLordJohn said:

Reference the firemans' job on a steam railway engine - it's actually quite a fine art to make sure it is correct.
As per the 'Handbook for Railways Steam Locomotive Enginemen' if it isn't right, it affects how the engine runs.
Too large lumps of coal are no good, not spread across the gate correctly/evenly, hot spots/cool spots if it isn't distributed correctly etc.
There's actually a good couple of sections to do with it.

Yes quite an art to it, a good stoker was invaluable to a driver-making sure sufficient fire and therefore power was available to the driver at the right times.

Be interested to know how much shovelling Clarkson did,proper stokers were/are seriously fit.

I'm roughly the same size, shape and age as Clarkson and any more than half-a-dozen shovelsful would do me in. There seemed to be a distinct lack of manoeuvring room as well.

[matchmaker]

Halmyre said:

SpeckledJim said:

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I guess labour was cheap, and a bloke can fine-tune and distribute the coal in the furnace more accurately and efficiently than a machine could? You had a relatively well-paid bloke driving the train, so a cheap stoker was a useful chap to have around.

And the coal was stored on the opposite side of the fire-plate to the furnace, so moving it forward by machine might have been pretty difficult.

Not to mention the power needed to drive any such mechanism.

Also wasteful of fuel - the coal was very fine so a lot of it was wasted being blasted out unburnt. These small unburnt particles of coal also abraded the firetubes in the boiler wearing them prematurely.

[talksthetorque]

droopsnoot said:

TheLordJohn said:

Why can't PH just leave the website as it was?
I hate to be a neanderthal in the 'modern age' but change for the sake of change is a PITA.

It's not as if the change of skin actually improves on the things that want improving, just makes it look a little bit different.

But now if something needs changing - it only needs changing once as there is only one "skin" to alter.
Leaving them more time to resolve other issues even faster than the *cough*blink of an eye*cough* it takes them now!

[Ayahuasca]

matchmaker said:

Halmyre said:

SpeckledJim said:

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I guess labour was cheap, and a bloke can fine-tune and distribute the coal in the furnace more accurately and efficiently than a machine could? You had a relatively well-paid bloke driving the train, so a cheap stoker was a useful chap to have around.

And the coal was stored on the opposite side of the fire-plate to the furnace, so moving it forward by machine might have been pretty difficult.

Not to mention the power needed to drive any such mechanism.

Also wasteful of fuel - the coal was very fine so a lot of it was wasted being blasted out unburnt. These small unburnt particles of coal also abraded the firetubes in the boiler wearing them prematurely.

There was a docu (bbc?) not long ago that just filmed a fireman and engine driver as they drove a locomotive from somewhere to somewhere in the UK. As I recall the fireman's job was quite 'technical' as he controlled the power that the engine provided. He would shovel in more fuel just before a hill for example, and less coal on a down slope. His task was to anticipate and provide just the right amount of fuel, neither wasting it or allowing the engine to become underpowered.

[Hugo a Gogo]

like what a 'driver' does then with a gas pedal

or a 'Chauffeur' if you will, which is French for Stoker/Fireman

[Nimby]

Bluedot said:

Was a better solution never found ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_stoker

[Ayahuasca]

Big ships (carriers, cruise ships, supertankers, etc) and ocean waves.

There are a lot of online clips of big ships pitching up and down in a seaway.

For a big ship, there are going to be a large number of waves under its hull at any one time. For the number of 'up' waves there will be a corresponding number of 'down' waves.

So why doesn't their motion cancel itself out and let the ship ride smoothly? Why the pitching motion?

[Dr Jekyll]

If you have an up wave at the bow and a trough at the stern they will cancel out in a sense, but the ship will be on a temporary tilt and that's what causes sea sickness.

[Rostfritt]

TheLordJohn said:

Why can't PH just leave the website as it was?
I hate to be a neanderthal in the 'modern age' but change for the sake of change is a PITA.

It is confusing me as it is now in the skin it used to revert to whenever I had been logged out for no reason.

[glenrobbo]

Hugo a Gogo said:

like what a 'driver' does then with a gas pedal

or a 'Chauffeur' if you will, which is French for Stoker/Fireman

Of course, it's blindingly obvious now that you've pointed it out, Mr. a Gogo. Thanks!

Every day's a school day, as they say.

[FiF]

Ayahuasca said:

matchmaker said:

Halmyre said:

SpeckledJim said:

Bluedot said:

I recently watched an old Top Gear, the episode where Clarkson was the stoker in a steam engine racing Hammond (on a motorbike) and May (in a car) from London to Edinburgh.
What struck me was the level of engineering that goes into a steam locomotive yet getting the coal into the fire was a back-breaking manual 'shovel job'. Was a better solution never found ?

I guess labour was cheap, and a bloke can fine-tune and distribute the coal in the furnace more accurately and efficiently than a machine could? You had a relatively well-paid bloke driving the train, so a cheap stoker was a useful chap to have around.

And the coal was stored on the opposite side of the fire-plate to the furnace, so moving it forward by machine might have been pretty difficult.

Not to mention the power needed to drive any such mechanism.

Also wasteful of fuel - the coal was very fine so a lot of it was wasted being blasted out unburnt. These small unburnt particles of coal also abraded the firetubes in the boiler wearing them prematurely.

There was a docu (bbc?) not long ago that just filmed a fireman and engine driver as they drove a locomotive from somewhere to somewhere in the UK. As I recall the fireman's job was quite 'technical' as he controlled the power that the engine provided. He would shovel in more fuel just before a hill for example, and less coal on a down slope. His task was to anticipate and provide just the right amount of fuel, neither wasting it or allowing the engine to become underpowered.

Flying Scotsman from the Footplate: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b086kn87 via @bbciplayer

It's not just shovelling coal, which as that programme shows you can even get that a bit wrong, but sorting water levels in the boiler, watching gauges, looking out for signals, dealing with tokens on single track sections, plus getting the bacon and eggs sorted on the specially polished shovel, only kidding on that last bit.

If you watch the linked programme there were four on the Footplate of Flying Scotsman on a fairly slow, non stop journey down Severn Valley. Driver, fireman, engineer and supervisor from railway museum at York. The last two helped with some of the various jobs floating about, bet it gets busy with just two on the footplate, no wonder proper firemen are seriously strong and fit.