Ships Nostalgia banner

21 - 26 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Chadburn;

the loco also used the same liquid fuel used in the diesel to fire the boiler from cold. When the diesel engine was running, waste exhaust heat was used for generating steam in the boiler.

It was reliable enough to be placed in regular service as part of the trials.

I think the cost issue was that overall, compared to a conventional coal-fired steam loco, the cost of the liquid fuel (plus maintenance?) gave higher running costs. There is more information via Google.

Martyn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,083 Posts
A number of engine manufacturers took out licences for the Still engine. These included Scott’s of Greenock, Peter Brotherhood Ltd. of Peterborough, Kitson &Co Ltd of Leeds, Dujardin & Co of Lille and Plenty & Son, Newbury.
Excerpt from "Marine Diesels in Newbury" by Peter Humphreys
"It appears that an experimental Plenty-Still type engine had been built in the King's Road factory around 1925/6, and the first and only commercial engine of this type to be built in Newbury was delivered in January 1928 - and so was presumably actually built in the Cheap Street factory. This was a three cylinder version installed in the drift net fishing vessel 'Larus' built at Selby for Alexander Fishing of Lowestoft. cylinder bore was 280 mm, stroke 355 mm, and the engine developed 210
horsepower at 300 rpm. It was envisaged that steam operation would he utilised for starting, manoeuvring and for very low speed operation whilst fishing and the combined steam diesel cycles for passage to and from the fishing grounds.
The diesel cycle of the engine employed a reciprocating pump of 425 mm bore and 355 mm stroke for the provision of scavenge and combustion air, with fuel directly injected through nozzles in the cylinder heads.
Steam was raised in a coal fired Cochrane vertical flue tube boiler modified with additional tubes through which the diesel exhaust pasted. Steam admission to and release from the bottom of the
cylinder to operate on the underside of thee pistons was controlled by poppet valves operated by three sets of cams - for starting, ahead and astern and to provide cut off for normal ahead running - controlled by an elaborate system of gears, detents, and an eccentric shaft to lift the rockers clear. Works tests indicated a fuel consumption of 0.378 lbs per bhp per hour.
The vessel went into service early in 1928 and initially, whilst the Newbury guarantee engineer was on board, operated reasonably well. However after he left, the performance of the engines gradually deteriorated ending with the vessel having to he towed into port. It appears that the owners felt that enough was enough and no real effort was made to investigate or correct the problems, so that the engine was removed from the vessel and returned to the King's Road works where it remained for several years.
Ref http://rowifi.com/ndc/files/book_complete.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,573 Posts
Chadburn;

the loco also used the same liquid fuel used in the diesel to fire the boiler from cold. When the diesel engine was running, waste exhaust heat was used for generating steam in the boiler.

It was reliable enough to be placed in regular service as part of the trials.

I think the cost issue was that overall, compared to a conventional coal-fired steam loco, the cost of the liquid fuel (plus maintenance?) gave higher running costs. There is more information via Google.

Martyn
The same system in regards to the Diesel engine exhaust passing through the same boiler was as you are most probably aware the same on the marine version as the Engineroom auxiliaries were Steam powered.
Regards,
Chad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,573 Posts
A number of engine manufacturers took out licences for the Still engine. These included Scott’s of Greenock, Peter Brotherhood Ltd. of Peterborough, Kitson &Co Ltd of Leeds, Dujardin & Co of Lille and Plenty & Son, Newbury.
Excerpt from "Marine Diesels in Newbury" by Peter Humphreys
"It appears that an experimental Plenty-Still type engine had been built in the King's Road factory around 1925/6, and the first and only commercial engine of this type to be built in Newbury was delivered in January 1928 - and so was presumably actually built in the Cheap Street factory. This was a three cylinder version installed in the drift net fishing vessel 'Larus' built at Selby for Alexander Fishing of Lowestoft. cylinder bore was 280 mm, stroke 355 mm, and the engine developed 210
horsepower at 300 rpm. It was envisaged that steam operation would he utilised for starting, manoeuvring and for very low speed operation whilst fishing and the combined steam diesel cycles for passage to and from the fishing grounds.
The diesel cycle of the engine employed a reciprocating pump of 425 mm bore and 355 mm stroke for the provision of scavenge and combustion air, with fuel directly injected through nozzles in the cylinder heads.
Steam was raised in a coal fired Cochrane vertical flue tube boiler modified with additional tubes through which the diesel exhaust pasted. Steam admission to and release from the bottom of the
cylinder to operate on the underside of thee pistons was controlled by poppet valves operated by three sets of cams - for starting, ahead and astern and to provide cut off for normal ahead running - controlled by an elaborate system of gears, detents, and an eccentric shaft to lift the rockers clear. Works tests indicated a fuel consumption of 0.378 lbs per bhp per hour.
The vessel went into service early in 1928 and initially, whilst the Newbury guarantee engineer was on board, operated reasonably well. However after he left, the performance of the engines gradually deteriorated ending with the vessel having to he towed into port. It appears that the owners felt that enough was enough and no real effort was made to investigate or correct the problems, so that the engine was removed from the vessel and returned to the King's Road works where it remained for several years.
Ref http://rowifi.com/ndc/files/book_complete.pdf
Thanks for the above, interesting info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
Slightly off topic - I remember sailing on one of the early RT Engines with a power recovery turbine geared to the shaft alternator - there was an IHI brochure on board suggesting that the next stage would be a steam turbine from the waste heat geared into the whole shooting match and possibly supplying power to the shaft if the electrical load was low - I can't find a copy on the web - but came across this http://www.gallois.be/ggmagazine_2005/gg_01_01_2005_4.pdf

The Sankey diagrams are very interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Didn't know about the Locomotive version but one of the perceived advantages of the marine engine version was that it used the same oil to fire the Boilers as it did to run the diesel side.
Didn't know about the Locomotive version but one of the perceived advantages of the marine engine version was that it used the same oil to fire the Boilers as it did to run the diesel side.
Picture of the Kitson-Still.
Notice the jack shaft between the first and second powered axles. To start,
Kitson-Still.jpg
it ran as a steam engine then at about 5 mph fuel was put on the Diesel side.
682403

The book "Prototype Locomotives" by Robert Tufnell has a chapter on the Kitson-Still
It gets a mention and a different photo in "British Steam Locomotive Builders" by Jame W. Lowe C.Eng; F.I. Mech. E.
 
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
Top