Trains.com

Boiler explosions

9194 views
25 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Evergreen Park, IL
  • 93 posts
Boiler explosions
Posted by alangj on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:36 PM
Does anyone remember which issue of "Trains" magazine contained the article (was it titled "Big Bang, No Theory"?) about steam-locomotive boiler explosions, with a few pages of descriptive text and some before-and-after photos?  I'm assuming that it would have been after the June, 1995 Gettysburg incident, but I'm not certain.  Can anyone help with the month and year of that article?  THANX!  AGJ
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:44 PM

 alangj wrote:
Does anyone remember which issue of "Trains" magazine contained the article (was it titled "Big Bang, No Theory"?) about steam-locomotive boiler explosions, with a few pages of descriptive text and some before-and-after photos?  I'm assuming that it would have been after the June, 1995 Gettysburg incident, but I'm not certain.  Can anyone help with the month and year of that article?  THANX!  AGJ

Trains, April 1995, Page 66, by Ed King.

I found it on the magazine index on this site.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Evergreen Park, IL
  • 93 posts
Posted by alangj on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:51 AM

GEEZ, why didn't I think of that?, Regardless...

Thanks, Tom.  Muchly appreciated!

Alan

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 880 posts
Posted by Last Chance on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:07 PM
I think the NSTB (Spelling?) Issued a PDF Report on that Gettysburg Problem. I might still have it on my computer somewhere but it's gonna be a dig to find it again.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Akron,OH
  • 229 posts
Posted by Kurn on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:27 PM
1278 wasn't a boiler explosion. It was a crown sheet failure,due to low water level.

If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:29 PM
That's what causes boiler explosions - low water over the crownsheet.

Mark.
  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 880 posts
Posted by Last Chance on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:56 PM

Low Water is cause.

When you dig down to that engine you will learn how it failed under the low water problem.

Even more interestingly how the water was allowed to get low in the first place.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:17 PM

Mark, not wishing to put you on the spot, and taking into account the energy involved in "hard" firing, did you ever have a sweaty moment or two...a close call?   I read an account by an old timer a couple of years back where he said you'd dump the fire, descend from the cab, and run like the devil was gaining on you.

-Crandell

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 302 posts
Posted by JT22CW on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:37 PM

 Kurn wrote:
1278 wasn't a boiler explosion. It was a crown sheet failure, due to low water level.
That is the definitive (or "classic") boiler explosion.  Water gets too low and does not cover the crown sheet so the cooling effect is lost (it's typically well over 1,000°F inside that firebox), fire in the firebox melts the crown sheet, high-pressure steam explodes through the molten crown sheet metal, killing the crew and catapulting the boiler off the frame in a similar phenomenon to rocket propulsion.

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 880 posts
Posted by Last Chance on Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:01 AM
Before this gets out of hand and we are knee deep in liquid, my understanding is that there was indeed a problem with the boiler with steam escaping and hurting the crew. The bolts that failed in the boiler were designed to fail so that maybe the entire boiler does not get blown across the hills.
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:07 AM
 JT22CW wrote:

 Kurn wrote:
1278 wasn't a boiler explosion. It was a crown sheet failure, due to low water level.
That is the definitive (or "classic") boiler explosion.  Water gets too low and does not cover the crown sheet so the cooling effect is lost (it's typically well over 1,000°F inside that firebox), fire in the firebox melts the crown sheet, high-pressure steam explodes through the molten crown sheet metal, killing the crew and catapulting the boiler off the frame in a similar phenomenon to rocket propulsion.

The NTSB report calls it a "firebox explosion." The boiler was never "catapulted off the frame" as you suggest. The report is available on line:

 http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9605.pdf

 

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 445 posts
Posted by Kootenay Central on Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Interesting.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Near Promentory UT
  • 1,590 posts
Posted by dldance on Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:32 PM
 Kootenay Central wrote:

Keep the Water Glass Clean, Mounts Open and Their Passages Unobstructed, and Most Important, Water at Correct Operating Level.


And exercise the tricock valves occasionally - the water glass can lie to you.

dd

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • 445 posts
Posted by Kootenay Central on Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:01 PM

.

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Akron,OH
  • 229 posts
Posted by Kurn on Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:58 PM
Fortunately,compared to wrecks and other incidents,boiler explosions were pretty rare.That says a lot about the crews in thousands of steamers traveling zillions of miles.BTW,the first boiler explosion on record was the "Best Friend of Charlston".Story goes that the fireman was annoyed by the popoff valve hissing,so he tied it shut.

If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.

  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 880 posts
Posted by Last Chance on Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:13 PM

"Tied it shut"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Monday, July 28, 2008 2:54 PM
 Last Chance wrote:

"Tied it shut"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thereby qualifying himself for a pre-Darwin award.  IIRC, he was the only fatality.

Chuck

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 229 posts
Posted by Ham549 on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:14 PM
 tomikawaTT wrote:
 Last Chance wrote:

"Tied it shut"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thereby qualifying himself for a pre-Darwin award.  IIRC, he was the only fatality.

Chuck

I am glade you finde the fact that an African Slave who was purposely kept uneducated died in that tragic incident.  

Save the F40PH!
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:45 PM
According to a contemporary account, the fireman wasn't killed, but suffered a broken thigh.

http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/brown/chpt29.html

I have to wonder how "uneducated" the man actually was, if he was employed as a locomotive fireman?

Mark.
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Rhododendron, OR
  • 1,516 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:46 PM
 Ham549 wrote:
 tomikawaTT wrote:
 Last Chance wrote:

"Tied it shut"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thereby qualifying himself for a pre-Darwin award.  IIRC, he was the only fatality.

