Steam Engines
[Home] - [HELP] - [Forums] - [Library] - [Photo Gallery] - [Groups] - [Classified Ads] - [Subscribe] - [Links] - [Books] - [Sponsors] -

Go Back   SmokStak > SmokStak® Old Iron and Tractor Community > Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Notices

Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats Antique steam engines, their boilers, pumps, gauges, whistles and other related things that make them run.

Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats

Tandem Versus Cross Compound


this thread has 24 replies and has been viewed 2094 times

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-25-2018, 09:45:41 PM
Jeff Dudgeon Jeff Dudgeon is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Paisley Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15
Thanks: 534
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default Tandem Versus Cross Compound

I was wondering today, which type of compound engine is better on steam/fuel... tandem compound or cross compound? Which do you think makes better use of the exhaust steam from the high pressure cylinder? Is there a great advantage to using the simpling valve for staring the engine?

Jeff
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-25-2018, 10:40:08 PM
Beth V's Avatar
Beth V Beth V is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SE Michigan, USA
Posts: 12,361
Thanks: 9,000
Thanked 4,294,967,295 Times in 3,886 Posts
Default Re: Tandem versus cross compuond

I'm not sure how to answer that. My 24 Port Huron is a tandem compound and with the Longfellow boiler, it is very efficient. Our 32-120 Reeves is cross compound and a hungry, hungry, thirty animal. If you use the "magic lever," it slurps more of the above. These engines are not in the same category.

I have a simpling valve on my Port and it increases the HP about 25 hp, but the eccentric will really thump. The Reeves' exhaust gets louder.

Here are the catalog cuts.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1920 Compound Cylinders.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	209.8 KB
ID:	313068   Click image for larger version

Name:	Reeves Cross Compound diagram.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	250.5 KB
ID:	313069  
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Beth V For This Post:
  #3  
Old 06-25-2018, 11:03:02 PM
FWurth's Avatar
FWurth FWurth is offline
One Millionth Post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Freeburg, Illinois, USA
Posts: 5,909
Thanks: 7,043
Thanked 5,198 Times in 2,732 Posts
Images: 4
Default Re: Tandem versus cross compuond

A lot of the advantages depend on the type work intended. Also to figure any economies one gets a truer picture if you compare a simple against a compound of the some size and make of engine. A 32 ds Reeves is a good bit hungrier than the same 32 Reeves cc. A 24 Port tc is loads more efficient than those big plow engines, but remember that the Port is also a considerably smaller engine to start with. But I sure wouldn't expect it to be doing the same job as those Reeves on the plow. I never saw a 24 Port simple around to compare with as the builders were so favorably impressed with their compound engines that they simply stopped promoting the simple, so that tells a lot. Port and Minneapolis also went one better and offered a double tandem compound on their largest engines to help meet economy needs. Even with twice as many moving parts involved, they seemed well suited to the job as those that did get built all were worked to death in their time. A goodly reason that only a few still exist, even considering the limited market for such large engines.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FWurth For This Post:
  #4  
Old 06-26-2018, 08:52:50 AM
Gary K's Avatar
Gary K Gary K is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northwestern, Minnnesota, USA
Posts: 3,593
Thanks: 5,943
Thanked 9,144 Times in 1,961 Posts
Images: 394
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

The tandem compound is more efficient than the cross compound, as the high & low pressure cylinders are in time with each other.

Whereas the cross compound is out of time by a quarter turn of the two cranks, and the high pressure cylinder will have more back pressure when in the exhausting mode. The low pressure cylinder is just starting to cut-off its steam when the high pressure just started exhausting.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gary K For This Post:
  #5  
Old 06-26-2018, 01:18:41 PM
20 Reeves Highwheeler's Avatar
20 Reeves Highwheeler 20 Reeves Highwheeler is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Helena, Montana USA
Posts: 8,105
Thanks: 9,156
Thanked 8,171 Times in 2,102 Posts
Images: 2716
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

Depending on whose information you read, the 32 hp Reeves Canadian Special cross compound's horsepower would increase to 150% and 200% when simpled. The photo below is of the same 32 hp Reeves Beth speaks of, when my dad and his brothers plowed with it in Montana. So if you take 120 hp and double it to 240 hp, let me tell you, in a tight spot, bogged down, it will really wake you up when that governor opens up, I kid you not.



Our neighbors had a 32 hp Reeves double simple Canadian Special. They pulled the same identical amount of Emerson disk plows as Dad and his brothers did. They got water from the same spring as Dad did. Their 32 double simple used from 1-1/2 to 2 water wagon tanks of water More, a day, working typical hours the same.



One year at the Barnes Steam and Power Show at Belgrade, Montana (probably the year pictured?) I was engineering that 32 hp cc CS engine and a log in the sawmill almost stopped it. The governor opened up when simpled. It scared the living daylights out of me. I thought the engine was going to take off and fly. Cross compound engines exhausts are a mushy single cylinder sound, when running compound. This sounded like a jet taking off, when standing by the runway. Gary



PS: This Belgrade Reeves is now Mark Pedersen's engine and Clyde Hall may know more of the status of it, as it's being put back to a traction engine again.

