I fully agree with Juniatha regarding a new boiler. Meiningen works in Germany has produced welded boilers not only for German engines but for the British "Tornado" and Australian "3801" Pacifics. Admittedly there were problems especially with the Australian one but generally speaking it should be possible to produce a boiler for the K 4 in accordance with US safety rules.
Best wishes, Helmut
The idea of a new boiler for the 1361 is nothing new. After an inspection of the boiler when it was at the East Broad Top, a new boiler was one of the recommendations. Past threads on the 1361 have discussed this.
The RRMM is still, although mum, hoping to get her running again...just have to wait and see I guess.
This is where I wish the Strasburg boys would weigh in. Their policy is to try and save as much of the original boiler as possible, i.e. if 85% is good but 15% is bad, replace the 15%. At least you still have as much of the original "fabric" of the engine as possible. Replace the whole thing and what you've got is a replica.
Of couse if there's a safety issue involved they admit they'll replace the whole boiler. Better safe than sorry.
Hi Juniatha!
I like the ideas in your postulated rebuild of the 1361, if a total rebuild should be needed. I don't know if an 80 mile an hour K4 is possible, I don't think the originals were intended to run that fast, but if one comes out of the "Juniatha Shops", well then, who knows?
Wayne
Actually the K4s did a lot of 80mph+ running. Manhattan Transfer-Washington service demanded such speeds, anything west of Pittsburgh to Chicago or St. Louis rolled at high speeds and of course the PRSL (yea, I had to go there) ran 'em that quick to the shore points.
I was under the impression that one big roadblock in the restoration was that the thickness of the firebox sheets, as originally built, will no longer pass muster under the new rules. Was the outer shell also in question?
Hi folks
I was in fact writing about *locomotive boilers* ; fully welded boilers have been used in the 1950s standard types and reboilered engines on both German railway systems , DR [East] and DB [West] and other European countries . The constructions were very successful and are still to be seen in steam with preserved engines such as 23 class , 52 and 50 classes of variations East and West , 65 , and some 01 and 03 / 01-10 and 03-10 classes two / three cylinder Pacifics .
Why conical / tapered / Wagon Top ? The idea was to provide a higher steam space above the zones of most intensive steaming - on the other hand this meant tubes had to point slightly downwards towards the front if you wanted to fully exploit the tubes sheet and obtain an optimum tubes arrangement in view of water space between them and distribution of water circulation . Yet , water circulation was better with concentric conical shapes or such having the tapering down in the 'belly' instead of on the back ( i.e. top ) . Continental European practice generally was to keep boiler top line horizontal and have tapering on the lower side for maximum tubes cross section with combustion chamber boilers , this provided a good relative setting of back and front tubes plates for arranging tubes horizontally or with a slight upwards trend towards the front and with good use of available tubes plate area , i.e. good value of free gas cross section at the same time . Of course you *could** arrange tubes in ways differing from the noted - yet this would inevitably mean to accept disadvantages in tubes free gas cross section , tues arrangement , water spaces between tubes or other .
Former DR backshop Meiningen : for lacking reason I have so far had no personal contact with them and so couldn't suggest a figure for what a new boiler might cost ( other than : it will likely be a substantial six digit bill ) . As far as can be seen on photos of boilers under construction , they have used some simplifications that could not be considered exactly first class construction methods , such as a foundation ring flame cut from flat sheet and welded to outer and inner firebox sheets simply by v-groove on the outside , staybolts of simple cylindrical shape welded into sheets , simplified welded dome ring formed by allowing vertical cylindrical section of dome to extend downwards somewhat into the steam space of the boiler - a construction clearly less than optimum in view of steam flow and not exactly helpful against priming . These appear to be simplifications evolving from some restrictions in available tools and materials during the late years of existence of former DDR ( East Germany ) coinciding with the final years of steam on DR . Afak , on a main overhaul they usually take out *all* staybolts indiscriminatingly to replace them by new welded ones or on request possibly by threaded ones . If Meiningen shop management might consider a request for a new K4s type boiler , demanding re-configuring for welded construction of the - rather unusual for Mei - original K4s boiler design and then detail re-design and put up drawings respecting given shape and dimensions but adapting to new material and construction methods , all that according to US legal demands - again unusual for Mei - must be left to conjecture . They did have the means for such a job and did classified overhauls on the last of DR regular steam right into 1990 ; most all the steam locomotives preserved in Germany in running condition have had overhauls in the Meiningen shop , however I have no information about the present situation and capacity of the shop since a number of downsizings have been carried out after the rush for overhauling of preserved steam which upheld through about the next ten years following re-unification finally faded out after the turn of the millennium . There is another steam loco shop in Czechia and another one in Poland , yet I have no information about their present capacities and quality of work - some preservation groups having had their engines restored to running condition there were content with work done - others have complained , so the situation seems to have been varying and I don't know what it is today .