Chuck

I am glade you finde the fact that an African Slave who was purposely kept uneducated died in that tragic incident.  

Ham549,

   There was NO reference to the Fireman being Black, a Slave or Uneducated, the comment referred to someone doing something, that they SHOULD have known better than to do, with the expected results occurring. Let's NOT turn this into a racial issue PLEASE, as that did not appear to be the intent of the poster.

                                                              Thank You,

                                                               Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: The Great state of Virginia
  • 36 posts
Posted by C&WRailway on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:57 PM

I agree with Mark on our belief that "Fireman" and "uneducated" dont mix.  Unforunately there is a prevailing and ignorant belief among those not educated in the railroad that fireman simply stood beside the Engineer and shoveled coal.  If it was only that easy (actually thats rough work).  In fact he was responsible for any number of things that I am sure Mark and others who have fired loco's could go into detail about.  On a personal note my Grandfather was originally a fireman for the Western Maryland RR in the 30's (I have a photo of him beside the mighty H-9 class) and later tested for and became an Engineer and retired from them several years after dieselization.  I am sure if he was still living he would jump on this quicker than you could imagine.  Please refrain from using the term 'Fireman' and 'Uneducated' in the same sentence.  In addition i am sure no one is making fun of slavery or anything of the like.  Lastly, being in transportation management i can assure you safety is no laughing matter but sometimes trained people make bad decisions through inattention, distraction and carelessness and its these times bad things happen.

Ok, im off my soapbox.

NC

Got Steam?
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:42 PM

Yes, I agree.    The race card, even if true, wasn't necessary to be introduced in this discussion.  Otherwise we'd have to demonstrate that no white firemen ever made a silly or unintentional error.  Since we know that isn't the case, the race thing is irrelevant.

-Crandell

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:16 AM
 selector wrote:

Yes, I agree.    The race card, even if true, wasn't necessary to be introduced in this discussion.  Otherwise we'd have to demonstrate that no white firemen ever made a silly or unintentional error.  Since we know that isn't the case, the race thing is irrelevant.

-Crandell

Since it was my comment that seems to have caused that card to be dealt, let me say for the record that I still have no idea whether the fireman in question was white, black, red, brown, yellow or purple (with big green polkadots) - but I DO know that he should have known better.  If his supervisors hadn't briefed him on the workings of a boiler, he should have asked before acting.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20...

Chuck

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:59 AM
 tomikawaTT wrote:
 selector wrote:

Yes, I agree.    The race card, even if true, wasn't necessary to be introduced in this discussion.  Otherwise we'd have to demonstrate that no white firemen ever made a silly or unintentional error.  Since we know that isn't the case, the race thing is irrelevant.

-Crandell

Since it was my comment that seems to have caused that card to be dealt, let me say for the record that I still have no idea whether the fireman in question was white, black, red, brown, yellow or purple (with big green polkadots) - but I DO know that he should have known better.  If his supervisors hadn't briefed him on the workings of a boiler, he should have asked before acting.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20...

Chuck

You also have to remeber at that point in history, steam engines, be they on ships or locomotives, were new. There were very few people that knew anything about them, let alone how to safely operate them. The designer know enough to put a safety valve on it, but even he may not have known what would happen if it failed or was defeated. When the fireman did it, he was tying down an annoying, squeeling thing on top of the boiler (safety valve). He probably didn't even know what it was or what it was supposed to do. Our 20-20 hindsight in this case is after a century of steam locomotive use and operation.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 254 posts
Posted by Railroader_Sailor_SSN-760 on Friday, August 1, 2008 5:33 PM

The book Train Wrecks by Robert C Reed would be a good study book, as it has a chapter devoted to boiler explosions, with a number of photographs and pictures of the end result of a boiler explosion. Overall, a very good read, as it shows how some of the more famous wrecks over the first 100+ years of railroading took place.

I have a copy of the first edition (1968), and it has been reprinted many times, with Amazon.com currently priced between $1-$40 for the newer paperback edition.

I havemost of the Trains issues from the 90's, I will take a look to see if any of them make mention of the Gettyberg incident.

So many scales, so many trains, so little time.....

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:57 PM

The NP Historical Society publication, The Mainstreeter has a two-part article (Volume 19, No. 1 and No. 2) on the explosion of NP 4-6-6-4 No. 5105 on 7/7/1938.  There are lots of details including a sort of slow motion account of exactly how the crown sheet let go during the 3/10th second time frame, and continuing on to describe the exact course and attitude of the boiler as it became an airborne projectile, and finally on to a description of the area that was subjected to a rain of parts falling back to the ground.

Apparently, the down blast of a crown sheet failure, and the upward reaction thrust combine to create a sudden impediment to the forward motion of the train, almost like running into a solid object.  However, I have not read nor heard of a lot of discussion of this principle.  That appears to have occurred in the case of this NP explosion.  Many freight cars in the 4000-ton train were smashed together more or less still in line, almost as if they telescoped.  The explosion was due to low water, but the investigation failed to explain how events led to the low water or why the crew would ignore the low water alarm, which is loud enough to be heard hundreds, if not thousands of feet from the locomotive.  NP rebuilt the locomotive and continued to use it.

In his book, Call The Big Hook, Samuel Dougherty describes a boiler explosion on the D&RGW in 1934, of engine no. 1409, a 2-10-2.  It blew the firebox right off of the boiler, and the boiler, frame, running gear, and the rest of the train continued on for a mile. The cause was a build up of mud in one of the water legs.  The deposit built up to about 2' x 2'.  It prevented the water from circulating through that area and created a hot spot that burned the firebox side sheet.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy