Now What Have I Done..... '22 Stanley Steam Car

[prewarnut]

What's the insulating material there? Does one have to worry about asbestos in that location? I acknowledge by now many have probably been worked on and replaced but curious what locations on the Stanley occupational hazards lurk...

[Terry Harper]

Wonderful journey! Thank you for sharing. One thought is be mindful of the valve rods. They could be stuck in the guides. Gentle, gentle.. one part at a time.
 

A number of years ago we remastered a set of drawings for the 20hp Stanley engine including general arrangement, assembly and detail drawings for each component and donated the set back to the Stanley Museum. We also did a set for the piston valve cylinder block, sleeve and spool valve.

 

here is a rendering of the complete assembly.
 

[nsbrassnut]

Terry, that is a magnificent rendering of the engine. Have you every done it in an exploded view as well? A drawing like that would be a great help for a Stanley newbie like myself.

 

Regarding insulation. I’m definitely conscious and on the watch for asbestos. The Stanley literature notes how they used asbestos in the original insulation in may places in the car. Most of it has already been removed several years ago when Keith was putting it back together. But I am finding signs that there may still be some present that will need to be dealt with.

The boiler smoke bonnet and burner were replaced with new reproductions with new modern insulation. The old original boiler top smoke bonnet came with the car and appears to still have the original insulation in it. That part is in storage for now and may be taken outdoors for wetting down and insulation removal in the future. I want to keep the metal parts for future patterns, but the asbestos will need to be dealt with.

I think that there is some on the steam line where it runs under the car and is sandwiched between the floor and the main water tank. The tank will have to come off to access the line to remove what is left. The remaining insulation on the steam line doesn’t look very good and will need to be replaced anyway. It looks like a semi-rigid insulation material, but old. So, I will have to think through an approach the level of precaution to be taken. The insulation on the boiler is all new modern material as is the insulation on the engine. I think its K-Wool, a modern asbestos insulation substitute.  K-Wool can be purchased both in flat semi-rigid sheets and loose “fluffy” insulation. I expect to be shopping for more in the future.

We had to deal with asbestos insulation in some of the older power plants that I used to work in so I am familiar with the basic precautions for dealing with it. And why it needs to be treated with respect and caution as well.

[Terry Harper]

30 minutes ago, nsbrassnut said:

Terry, that is a magnificent rendering of the engine. Have you every done it in an exploded view as well? A drawing like that would be a great help for a Stanley newbie like myself.

 

Yes, we certainly do! I just need to pull the files from the archive.

[nsbrassnut]

Here are a few updates on the engine inspections.

 

I tried penetrating oil and then air pressure to the engine a couple times with no success. The engine wouldn’t budge. The engine moved during the car move and I think it would be easier to carefully try to free it while still in the car where it is solidly mounted. The next plan was to put the wheels back on, air up the tires and take it off the stands. Then try pushing the car. If I’m lucky it will move without having to be pulled by a vehicle.

 

I should have waited for help, but being a bit stubborn at the time I tried to move the car by grabbing onto the spokes of one rear wheel and trying to move it. And it did move, but only barely. So, I worked out just how much it should move to equal one full engine stroke. That came out at nearly 10 ft. But since I didn’t have that much space to move, I marked out 5 ft. which should equal about one top to bottom stroke.

 

Over a period of several push/pull cycles the car did slowly move a bit more. And it did protest and squeak during the process. After opening removing the chest cover and spraying more penetrating oil in through the steam passages, the car finally did roll the full 5 ft that it needed to move equal one stroke. It also started to roll more easily much like “normal” cars.

 

The next step was to put it back up on the axle stands and try air pressure again. The engine would roll by hand if one wheel was held and the other turn so some progress. Then I tried air again and the engine started to roll over. However, it also made some unpleasant clunking noises when running. Sort of like what the sound of a broken ring gear makes on a regular differential. At that point it was time for a break.

 

By the way, the lower engine cover over the rods and crank was still in place at this point so I couldn’t actually see what was turning. The lower engine cover is the original one piece one that wraps around the lower engine mechanism. When looking at it I didn’t think it would easily come off without removing the engine.

 

After a break and supper, I did go back out and open the cover to see what was going on inside. To my surprise, the cover actually could be rolled over and removed much easier than I thought at first.  There was no obvious issue or damage visible. Both the differential gear and the engine drive gear were intact and everything was still connected up. But the clunk was still present and would happen consistently at the same point in the engine revolution each time. At that point it was time to quit for the day.