Regards
Juniatha
In the US, the Monticello Railway Museum had a brand new wagon-top boiler constructed for its' Southern Railway 2-8-0 #401. I'm not sure who built it for them, but I think it is of all welded construction. On a smaller scale, W.W.&F. Railway in Maine had a new boiler built for its' 0-4-4t #9 by Boothbay Railway shops and of course we have the recently completed York.
As for pointing the tubes in a wagon top boiler downwards towards the front tube sheet, I don't think that was common practice. When I hauled out the trusty old 1941 Locomotive Cyclopedia, none of the drawings indicated a slope to the tubes.
But, anyway, thank you Juniatha, for the information on the Meiningen works. From the stuff I've seen online, it looks like we have nothing stateside which could hold a candle to that facility.
The Prairie Dog Central Railway, just outside Winnipeg in Canada, recently had a new welded boiler built for its 4-4-0 by a company in Saskatoon. It was not easy, since the basic dimensions had to match, nor cheap. Sorry, I don't have the full details readily available, but I think their website will provide more information.
John
Guys and Gals.
While the Boiler, firebox, and combustion chamber are major parts there are many many more items that need attention. Cylinders and valves, valve gear, axles, tires, air pumps, springs, and many more. 1361 was not new or even rebuilt when it was placed on the curve. This locomotive has millions of miles on her frame. It was worn out when placed on the curve and it was worn out when it pulled its last car.
All this talk about the locomotive don't forget the tender itself needs major work too.
Put it back together, slap some DGLE on it and display it for everyone to admire. At least the stand in 460 is looking good.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Aside from a coat of paint I believe the tender is done. The frame,drivers and other parts are at Altoona, The old smoke box , back head sheet and some other parts are outside with 1361 chalked on them. The side sheets were replaced at Steamtown, As I understand it , further testing found the crown sheet was too thin to meet the new regs. I think the whole Steamtown adventure was a mistake. The project should have stayed in non-government hands. Somebody that actually cared about the locomotive and not how they looked to the public or their next election. How many steam locomotives are in operation at Steamtown? There used to be three.
Tim
rfpjohn Wed, Aug 14 2013 5:11 PM
>> As for pointing the tubes in a wagon top boiler downwards towards the front tube sheet, I don't think that was common practice. When I hauled out the trusty old 1941 Locomotive Cyclopedia, none of the drawings indicated a slope to the tubes. <<
No wonder : by 1941 the Wagon Top boiler was fully outmoded for just that characteristic I had referred too , namely the smokebox tube sheet sits *inevitably* lower than the firebox tube sheet . Now , combine this type of boiler with a firebox having a combustion chamber , then *inevitably* you have a ring around the tubes field of firebox tubes plate according to free length of combustion chamber staybolts . Can you place tubes to that ring shape cross section that is *not* covered by the firebox tubes plate ? Of course not . Then what does that mean ? It means you must leave that space free of tubes along the adjacent boiler . Now if the front end of your conical boiler shell in that section , placed with its lower side horizontal and the upper side sloping down towards the front - how high is your front tube sheet pitched in relation to the back end cross section of this conical boiler shell ? Higher - as high - lower ? It sits *lower* What does that mean for arranging tubes ? You *may* position them horizontally if you allow for loosing that ring shape cross section originating from the staybolted space around the combustion chamber all the way through the boiler barrel . If your front end boiler cross section is significantly smaller in radius than the back end , then you will get a pretty cramped tubes arrangement in the upper area where the smaller radius is being felt in combination with the lower pitched center of the front end cross section .
