In Cornwall we yet to have a large cylinder diameter Engine house under steam. (Levant is 27 inches?).
One Big reason is cost - obviously restoration cost is very dependent on the condition before you start.
But does anyone involved in a working Engine house under steam have ballpark figures for the restoration (date dependent) and running costs of the engine house they are involved in that they are happy to share generally?
Some idea of the state of the machinery to start with would also help. As far as I know (which isn't alot!) - we have East Pool, Parkandillack and to a lesser extent Robinsons as potential sites for full steam restoration.
I guess the only hope of funding would be mainly from Lottery or National Trust.
Maybe a pipe dream, but interesting to know.

---

Last time i spoke with the people over at East Pool the National Trust where still planning on getting it moving again, they were looking at well over 1 Million to get it working again on air but thats before they have even sorted out whats going on with the shaft etc

---

East Pool - It would be nice to get Mitchell's shaft working on steam instead of air as well as Taylor's working on air - but sounds like no plans for that.

---

Runing anything large on steam will cost too much unfortunately, shame

---

For the running cost of a big engine, why not try the Kew lot. 90" & 100" Cornish engines no less...
http://www.kbsm.org/engines 

---

East Pool - It would be nice to get Mitchell's shaft working on steam instead of air as well as Taylor's working on air - but sounds like no plans for that.

think you will find Mitchells is run off a electric motorwith a wheel on the shaft driving the flywheel, E.P.A.L engine they have been going on about that for years!the compresser they would need would be huge

think you will find Mitchells is run off a electric motorwith a wheel on the shaft driving the flywheel

I think that's right. I always guessed the motor was in the wooden box on the masonry next to the flywheel.

For the running cost of a big engine, why not try the Kew lot. 90" & 100" Cornish engines no less...
http://www.kbsm.org/engines 

Is the 100" going? I didn't think it was. No sign of it last year, anyway. The 90" consumes one heck of a lot of steam so I dread to think how much more the 100" would need. My biggest disappointment is that I have yet to see their Bull engine working. Yes, I would ask Kew about running costs. Restoration costs might not be so comparable seeing as the engines were reasonably well protected, and weren't operating pitwork.

Hi guys. New to this site but felt some info required regarding Cornish Beam Engines in Cornwall.

Michells (note there is no "T" in the name!!) is run by an electric motor driving a tyre that drives the flywheel, so it is being driven backwards. This is all set in the pit beneath the flywheel. The wooden box (which originally contained the motor and a gear drive) on the granite footings went years ago

Taylors 90 inch was estimated to cost approx £150,000 in 2001 to get moving again, all costs including shaft work for pump rod. That is on air and low pressure only required. Just a big fan really for volume. Engine is considered to require minimum work, main cost being new pump rod section and then rebalancing. Estmated running cost 2001 was £3 per day!! Cheaper electricity then.

Biggest drawback is currently English Heritage as it is all a listed site and they do not want the current rotten pump rod touched or removed, although as you can see daylight through parts of it it will probably fall apart itself sometime so that problem solved then.

No possibility of going on steam due to running cost. Even Kew has had to reduce its steaming days for the Cornish engine as exorbitant costings.

My last understanding of Kew 100 inch is that it is not moving yet due to 'Elf & 'Afty interfearing with concern over the supposidly cracked beam. It was strengthend with support webs from new but modern crack detecting methods have not found a crack!

Robinsons has come to a halt, no sign of any further progress there. It was degreased during last winter in preperation for moving but has since been regreased and part wrapped up in plastic sheet so it looks horrible. Understand the contractors have pulled out - bankrupt or not paid who knows?

Hope this clears up some points


:thumbup: Keep taking the pills

Michells (note there is no "T" in the name!!) is run by an electric motor driving a tyre that drives the flywheel, so it is being driven backwards. This is all set in the pit beneath the flywheel. The wooden box (which originally contained the motor and a gear drive) on the granite footings went years ago

Thanks for correcting that.

I noticed that the "London Eye" is driven by a number of what look like lorry wheels in contact with the outer rim of the big wheel. Driven by hydraulic motors I think.

running the engine on compressed air its not the p.s.i its the c.f.m thats why you would need a big compresser !

Morrisman mentioned this - "just a big fan...", so not much power, cheap to run.