 

The next evening my neighbor came down to check my progress. He is another car guy and has taken an interest in the Stanley. With the two of use listening and watching we finally found the source of the clunk. The left crank rod (driver’s side) cross head would move at the bottom end of each stroke. At that position the force on the cross head switches vertical direction as the piston passes over its bottom dead center horizonal position. There is play on one end of the cross head guides and when the cross head moves it makes  a loud clunk.

 

This shouldn’t be occurring. When properly assembled and shimmed the cross head guides are set for minimal play with the cross head, leaving just enough space for lubricating oil. My present concern is that something is not right on the left side of the steam engine. It could be as simple as an adjustment of the cross head guides. But it could also be a problem inside the cylinder, such as the piston rings coming up on a ring ridge in the cylinder. That kind of problem is both difficult to confirm and difficult to repair. The engine needs to come out be fully dismantled to do anything inside the engine block.

 

I also don’t think it was assembled that loose to start with when Keith last worked on it. I can tell he was in there by the new shims and cotter pins that I can see. When I asked him about the engine work history he did say “it has never been apart”, although I believe he was referring to the cylinder block end caps and pistons, not the bottom end of the engine.

 

The next step will likely be some more visual inspection and some partial temporary dismantling of the left side of the engine while still in the car. But only for inspection and problem solving. The plans are evolving around removing the engine and rear axle assembly for a detailed tear down and inspection/repair next winter. Its more that I want to tackle during driving season.

 

A suggestion if you are in a similar position. Go get a second set of hand for pushing the car back and forth. I had no problem when pushing other than getting tired. The next morning, I was still fine. Then I moved from one chair to another and a @&*# back spasm hit. Now I have to go to light duties for a few days while my back recovers.

 

For those who may interested, here is a picture of the bottom end of the steam engine with the cover off. This is taken from the left side of the car looking down.

[wayne sheldon]

It looks pretty nice in there! Hopefully, there won't be any serious issues inside the rest of it? 

I sure would have liked to have worked on a Stanley years ago. I knew several people that had Stanleys, including one longtime good friend. But he sold his about thirty years ago. He loved them (had a few actually), but most needed too much work and he sold them to get a couple cars he could enjoy more. Back then, he said he probably would never get another, unless the right one came along at an affordable price (a relative term?). In more recent years, he did get another. And then another.

Due to family issues, I haven't been able to go the distance to see them.

 

Me, waiting, and watching, to see what you find next!

Edited August 9 by wayne sheldon
I hate leaving typos! (see edit history)

[nsbrassnut]

Not much new to report at present.

 

But I do want to send a thank you to Terry for sharing the Stanley engine drawings with me. They are going to be a big help.

 

From them I can see that my first idea of removing the bolt that joins the piston rod to the connecting rod to see if there is a difference in how easily it turns with one cylinder un-hooked won't work. It looks like a simple hinge pin/bolt. Turns out that connection is more complex. It has tapered conical sections on each side of the link that are brought together  with the bolt. The conical sections appear to be integral with the two side pieces of the connecting rod. It looks like the entire connecting rod will need to come off to try the test that I had in mind.

 

On a more positive side note. I received a note from the previous owner's son recently. He found a period screw jack that he thinks goes with the Stanley. He put it aside for me to pick up when I next passed by. The Stanley parts book lists a jack in the tools section and it likely came with one. The jack is a heavy one with a ball thrust bearing under the crown wheel to take heavy loads. It cleaned up nice and will go well with the car.

 

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Wayne.

 

I liked your comment about "relative" affordable price. I wouldn't be able get my Stanley if the market hadn't started to soften in recent years. That plus the last owner wanted to see the car stay local and be operated again. When he and I first chatted about the Stanley I had to pass on purchasing it and my comment was along the lines of I could either purchase the car, or repair it run again, but I couldn't do both at his original price. A few months we had another chat and I told him what I could make work and my interest in the car. Shortly after that he told me we make a deal that left me some room in the budget towards recommissioning. And like many old car projects, even expecting some significant costs along the way (like tires and other key items), I expect to be going over the original budget before I get to drive it.

 

The downside though, it appears that interest in some of these earlier "nickel era" cars is down or owners are aging out. Leaving fewer people with the same interest for me to ask questions of and hopefully meet in person some time in the future.

 

The late Art Hart, well known in the Stanley circles, once told me that the maintenance to driving time ratio for Stanley's is about 4 to 1. Four hours of work per hour of driving time. Presently, I would be happy to get it down to that.

[wayne sheldon]

18 hours ago, nsbrassnut said:

Presently, I would be happy to get it down to that.

 

(Me, laughing!) I can well imagine. 