PPS: Those cross compound Reeves engines were extremely popular as a plow engine in Montana, Dakotas, Wyoming and Kansas. They did drink water, but an engine plowing 100 acres a day, as Dad's engine did, you'd expect a little water usage. They normally went through 5 to 6 water tank wagons a day.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 20 Reeves Highwheeler For This Post:
  #6  
Old 06-26-2018, 02:18:44 PM
MPierce MPierce is offline
Email NOT Working - Over Quota
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Scranton, ND, USA
Posts: 363
Thanks: 139
Thanked 202 Times in 93 Posts
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

Gary.
The 32 D's has a smaller high pressure cylinder than the cc. Why?
Reeves claimed that in the cc big and small equal output. If true, the cc would be more powerful.??????
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-26-2018, 08:56:53 PM
Joe K Joe K is offline
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 1,158
Thanks: 296
Thanked 1,210 Times in 636 Posts
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary K View Post
The tandem compound is more efficient than the cross compound, as the high & low pressure cylinders are in time with each other.

Whereas the cross compound is out of time by a quarter turn of the two cranks, and the high pressure cylinder will have more back pressure when in the exhausting mode. The low pressure cylinder is just starting to cut-off its steam when the high pressure just started exhausting.
What may tip a scale is the other direction is the use of reheating while intermediate between hp and lp.

Wolfe and Henschel (among other European builders) made use of this in their "locomobile" units produced from the 1880s through the 1920s. Buckeye Engine Co. (American) made a licensed "Buckeye-mobile" unit which while appearing cosmetically similar to the Wolfe units, never seemed to show the same degree of economy. Perhaps some design compromise more suited to the American market and fuel pricing?

W. Miller wrote extensively (and wagging a technical finger) on the Wolfe and Buckeye Units in Power Magazine in the 1910 era.

Not seeing the Power article but an equal description is seen at https://books.google.com/books?id=Ep...engine&f=false page 136 (Nov. 1913)

Also described in Terrell Croft's "Steam Engine Principles & Practice" which is part of his Power Plant Series

Below a Henschel unit which does not seem to be compound, but does jacket the steam cylinder in the steam space.



Joe K
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joe K For This Post:
  #8  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:20:39 PM
20 Reeves Highwheeler's Avatar
20 Reeves Highwheeler 20 Reeves Highwheeler is offline
Registered-III
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Helena, Montana USA
Posts: 8,105
Thanks: 9,156
Thanked 8,171 Times in 2,102 Posts
Images: 2716
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPierce View Post
Gary.
The 32 D's has a smaller high pressure cylinder than the cc. Why?
Reeves claimed that in the cc big and small equal output. If true, the cc would be more powerful.??????
Melvin, I don't know that Reeves were trying to use equal size small (high pressure on CC) cylinders. I think they were trying to make them both 32 hp engines when the cc was pulling in compound, and the double simple all the time. But when you simple the cross compound, it's putting out way more power than the double simple. WAY more. Gary
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 20 Reeves Highwheeler For This Post:
  #9  
Old 06-27-2018, 06:25:10 AM
Jeff Dudgeon Jeff Dudgeon is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Paisley Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15
Thanks: 534
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

Thank you for the discussion. This is the info that I was looking for. Interesting that the Port Huron can be simpled. Cool facts about the 32s plowing. The compound engines should have better economy than simple engines, nice to have an account of the real life situation. Less water will equate to less fuel as well. I bet that simpling the engines gives a big boost to power. Someday I hope to have more experience on the different makes and types.
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-27-2018, 10:04:37 AM
FWurth's Avatar
FWurth FWurth is offline
One Millionth Post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Freeburg, Illinois, USA
Posts: 5,909
Thanks: 7,043
Thanked 5,198 Times in 2,732 Posts
Images: 4
Default Re: Tandem Versus Cross Compound

An interesting thing about the Port. Beth's 24 has a simpling gear, My 24 don't. My engine also has a foot operated brake on the counter shaft, a friend's Port doesn't have that. I'm guessing that it was optional? Mine also has a Pickering governor and a extra hand operated oil pump to add extra shots of cylinder oil into the steam chest. Possibly customer applied?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

F o r u m Jump

Similar Threads Chosen at Random
Thread Thread Starter F o r u m Replies Last Post
50HP Case (tandem-compound, Australia) Colin Farquhar Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 6 09-20-2016 12:44:58 AM
Fact or Fiction: 75 hp Case tandem compound with heavy buttstrap boiler. Beth V Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 34 02-02-2014 07:14:48 PM
1910 Advance 26 HP Tandem Compound is now home J Nasman Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 10 04-29-2013 06:18:27 PM
Advance Rumely tandem compound engine in Italy Davide L. Steam Stationary Engines, Traction Engines, Steam Boats 3 10-22-2007 02:14:59 AM
compound tandem engine Dan Martin Antique Gas Engine Discussion 14 03-26-2007 07:43:18 PM


Use "Ctrl" mouse wheel to change screen size.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57:32 AM.

Smokstak and Enginads site search!


All use is subject to our TERMS OF SERVICE
SMOKSTAK® is a Registered Trade Mark - A Community of Antique Engine Enthusiasts
Copyright © 2000 - 2016 by Harry Matthews P.O. Box 5612 - Sarasota, FL 34277