Need the volume to fill the cylinder but only low pressure to overcome friction in a well-balanced system.

The Leawood engine is owned by Derbyshire County Council and major repairs, insurance and the like are funded by the Council.
Running costs are funded by donations - always a questions as to which would raise most, an admission fee or a collection box - we have stayed with the box so far.
Around one ton of coal is used each day we run - cost has been as high as £360+ and is currently £240+. It looks a lot better when you say how many thousands of tons of water we pump!
Donations have covered the cost of coal, with a little left over but rising costs of coal and the recession (fewer visitors, no increase in donations) have resulted in a more difficult situation and may force a re-think.
Most maintenance is carried out by the volunteer team. Some specialist work e.g. on boilers is, as you would expect, very expensive.
The Middleton Top engine is run on pumped air - we would very much like a boiler for that but the cost is prohibitive. As already stated here it is the c.f.m. which is important. An attempt to run the engine from an electric boiler was a failure, but interesting I have been told.
I hope this helps.

East Pool - It would be nice to get Mitchell's shaft working on steam instead of air as well as Taylor's working on air - but sounds like no plans for that.

think you will find Mitchells is run off a electric motorwith a wheel on the shaft driving the flywheel, E.P.A.L engine they have been going on about that for years!the compresser they would need would be huge

- Thanks for info, when I visited them last, they said they were having trouble starting it!

---

Morrisman - thanks for the info - Sounds like you know a lot about EPAL.

Thrutch - thanks as well, Has Leawood always been working or did it have to be restored?

I will ask about the Parkandillack c.f.m. and let you all know...

---

Leawood had to be restored. As far as I can gather the engine probably lay idle for around twenty years. Major work on the building had to be carried out too.

An attempt to run the engine from an electric boiler was a failure, but interesting I have been told.
I hope this helps.

I often thought about running steam loco's off the overhead electric pick-up with electric elements to heat the water.
No heavy coal to carry about; OK.. just a thought.....

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric-steam_locomotive  although quite why, I can't imagine. Typical thermal efficiency of large steam locomotives was reckoned to be around 6% whereas as diesel will manage more like 30%. The thermal efficiency of an electric locomotive is largely defined by its friction losses - the system losses, a different matter, come from losses in the catenary wires etc.

So, an electric steam loco would have the losses of the electric plus the thermal efficiency of a boiler....

Carry on, Sgt Wilson....

---

🔗Parkandillick-Clay-Quarry-User-Album-Image-76384[linkphoto]Parkandillick-Clay-Quarry-User-Album-Image-76384[/linkphoto][/link]

Image of the air compressor at Parkandillack - The engineer wasn't sure of the cfm (is looking) but it runs at 2.5 to 4psi at with looks like a 6 or 4 inch flexipipe (maybe the cfm can be calculated?) - my best rough "online" calc puts it at 3000 to 7000 cfm, depending on exact pipe diameter

---

That looks like a 2 stage centrifugal blower.

Surely for something requiring the pressure of a beam engine (complete with usual friction), you're going to require something with a bit more meat. Either an exhaust driven turbine, or a turbine driven turbine, or the roots blower route. However, roots blowers don't like too much dP.

I wonder there would be any milage modifying the engine to run with a low pressure/controlled internal combustion. This may sound a bit mad, but it would be possible to create a cheap mono-propellant, like n-propyl nitrate and inject it for a controlled, gradual way of creating gas pressure from a liquid. A fair bit of the burn product would be steam, for that authentic look. You could also cool it with a steady stream of water, which would also aid evaporation and lubrication.

I'm sure elf and safety would do a risk assessment and say "this is potential bomb" and say "no".

There are many ways of skinning this particular cat. Since there is no adit connection to Taylor's (so I am told) and there are no shallow levels off, it would not be possible to divert water to operate the pitwork via a set of dams/cisterns.

It would also be possible to use a dedicated oxidising agent and fuel, but the presence of such an oxidising agent would create all sorts of storage problems, if you are a terror paranoid authoritarian.

Off Topic:- There was a chap in the 60's who used n-propyl nitrate to do interesting things with various rocket engines. Proof that civilisation has been going downhill since the 60s!

Have a look at this and imagine you are a HSE chappie.

😮