I have two model Ts sitting in my garage and mini-barn that I have hundreds of hours into each, but have not yet driven. Several cars I have restored over the years (too many cars actually!), after many hundreds of hours restoring them, I probably only drove maybe fifty or a hundred hours total. On the other hand, a few cars I have restored I probably spent more hours behind the wheel  than I ever did working on them. So I have done alright on a few of them.

Most cars I restore, I had hopes of keeping forever. That is the way I am. I like what I like and if I like it, I will most likely like it forever. I know a lot of people that need to change the cars they own every few years. They seem to feel a need to experience something different after a couple years.

 

Take your time with the Stanley. Make it good, and safe, to run with it. And then hopefully you can enjoy it for many years to come.

[nsbrassnut]

I tend to get rather attached to my cars also. I got my first antique in 1978, a '36 Packard 120 B sedan. Its still in the garage and get used now and then.

 

I can also relate to delayed gratification. Back one summer in my university days I found the remains of a '05 Cadillac that was junked in the 1920's. I got to know the owner who was the son of the gent who junked it. Eventually he agreed to sell me the remains at a very favourable price with the understanding that I would work towards putting it back together. Well, with life, moves, etc. etc. it was 30 years before the first drive of the chassis and 34 when the car was finally "finished". Even restored, it runs in the 1 to 1 ratio. An hour of servicing after an hour of driving. And like your projects, many more hours before going for that first drive. But boy what a feeling when you get there. 😊

 

Here is another short update. After reading up in the SACA newsletters I figured out what cylinder oil to try to get for the Stanley. Some of the oils have been discontinued in recent years leaving me with only two good choices that I could find. One was a Mobil oil product, the other one by Morris Lubricants in the UK. I visited the local Mobil distributor and the sales person was friendly and tried to help me out. I was looking for a 5 gallon pail (or about 25 litres). The Mobil oil is still available, but only in 40 gallon drums. I only need enough for one lifetime, not two.

 

Next was to contact Mike May who advertises in the SACA newsletter. He is the US distributor for Morris. Unfortunately he isn't set up for shipping into Canada. And I'm a 5 hour drive, one way from the border and don't know too many people making regular trips out this way. Mike did put me in contact with the Morris sales person in the UK. They were very friendly and also patient with me as I went back and forth a few times about what to do. Especially when their shipping quote was nearly double the cost of the oil alone! And they helped walk be through the process of needing to send a bank to bank wire transfer for the payment as they were not set up for regular retail sales for things like credit cards.

 

Eventually I settled on ordering a 25 litre pail of Morris oil direct from the UK. It left their dock on a Monday and travelled by DHL and arrived in my driveway in Nova Scotia, Canada on Thursday the same week. A bit of a record I think. There were a few marks on the box and some DHL tape over holes and the pail had a few dents. But no leaks! The DHL customs clearance charge was a pleasant surprise, lower than the usual UPS and FedEx charge and below my budget estimate. At the end of the day it ended up slightly cheaper for me than the other options that I was able to come up with.

 

Now I have the right oil for the application for when I eventually reach that point.

 

[wayne sheldon]

Proper steam engine oil is a good thing to have squared away, and sitting on your running board! Sure a wonderful looking automobile.

 

 

Edited August 26 by wayne sheldon
I hate leaving typos! (see edit history)

[Terry Harper]

9 hours ago, nsbrassnut said:

Eventually I settled on ordering a 25 litre pail of Morris oil direct from the UK

Most excellent! We use the Mobile steam cylinder oil which works well in our steam powered Lombard Log Hauler. However, we are running saturated steam at a much lower temperature than you will have in the Stanley. Over here in the states we can buy it in 5 gallon containers. Fortunately for us a container lasts a long, long, time. 
 

Another item to research and ask about within the Stanley community is water treatment. For the past couple of years we have been using Boiler Saver we also monitor the Ph level and use a caustic. We also never, ever store the boiler wet. Storing a boiler filled with highly oxygenated water will wreck it in very short time.

 

As for ratio of working and tinkering versus driving... Remember that you are not just dealing with common Stanley issues such as leaking packing glands or a clogged burner jet but also a long learning curve - getting to know the car… it’s likes and dislikes. What a particular sound means - is that a good or bad? What is normal and what is not. Stanley’s, as with all steam powered vehicles be they a large locomotive, a traction engine or even a stationary engine are an all senses experience. Feel, sight, sound and even smell are all part of the package. It’s an amazing experience from an era when machines had a soul, a personality if you will. Learning how to read and work in harmony with that soul makes it all the more rewarding and a priceless life experience.

