I’ve fettled the AL10 whilst waiting for the new mica shade to arrive. A couple of nice design details became apparent whilst working on this lamp. The first was the pump’s non-return valve jumper, which has a little groove in it just behind the cup, to retain the spring: The second is the letters “G.W.R.” stamped into the pump shaft, presumably at the Tilley works: I’ll post a picture of the finished lamp once the mica shade is fitted. Phil
This lamp isn’t mine, sadly. It belongs to a preserved steam railway somewhere in the UK, and I was asked to get it working but to preserve its patina. The lamp is stamped “G.W.R.” on both the handle and the pump rod. I renewed all the seals and washers, polished the reflector, fitted a new mantle and a Fred Kuntz mica shade, and it now works perfectly. Phil
Many thanks, Jeff. It’s really bright too, and beats our 1964 AL620 for light output. Again, I find that brightness is very dependent on mantle type. The one you see is called “Anchor Brand”. I do like the separate air release valve and wish that Tilley had stuck with it, rather than on most of their lamps having to unscrew the pump, which invariably results in a spray of paraffin mist over one’s hands! Phil
Hello Phil, whenever I loosen a pump etc., I have a cloth around it to catch any paraffin spray. Jeff.
@Phil Harris I may have its twin brother. Is this where the other G W R is ?? I don't think I would have ever known about the GWR on the pump if not for your post. Thanks.
Hi Antony, Thanks for that! Definitely twins. The GWR letters must have been stamped in at Hendon. I’ve certainly never seen another pump rod stamped like that. Is your lamp fitted with a handle heat shield? It has been suggested to me that these lamps should have one, but I’ve never seen a picture. Jeff, of course, that’s what I should do, use a cloth, but it wouldn’t be necessary if Tilley had stuck with the separate air release valve. I guess it added cost and an additional rubber seal. Phil
@Phil Harris, this is how it came to me. No heat shield. Mine has a "D" under the control cock and the same flat screw holding the reflector. And for your interest.
So, no heat shield then, that seems definite. I don’t know about the “D” but I’ll look for it when I see the lamp again next Thursday. Lovely collection of lamps in the background there, Antony! What is interesting is that the original AL10 was rated at 150 CP, half the normal output. I’m not sure how this was achieved; presumably the original vapouriser had a smaller jet size and was fitted with a different mantle, as the burner looks identical to the normal 300 CP type. Or did the tank simply operate at lower pressure? Was the pressure indicator calibrated to indicate ‘full’ at a reduced pressure? The flow rate of paraffin vapour through the jet is proportional to the square root of fuel pressure. I must say that the AL10 reaches good brightness with barely 20 strokes of the pump. Mind you, the tank volume is relatively small and the pump is a standard size. I have no way of knowing whether the vapouriser on this lamp has been replaced during its 85-year life, but it’s highly likely. All I can say is that this lamp is really bright, brighter than many of my conventional “300CP” Tilleys. Phil
@Phil Harris Well fettled Phil, a grand lamp. @Anthony Thanks for sharing. Good to know there are at least two of these rare GWR stamped lamps.
Thanks, Stevie. There must have been hundreds, most of which were scrapped. I guess those that remain are thankfully now in the safe hands of collectors.
That is a bit odd being advertised as 150cp. Two air inlet burners as in other AL and FL models are smaller burners so 200cp I understand. This being 3 air inlet with a 449 hood is ..... odd There are no burners showing in the gallery and mine is not original so if anyone could have a look to see if theirs has a smaller burner that would be interesting. I have had mine giving light with 1 pump.
Must check one of my lamps, it’s not an Al10, but the burner and heat shield are both stamped GWR. Would be interesting to see if the pump is the same. Thinking about it though, I might have changed the pump when I got it.
Oldish thread, but Phil said above: I’ve just finished fettling an AL 10 in what appears to be original condition. It has a standard Tilley 169 vapouriser, but a small 3-armed burner, with a small spigot. The lamp gets to bright with a few pumps. My assumption is the lamp gets its lower cp rating by the smaller burner and lower pressure. Am I correct, anyone? [I will post this lamp in the Reference Gallery later today] Tony
Hi Tony, I only just spotted your interesting contribution to this thread. Good point about the burner design, which must be different from the standard 300 CP type. The standard vapouriser will emit the same amount of fuel vapour at a given pressure, so to prevent a rich fuel/air mixture you’d need to operate the lamp at lower pressure. Your experience that only a few pumps are needed to achieve maximum brightness mirrors my own, and certainly suggests that our assumptions are correct! Phil
