# Accucraft SP F4/F5 Looking good



## main131 (Jan 3, 2008)

Saw one of these in steam last week on a friends railway here in the UK.
It ran well on it's first run following a couple of minor adjustmets. I was suitably impressed so I now have one on order!
Can I ask the experts the difference between an F4 and an F5. I have specified the F4 on my order as the Accucraft website is a bit vague on the ID.

This is a video of the one I saw running

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWCaUbkLAE

And picture


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

The only difference I am aware of is the F5 I think it is, has the clamshell stack cover. If there are any others, I'm sure you'll hear


----------



## Alan in Adirondacks (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello, 

There is also a difference in the handrail configuration on the smokebox front, with the F-5 being flat across the bottom. The F-4 / F-5s are great runners. 

Best regards, 

Alan


----------



## erneal4961 (Feb 23, 2010)

I have an F5 and I love it. The detail is awesome and it runs great! It has a big fuel and water tank which gives you the ability for nice long runs.


----------



## rkapuaala (Jan 3, 2008)

Wow the detail is truly impressive!


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Great slow runner as well as a wondrous stoom of pleam!!! Looking forward to seeing it at your track sometime!

See you thursday.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One fine piece of equip. Later RJD


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Main131:
Your's is a F4 ;-))


Some time ago trying to decide between an F4/F5 and a K-36 I noticed three* differences between the F4 and F5:


F5: 
0. #3765
1. Clam shell Stack
2. Smokebox front hand rail is squared off under the head lamp
3. Starboard running board step-up portion is longer than F4


F4: 
0. #3680
1. Straight Stack
2. Smokebox front hand rail is rounded under the headlamp
3. Starboard running board step-up portion is shorter than F5





* Zero (0) is not a number and therefore not counted.

PS: I preferred the F5 over the F4 and K-36.


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Too bad that they only made a gas fired version, and not offer an alcohol version as well, otherwise I would have had one!!!!! 
I guess that I could always re-boiler one! 
All the best, 
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## main131 (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks Chris for information.
As you know Accucraft list both on their web site although the prices are the same.

I am not unhappy about the gas firing.
A sprit fired version as well as gas would I suspect make the manufacturing a bit too expensive. (plus the cost of a fire extingwisher that is mandatory with spirit fired engines....just a joke!


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By main131 on 17 Apr 2010 04:03 AM 
Thanks Chris for information.
As you know Accucraft list both on their web site although the prices are the same.

I am not unhappy about the gas firing.
A sprit fired version as well as gas would I suspect make the manufacturing a bit too expensive. (plus the cost of a fire extingwisher that is mandatory with spirit fired engines....just a joke!

However, they did it for the Royal Hudson!
I'm sure that to make the boiler both ways would not be any different in cost.
The cost of a gas tank or an alcohol tank must be similar.
A wick burner is probably less expensive than gas burner.
It would be interesting to know if there is any real difference in total.
As they are not building thousands at a time, I'm sure that there is probably no savings in volume either.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 17 Apr 2010 10:47 AM 
Posted By main131 on 17 Apr 2010 04:03 AM 
Thanks Chris for information.
As you know Accucraft list both on their web site although the prices are the same.

I am not unhappy about the gas firing.
A sprit fired version as well as gas would I suspect make the manufacturing a bit too expensive. (plus the cost of a fire extingwisher that is mandatory with spirit fired engines....just a joke!

However, they did it for the Royal Hudson!
I'm sure that to make the boiler both ways would not be any different in cost.
The cost of a gas tank or an alcohol tank must be similar.
A wick burner is probably less expensive than gas burner.
It would be interesting to know if there is any real difference in total.
As they are not building thousands at a time, I'm sure that there is probably no savings in volume either.
All the best,
David Leech, Delta, Canada

David:
I think an alcohol boiler would easily take more work to make and cost more than a gas boiler. F4/F5 boiler; a gas boiler would be just a copper pipe with two flue tubes and a few bushings. The alcohol boiler would have several smaller fire tubes (how many, 4, 5, 6?), a fire box with cross pipes (stays?). The alcohol boiler has a sealed smokebox, blower piping and the backhead has more parts with the blower and all. A gas boiler has a simpler open smokebox. The alky fire tubes alone from the posts/threads of those who have made their own boilers definitley showed it takes more to make a alcohol or coal boiler than a gas boiler. 

It mostly comes down to labor costs, the most expensive part of making most anything. Even making only fifty or a hundred boilers, the simplicity of the construction will complound labor savings as testing and quality control will be easier. 
A gas boiler with two flue tube will have 6 solder joints (2 boiler cap and each flue to cap (4)). An alcohol boiler with 5 tubes and boiler caps has 12 identical solder joint points, plus others as well. More fire tubesm, more solder joints and quality control points. Similarly for the differences between the fuel tnaks. The materials may be closer in costs than this shows for the labor, etc. 

Maybe someone can comment of the Accucraft. Dick Abbot's Hundson alcohol versus gas fired construction and costs.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Nothwithstanding the boiler design differences, I bleeve that the complexities [and costs] of producing the pressure gas tank, associated piping and unions and various valves, as well as a the good- old double poker burner, are balanced by the need to have a slightly different boiler with a blower.

AccuCraft must think so - the two different types of firing are priced the same.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Actually they could do one boiler setup for dual fuel: alcohol/butane- along with improvement of the gas burners (both in noise and utilization- no more trying to keep lit two burners) with a ceramic burner block that could be interchange with a wick setup. Not certain that it would be a cost savings to the company/customer given two different fuel tanks and lines but the customer could have the option to fire either way.


----------



## gaugeoneuk (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Guys, 

Here is my video of the F4 and Cab Forwards (note plural!) running on my track in the UK. USA G1 steam super-power in the UK no less!! 

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZShzn812vks 

Regards, 
Geoff Calver 
www.rushfordbarnmodels.co.uk


----------



## rkapuaala (Jan 3, 2008)

I have often wondered about the safety issue with alcohol. If the engine derails and tips over; what is the likelihood of the fuel catching on fire? I've had my 4-4-0 take a spill off a 1 foot high trestle at Chrisps house and the flame goes out and only gas escapes. 
In a similar situation would the alcohol spill out and ignite the areas around the fallen engine?


----------



## Alan in Adirondacks (Jan 2, 2008)

Geoff, 

Fantastic video with excellent camera angles. Congratulations! 

Best regards, 

Alan


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Great video Geoff, especially the tender-eye view over the cab! 

I think that Trevor offered me a cab-forward this evening for my old Benz!! 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

Best 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By rkapuaala on 22 Apr 2010 12:12 PM 
I have often wondered about the safety issue with alcohol. If the engine derails and tips over; what is the likelihood of the fuel catching on fire? I've had my 4-4-0 take a spill off a 1 foot high trestle at Chrisps house and the flame goes out and only gas escapes. 
In a similar situation would the alcohol spill out and ignite the areas around the fallen engine? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







We had an Aster Daylight with a full consist of cars running at speed pick a switch and plow head on into a parked Accucraft 3 cylinder shay causing both to fly off my elevated track. A very nasty sound and sight to behold. Burning alcohol from the Aster splattered about the ground and rocks where it landed on its side below. The shay got the worst of it. It looked like a tank had hit it, being broken into three parts. The Daylight had a small piece (rod) of its valve gear break off and its draw bar get bent into a "L" shape. This was caused by the force from the weight of cars being pulled pushing into the back of the cab on impact. The Daylight is fine, and while the shay was put back together she does run a little "catywhompus" now.

So, yes..............alcohol can splatter out and ignite.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Charles on 22 Apr 2010 05:03 AM 
Actually they could do one boiler setup for dual fuel: alcohol/butane- along with improvement of the gas burners (both in noise and utilization- no more trying to keep lit two burners) with a ceramic burner block that could be interchange with a wick setup. Not certain that it would be a cost savings to the company/customer given two different fuel tanks and lines but the customer could have the option to fire either way. 

