NDGMight I humbly suggest the rounded valve casting might well, in some cases, be covered with rectangular metal box to allow an Engineman to stand on it, re Safety, if he was out there on the move, esp in dark?? oiling the 'Motion' running hot, depending on steps and running board configurations? Maybe it's for insulation @ 35 Below?? A 'Spotting Feature' could be the 'chest' is higher with the Universal Valve?? than a factory slide valve??
I think that what you have here is simpler than that - and it may well be a Canadian product built to avoid having to purchase a 'lower 48' item.
I think you may be right about why there is a sheet-metal 'hat' on top of the box to give a flat surface. I'd thought it was to permit the old slide-valve 'steam chest' (complete with pipe attach point) to be bolted on top of the conversion unit, but there is not space for that either on 1017 or 411. However, I think provision of Canadian levels of insulation are (as they should be!) being provided, and the box may hold this better than some approximation of curved cleading would. Note how small the valve diameter appears to be, but still produces a high box outline. Also note the tailrod on the valve, masked in DPM's picture unless you know it's there -- this is what allows that dinky little linkage to work the new valves without excessive ring and liner wear in those days long before Wardale's articulated piston valves with their many narrow metallurgically-sophisticated rings and special oil-metering arrangements.
In the old days, people had some strange ideas about how to get the steam into and out of the cylinders, especially when fancy cores in the cylinders or half-saddles used at the time could reduce both the material cost and the weight of the assembly ... and, as in the (forgive me for a diseasel analogy) difference between EMD and Baldwin, implement the steam joints as fully lapped, bolted, and sealed rather than areas with joints to work loose and leak.
The British carried this to a bit more of an extreme, wanting to disguise as much of the stuff that made the locomotive go as possible. It was not uncommon to find vertical slide valves just inboard of the cylinders, with both the inlet and exhaust ports squeezed into the available space -- misery to get in and work on valves like that, but not as bad as squeezing through the sorry little firehole to muck out the ash ... and then squeeze back out ... probably with the engine still in steam. But I digress.
One of the great 'innovations' PRR came up with in the '20s was cylinders with internal steam passages in cast steel, as applied famously to some of the M1s and the piston-valved K5. I do not think this works out as well as a good flow-streamlined pipe from the header/front-end throttle down to the steam chests 'around the periphery of the smokebox' and then external to it, and if you look at Chapelon's rebuilds in particular you can see evidence that an outside pipe can be easier and better to provide than any internal passage, and easier to craft as an appropriate smooth duct, too, especially in those pre-Extrude Hone days .
Thank You.
NDGI looked at the site Re 416 with Universal Valve Chest exposed, et Voila, another view in the snow. Does distant locomotive coupled nose-to-nose have a 'box' around similar valve?? Light gap to rear??
Good eye! Note the interesting detail that the tailrod is NOT at what I would assume the center of the valve bore would be on 416, which leads me to wonder what is in there and how the porting to it is arranged.
Yes, that's a similar box, and yes, I think it shows how the insulation around one of these conversion chests was provided. I can't tell if that's a light gap, some sort of white material or snow (perhaps even string or twine - is that a knot or bow at the back corner?), or just dirt on the negative. I assume you noted the missing cylinder head just below. There certainly appear to be lots of white speckles and spots on 416's running gear in the first picture.
There is no mystery about what is in these pictures if you look at the image metadata: these were taken on the dead line in March 1945.
Great comments and observations fella's. The loco coupled to 416 also has its rods removed and suffered some kind of catastrophic event on the front of the boiler/smokebox. The "strange" notation is that in the photo of 416 the tender # is painted out but no signs of vandalism but after the vandalism destroyed the cab windows and headlight glass and the canvas the tender number reappears and it is definitely the same tender. Unfortunately I saw way too much of this stuff in my formitative years and as a young adult.
The two photos of #416 show the same date in the caption data, but I would say they were taken years apart. It seems obvious that the view with glass intact is much earlier than the view with glass broken. The M&StL retired a lot of equipment in the 1930s, but let it stand in storage for a relatively long period before scrapping it en masse when Lucian Sprague took over the road in the late 1940s.
But I cannot explain the tender numbering. I can see absolutely no difference in the tenders, so they are likely the same tender. In the earlier photo, it appears that the number has been painted out. However, the number “6” appears like it might have actually been “2”. There was a number 412 in this same class. Painting the white numbers black in a way that they can still be generally recognized seems a bit odd considering that the objective of painting out the numbers is to render them moot.
But the larger question goes to why the number 416 would have been perfectly reapplied to an engine in the dead line after being painted out in that same line years earlier.
According to R&LHS Railroad History #154, M&StL #416 was built in 6/09 as Iowa Central #233, as class H-2, 2-8-0. It was renumbered to #416 in 1910
The following information comes from this reference: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/consolidation/?page=msl
It says that only a few years after the Baldwin Iowa Central 500s (#500-506) were built, the M&StL began superheating the class and installed 8" Economy piston valves fitted inside Universal steam chests.