 

Edited August 26 by Terry Harper (see edit history)

[nsbrassnut]

I think the problem with the Mobil oil quantity was for the type of steam cylinder oil that I need. Your Lombard likely uses one of the compounded (mineral + tallow) traditional steam oils that works well on lower pressure and less superheat in the steam. And if the steam all goes to exhaust, the the compound oil works well. We have been able to get that here in 5 gallon pails too for use as 600W oil for old cars. But the condensing Stanley has to deal with both higher superheated steam temperature and pressure, and then trying to separate oil from steam on the condensing recycle. It's this specialized Mobil oil pure mineral high temperature steam oil that I need, and that is only is available in barrels (at least on this side of the border). Morris has a similar high temperature pure mineral steam cylinder oil which is what I ended up with as it is aimed at condensing Stanleys and similar applications.

 

Boiler water quality and treatment is on the list to learn about as well. I have read a few articles so far in the old SACA magazines which include some suggestions.

 

The Stanley literature includes some suggestions as well. Use reasonably good water if you can, but the recommendations focus a lot on regular boiler blowdowns, basically after every run, blow it down to get any dirt, sludge or muck out. And store the boiler dry when sitting for a long time. And the condensing Stanleys have an extra blowdown on the boiler that has a stand pipe part way up inside. The aim is to blow off top of the boiler water down and then blow off any oil on the top of the boiler water that got into the boiler from the condensing system. Then afterward proceed with the regular blowing down to a dry boiler. The two step process is to reduce the chance of leaving an oil scum in the boiler that can later cause problems. I am going to have to check that the stand pipe is in the new boiler as part of the boiler inspection process in the future.

 

The Stanley guidelines even mention for long term storage adding kerosene to the water tank and then pump some kerosene into the feedwater piping and the boiler, heat it and then blow down the boiler until only kerosene comes out for long term storage to prevent boiler corrosion and to reduce the chance of frost damage in the feedwater system.

 

I am going to have to build a rain water collection system to save up for good boiler water. My well water is hard, full of iron and the water conditioner uses salt to regenerate and traces of salt get into the house tap water. Nothing good for boiler water there.

 

Lots and lots to learn.

[nsbrassnut]

I have been doing some more review of the engine drawing information and comparing it with what I can see of the engine now that the cover is off.

 

When looking at the connecting rod bottom end roller bearings something looked odd. I know that the previous owner did some engine work but I'm not sure just what. The roller bearings on the two connecting rods both appear to have some "extra" space between the rolls. Comparing what I see to the drawings I found that something is different. There are 9 rollers in the bearings, while the drawing shows 10 rollers. Something isn't adding up.

 

 

 

I did some digging in the spare parts boxes and found a bag of old rollers. Checking the size of the rollers and the quantity, the numbers added up to the two pairs of 10 of the right size shown on the drawings.  The old rollers show pitting which explains why they were replaced.

 

This doesn't explain why the number of new rollers is different. The roller size is odd though. The size is 0.687" diameter by 0.500" long. This is a bit of an odd size for rollers. The main rollers for the crankshaft are a more "typical" 0.750" by 0.500" size.

 

After finding this discrepancy combined with the “clunk” in the cross head and possible binding in one cylinder I have decided that the engine and rear axle really need to come out from under the car for a more detailed inspection and possible repair work before any attempt to actually steam the engine.

 

So, the plans have changed. For now, I need to pivot and get some other pre-winter car and house chores done. Then later this fall remove the engine and axle and take them into the workshop where it is easier to work on them.

Edited September 7 by nsbrassnut (see edit history)

[r1lark]

Well........deep down inside, I bet you felt the best thing was going to be to remove the engine and check everything out anyway, right? 🙂

 

Besides, no need to risk rare engine parts by not inspecting everything really well. Scope creep sometimes is a good thing for reliability (but not necessarily for the wallet). 

[Jeff Perkins / Mn]

I would not consider this discovery a setback, just something one finds during a thorough recommission of a vehicle. Great detective work on your part!

[nsbrassnut]

Yes, definitely a bit of scope creep.  Something that tends to happen now and then with old car projects. 😉

 

But as mentioned by others, better safe than sorry. One of the reasons that my progress is very slow with this one, besides the learning curve, is the very limited availability of spare parts. I don't want to accidently damage something that could be difficult to replace. It may be for the better that it took so long for me to end up with the Stanley. My resources have improved in the last 20 years, but there are still limits.  Ability and options have improved a lot since I first met the car. If I got it back then, it might still be sitting in storage in the barn waiting for me to get started.

 

If anyone out there has repaired one of these engines before and knows where to get (or make) replacement rollers please let me know what you did.