Charles:
I've not heard of any G&A duel fuel locos. Coal and Alcohol, Coal and Gas, yes. Soutnern Steam Trans Aster Roster lists, if they are duel fuel, their haveing only one of the latter two. Might just be one of those, sounds good but the devil is in the details.


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris
Any of the combos could be possible. In fact one could triple fuel a locomotive if one has the proper boiler and delivery system design. My Aster Reno was gas and alcohol fired. Probably the easiest way would be a Saito sytle torch arrangement (also denote as vaporizer burner setup) that we use on our steam boat (easily converted from alcohol to gas) placed into the fire box door and light the little flame thrower...


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Geoff
I got some freight cars that would be a good exchange for PRR rolling stock....


----------



## CapeCodSteam (Jan 2, 2008)

I too was looking at the Western loco pulling Eastern cars


----------



## David Leech (Dec 9, 2008)

Posted By gaugeoneuk on 22 Apr 2010 10:46 AM 
Hi Guys, 

Here is my video of the F4 and Cab Forwards (note plural!) running on my track in the UK. USA G1 steam super-power in the UK no less!! 

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZShzn812vks 

Regards, 
Geoff Calver 
www.rushfordbarnmodels.co.uk 
Good video (as always) Geoff.
The F4 sounded fairly quiet, but why do people put up with 'howling' burners as in the CF's!
It is one noise that I dislike when I am at a steam up.
Very unrealistic, and not too hard to fix I am sure.
I fixed it on my Aster Hudson, by replacing the boiler with an alcohol one!
Lets see, how would you manage the immense length between sump and burner on the CF and make it work on steep grades!?
Regards
David Leech, Delta, Canada


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 22 Apr 2010 08:15 PM 
Posted By gaugeoneuk on 22 Apr 2010 10:46 AM 
Hi Guys, 

Here is my video of the F4 and Cab Forwards (note plural!) running on my track in the UK. USA G1 steam super-power in the UK no less!! 

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZShzn812vks 

Regards, 
Geoff Calver 
www.rushfordbarnmodels.co.uk 
Good video (as always) Geoff.
The F4 sounded fairly quiet, but why do people put up with 'howling' burners as in the CF's!
It is one noise that I dislike when I am at a steam up.
Very unrealistic, and not too hard to fix I am sure.
I fixed it on my Aster Hudson, by replacing the boiler with an alcohol one!
Lets see, how would you manage the immense length between sump and burner on the CF and make it work on steep grades!?
Regards
David Leech, Delta, Canada 

David
You are correct, as we have been able to resolve the burner howl...


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By David Leech on 22 Apr 2010 08:15 PM 
Lets see, how would you manage the immense length between sump and burner on the CF and make it work on steep grades!?
Regards
David Leech, Delta, Canada 

Dear Mr Leech - I'm certain that with your knowledge of the way things are over here in [flat] UK, you are more than aware that Gauge 1 tracks over here do not have steep grades. In fact, we go to great lengths [hah] to ensure that only a few the very largest tracks - as owned by a number of UK G1-er's, have anything like a grade of any kind, let alone a steep one.

The steepest grades I've ever seen on any LS track are those at either end of main131's dual-gauge [45/64mm] track, intentionally placed there to make the [live-steam] locos work a bit after the comparatively long straights, and I've never seen any loco, gas or alcohol-fired, display any kind of a fuel-feed problem whilst running there. I hasten to add that these grades will not only slow down many locos - gas OR alcohol, but can often bring them to a halt while restoring enough pressure to get them going again - manually-controlled versions that is....

Our RH, Berkshires, sundry Shays, Mikado's, Flying Scotsmen, Duchess's, 9Fs, Daylights, various Pacifics and the odd [rather fine] S&D F7 and GWR Class 38XX, cab-forwards, Big Boys, Garratts, and many other G 1 locos, as well as the usual gamut of 1/20.3 and 16mm stuff - all various gas or alcohol-fired, manage it all very well.....