This reference also confirms the class as being H2-38 which was previously class H-2. However, the reference to Iowa Central 500s is confusing because the 500s were originally built as Iowa Central class H-1, 2-8-0 types. Apparently both the Iowa Central class H-1 and H-2 became class H2-38 on the M&StL after they merged with the Iowa Central in 1912. According to the R&LHS roster, it seems that the entire class of H2-38 was superheated in 1915-16. The date is given as certain, but it is questionable whether it refers to the entire H2-38 class. Also indicated is that all or some of the H2-38 class eventually was re-classified as H6-38.
The other locomotive next to #416 was a 4-6-0 built in 6/1909 as M&StL #351, renumbered in 1910 to # 205, and renumbered in 1912 as #229. It was scrapped in 4/1950. During this life, the locomotive evolved from class G-2, to G2-26, to G6-26, and to G6-24. There is no indication that this locomotive was ever superheated or rebuilt with a conversion to piston valves as were the H-1 and H-2 class.
Like class H-2 #416 shown in the photo, the R&LHS coverage shows a photo of locomotive #401, class H-1, also showing the same design of the steam delivery pipe entering the rectangular valve chest vertically.
It does look like a "2"...wonder if this was done on the photograph itself. Maybe by a kid or something?
It is the same tender...the exact repair spots, three of them, are identical along the bottom nearest the cab.
NDGHe mentioned Superheating, and the Piston 'Economy/Universal' conversion kit and how it worked, Inside/Outside Admission on several types of locomotves and so on.
If you remember, you might give some details of what he said. The change between 'inside and outside steam' is an interesting one (for those interested in steam technology in the first place) and his particular reasons for changing over would be good to know. (The one I was taught involved minimizing the effect of superheat on the valve rod lubrication (especially the portion of the rod surface that was "steam-cleaned" a bit with each stroke and then slid back through the glands and seals)
NDG ... There were other things to consider, but, he said why load your head up with all that CRAP, when you'll never see an engine with them, as all scrapped. If it becomes imperative, the information can usually be found if you look, and this is long before Google and the Internet.
That is very true ... especially when, as here, an engineman couldn't do anything about the features in question. (The 'inside vs. outside' steam question also applies in marine practice, where there is explicit condensation to low absolute pressure on the exhaust side and leaky glands are of more significance... there, too, you're going to 'run whatcha brung'.) Note that the Economy setup, as described, does NOT change over to inside admission in the conversion.
I do think, though, that having studied to have an instinctive grasp of how steam 'behaves' even in unfamiliar situations can be of great help when there are unusual or emergent problems never seen before, and it might be dangerous NOT to realize what is happening. A rather good 'steam' example is the bubbles in the primary loop at TM! 2. They had no idea what that shaking was, or what it signified that was different from what their (deflicted) instrumentation was telling them.
Know what you need to know for the duties you perform = a form of Safety?
It is. When I first learned how to run a crane, I was carefully instructed NOT to teach the techniques to anyone who did not have a proven 'need to know' and, even then, to anyone I wasn't going to personally supervise at the controls of any crane they might try to operate. This might be thought of as an example of 'with great power comes great responsibility ... and if you can't ASSURE the responsibility, it's better not to impart some or perhaps all of the 'power'...
Or perhaps 'sufficient unto the day' and all that.
On the other hand, if someone is being groomed for 'management' I'm going to show them all the little details, and carefully explain what is and isn't typical, and to have them do all the thinking and research and reading that goes along with 'telling people what to do' even when you couldn't walk in their shoes directly. I try to make sure to distinguish the 80/20 factors and all that, but especially in high-pressure steam engineering (and nuclear engineering!) there are a few esoteric little things that can rise up to bite you dramatically if you do not know.
Some castings had a 'slant inboard' for Stephenson between frames, others outboard for external gears.
It's a little more complicated in that many Stephenson engines (which had the eccentrics inboard) had the slide valves horizontal over the cylinders (where the arrangement made the most sense) and used rocking levers to carry the motion outboard. (A touted design feature of mid-19th Century American power was, in fact, that the frame was designed in two pieces, so you could work on the back 'half' separately from the front and do the cylinders different from the eccentrics and reversing linkage.) The inboard arrangement in conversion allowed some lower heat loss and linkage complexity (and reduced some of the opportunity for lost motion) in return for the increased inspection difficulties. But the dominance of radial gears, and importance of easy inspection and repair, made the 'all outside' dominant. (This was starting to change in the early 1930s in high-speed express locomotive practice, and was in fact implemented on those interesting Belgian Atlantics, with outside chests on inside cylinders, just the opposite of the old days.
The Old Engineer imparted another bit of advice. If you have a 'protruding' piece of piping or device, in this case, particularly, Cylinder Cocks, or Oil Feed as in Sierra engine EXPOSED where it is likely to get broken by rocks, ties alongside roadbed, etc. only thread it is as tight as it needs to be. DON'T use any more force!! If it was broken off, it was much easier to extract the stub part and install a spare part, or a plug.
This makes very good sense, the same way that wiring or keying a protruding part so it can't accidentally unthread when left 'just as tight as it needed to be' for pressure sealing, might be. These things are the meat in the proposed 'best practices manual that Becky Morgan et al. are working on for RyPN -- pithy and memorable wisdom, expressed in pithy and memorable words, covering common-sense things about steam power.
Would like to see good blueprints in cut away for Universal Valve. Its need and development must have paralled advancements in superheating...
Well, as it happens, I took my own advice about this being in Cyclopedias, and here is the result.
The tailrod location corresponds to where the center of the old slide valve would be; in other words, where the existing valve linkage would run geometrically. So 'that much less' of an existing locomotive's equipment would have to be modified for the piston-valve conversion. Interestingly enough, the piston valve spool (not the rings) is not cylindrical, they say to give a little more exhaust-steam clearance.
Thank You,
This N.P. Boiler explosion was written up in the N.P. Historical Society magazine. As I recall, the cause was never determined for certain other than letting the water fall below the crown sheet. There was discussion in the article about the low water alarm. I would have to dig out the article to make sure, but I seem to recall that the alarm was heard by others within earshot prior to the explosion. Here are a series of photos on this page 46, and also some on page 45 and 47. This wrecked locomotive was repaired and put back in service.
http://morphotoarchive.org/rvndb/rvndb_subject_srch.php?rvn_subject=Accident&subject_orderby=rvn_date.date_begin,rvn_date.date_end&page=450&limit=10
NDGThe CNR train would have used the Quebec Bridge to cross over from South Shore.
Famous for being more murderous than any boiler explosion. Twice.
NDG- Can you explain a bit more about that photograph where CP 7013 is switching (?) a CN passenger train lead by FPA's. Was this some kind of terminal pool arraignment? CN and CP in this time era rarely cooperated to this degree and pretty much stayed with their own. Maybe it was different in Quebec? Why is it pulling/leading the FPA's?
Kind of weird fact. ...I have this S2 in brass in Nscale numbered 7013 and custom painted same scheme. It has added glass, some accessories and the engineer with a slightly elevated arm from a half opened window. Now I know who he is and can give him a name!
Both CN and CP used Palais Station in Quebec City, with CPR providing the switching service for both roads. I rode a steam excursion from Montreal to Quebec behind CN 6218 in 1969, and the train was turned by CPR, using an RS-23 on that occasion. The steam engine was turned independently on a wye.
The caption has a slight error, since CP 7013 was built by Alco, not MLW. It would be about 5 years (1949) before MLW started building diesels in Canada with CP 7076, another S-2. A notable feature of CP 7013 is that it was built during the very brief period when Alco used horizontal radiator shutters instead of the vertical design used before and subsequently.
John
OK..thanks for that cx500. It does look odd though...you rarely even saw freight cars of one on the others road...everybody and their dog else but not those two side by each!
NDG- Well I sure hope you are doing better. Love that picture from. Chapleau. Spent a lot of time railfanning in that area in the 70's ...Chapleau was never a disappointment. Worked for Falconbridge in Onaping then INCO, Frood Mine. Good railfanning in Sudbury itself those days as well. They would combine or split, depending on the direction, the meeting Montreal and Toronto portions of the Canadian there back then and there were still some local trains mostly RDC's. You could take local trains to Sault Ste. Marie or over to White River and even Manitoulin Island.
Plenty of locomotives in the grey and maroon scheme, especially the switchers and most Alco's. The FA's looked especially good in that scheme. The multimark scheme had just come out and the Canadian itself was one of the first to get the scheme along with its FP7's and 9's.
Really thought it would all last forever and it did, sort of anyway ...the CPR is still with us, Chapleau is still a division point and the Canadian, although VIA, is still with us, ...kinda, sorta.
NDG: Thanks for a very informative post.
Norm
NDGBack in the day there was a Liquid Sodium cooled reactor on the Michigan side which almost melted down.
Cisler deserves to be remembered better. That reactor was built like a piece of jewelry, a demonstration that 'union labor' in America could do a better job than anyone else in the world any time they wanted -- and did!
The problem at Lagoona Beach was reminiscent, to me, of the situation evolving around the Hoxie accident. At the last minute, some engineer changed the plans to put some baffles on the bottom of part of the reactor -- one of these came loose and jammed in just the wrong place relative to the fuel rods, which then overheated... and swelled. If that hadn't been done, the reactor would quite possibly have run out its service life ... probably just in time for major problems with reprocessing after we shut down West Valley and similar operations.
I don't like prompt criticality in power reactors, or anything that might even tend to make it occur. That goes multiple times (not just double!) for reactors that use a NaK alloy that freezes at ambient temperature, and superheaters in the steam loop for power generation, and breeding levels of neutron flux. Walker thought he could handle it (Cornell engineer) and perhaps he could have if not blindsided by midnight redlining.
CSSHEGEWISCHZug would know this better than me but I do recall seeing Special Instructions in several Penn Central ETT's from 1969 that clearly state NOT to isolate traction motors in order to comply with restrictions.
I just now noticed this, and have a question.
Back in 1969, wouldn't isolating a TM involve at least one craft, and not be something an engine crew was supposed to do on a voluntary basis? Likewise, reconnecting it when required again?
It's different when a computer control allows you to reach out and touch an icon to do it with all the right electrical adjustments handled for you automatically.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.