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Tac, et al. 

While I agree that small gradient changes will not adversely affect the capillary action of a short run wick-sump alcohol system, the distance between the firebox and the tender on the AC11/12's is close to 2 feet in length, which would work fine on very flat terrain, but even the slightest increase in gradient for any extended period of time would surely lead to fuel starvation using a standard chicken feed system with the sump and control valve integral to the tender tank. 

One could overcome this by having a remote reserve sump located somewhere on the engine (divorced from the main sump), thereby shortening the distance between the wicks and fuel source on grades. Given the space restrictions of the Cab Forwards, the amount of reserve would be limited. 

Over on this side of the pond, Jim Stapleton's IE&W Ry. has a continual ~0.6% gradient that spans a length of (near as I can remember) 60-80 feet (up a reverse curve no less). This would be my proving ground of choice to see how well an extended chicken feed sump system would work up a stretch of grade. 

This gradient is often notorious for making even the largest of engines slow down due to a combination of (drag coefficents and gradient, most of the rolling stock has friction bearings) when run at realistic speeds, even on ideal track conditions. Add a little oil or water into the mix and any inertia advantage one got from the level straight is lost. Traction can be gained on poor track conditions, but it often means either having good throttle control or adding some sort of artificial adhesion* (weight over drivers, etc). 

*The most common choice to increase adhesion is to add a second, smaller, locomotive to give a boost in the overall horsepower and tractive effort, although this does not always work out to the benefit if the drivers are not synchronized well! 

I will have to devise a test rig and see how well it works. The long run of the fuel line may work to an advantage...


----------



## rbednarik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Chris Scott on 22 Apr 2010 05:36 PM 
Posted By Charles on 22 Apr 2010 05:03 AM 
Actually they could do one boiler setup for dual fuel: alcohol/butane- along with improvement of the gas burners (both in noise and utilization- no more trying to keep lit two burners) with a ceramic burner block that could be interchange with a wick setup. Not certain that it would be a cost savings to the company/customer given two different fuel tanks and lines but the customer could have the option to fire either way. 

Charles:
I've not heard of any G&A duel fuel locos. Coal and Alcohol, Coal and Gas, yes. Soutnern Steam Trans Aster Roster lists, if they are duel fuel, their haveing only one of the latter two. Might just be one of those, sounds good but the devil is in the details. 

Chris,

Locomotive type boilers avail themselves to all three styles of fueling. With a ceramic diffused gas burner placed where the fire grate or wicks go, you have all the quirks of a gas burner in a boiler with a crownsheet and multiple flues. One could also easily drop in a pair of manager (bolted to frame) or cup-style wick burners, with the manager being the more efficient of the two for a rectangular or square firebox. 


The manager system was used on the Aster and Accucraft (alcohol) GS-4's and I feel it is one of the easiest burner systems to use and maintain. The system seals through compression plugs and o-rings, with a "T'd" single feed line servicing both burners. The rectangular wicks use swaths of boiler insulation (ceramic sheet or rope), resulting in easy wick replacement and tuning and one can include a mesh vaporizing plate to help further combustion of the alcohol at low drafting levels. Burners drop out of the locomotive with just two securing bolts holding them to the frame (o-ring sealed fuel delivery pipe). 


Not to mention that the locomotive style boiler will add about 3-5 pounds of weight to the locomotive (dry no doubt), which is always welcome to increase the tonnage capacity of the engine. 


The tri-fuel locomotive type boiler results in a flexible, yet stable steam generation plant that is able to suit just about any gauge one locomotive. The price is a bit higher than a conventional single or divorced (dual) flue gas or C-type alcohol boiler, but the benefits (quiet, copious steaming, easy maintenance, and fuel flexibility) far outweigh the cost increase in my opinion.


----------