That is why very few Wagon Top shaped boilers were used in combination with a combustion chamber ; without a combustion chamber you don't have that problem , I sincerely hope it is self-explaining why . That again is why this shape of boiler was on the way out as soon as the combustion chamber was on the way in .
The much better proposition then was to keep all boiler length on the same horizontal center line and have the conical section(s) symmetrically arranged around it , in other words the boiler would taper in the same amount all around from top to lower side ( and of course both sides left and right , too )
In the Loco Cyclopaedia 41 the vast majority of boilers thus is of that latter shape , not Wagon Top . Of the older down-pointed types there are no tubes arrangements shown , so how do you know - do you know all of these boilers' tubes arrangements ? I have seen only one true Wagon Top boiler with combustion chamber and that was the one of the PRR M1 - and that one didn't use the lower space around the front end tube plate because that plate had been equipped with the counter-part of an expansion welt between firebox and combustion chamber . However , I must note one thing here : I'm not intending to write lengthy explanations , justifications and proves over several postings on each posting where I dared to remark anything that - with enough determination *may* be misunderstood by someone wanting to do so .
= J =
The k4's ran faster than 80 most of their service days.
On heavy trains, two locomotives would be used but speed was their thing. As one who has watched the K4's and T1's in action, I can say they were speed demons.
CZ
Seems like those who are anxious about the historical value of the engine would - deep in their hearts - prefer to have it sit safely ( wherever that might be ) in a closed and dry inside of a room , hall or museum .
To run one , we should then rather build a replica .. and if we build a replica we might as well include some technical improvements .. and if we do that we might as well include some more improvements including ... well , I don't post examples here .
So , in the end I come back on my position suggesting to build *new* classic steam if building an engine fully new , rather than building a replica like the Brits have done with the Peppercorn Pacific : That one is new - yet *isn'*t new , no new look , no new engine , no new performance - just the same all over again . It's old history re-visited . DaCapo .
You know, you're absolutely corrrect in that if you're going to build a steam locomotive replica you might as well put all the technical improvements into it you possibly can, it'll be better in the long run if you do.
In that vein, there's a website I'm sure you'll find interesting, and I'm sure everyone else will find interesting as well. It's www.kcdawnpatrol.org, the site of a flying club that owns World War One replica aircraft. They've taken the approach of building the aircraft with all the modern improvements possible both for performance and longevity. There's a video on the site labeled "Do Not Click On This Link", however they're just kidding, they DO want you to click on it. I've watched it several times, it's amazing!
I clicked on the "Don't cha dare to !" and - uh - ok , well , looks very practical .. veery practical indeed .
Uhm - can I have a DeHavilland Comet 4 , a 4-4 that is ?
Oops , sorry , about steam .. uhm - yep ..
well , I'd like a ..
and a ..
and ...
dumdilidum ..
Repligards
Hi Juniatha! A DeHavilland Comet? Hmm, let's see now, would that be the Comet from the '50s that, uh, had its share of problems? Or the Comet from the '30s that was a spectacular twin-engine race plane?
Me, I want a Fokker Dr1 Triplane! On the other hand, the Nieuport 28 that retired Air Force colonel was flying looked pretty good too! And how'd you like it when that American fighter pilot from 1918 turned and looked straight into the camera? Pretty amazing when you make eye contact with a man who lived a century ago. Thank God for movie film!
Sorry to drift everyone, but if you're wondering what we're talking about check my previous post and that link I suggested.
OK, back to steam now.
I hate to be a pill about the wagon top boiler thing, but I went back to the 1941 Locomotive Cyclopedia. Lo and behold, on page 268, figure 3.22 shows an extended wagon top boiler of a PRR E6s atlantic. The position of the top flue and the bottom tube are shown. Strangely enough, the top flue is shown to actually ascend 1/4" from the front sheet of the firebox to the front flue sheet. The position of the lowest tube is shown to descend 1/4" form the firebox to the front flue sheet. Why this spread arrangement? Maybe to aid in boiler water circulation? The Pennsy was pretty cutting edge in 1910 when the E6s was designed, but I would be amazed to find that they were able to map boiler water circulation well enough to determine that such a minute diversion from parallel would make a difference.
As to the arrangement of the M1 flues, the cross section drawings showing some tube placement is a bit over my head, so I couldn't make any sense of them. The side view is of no help, either.
You mention that the wagon top boiler was long outmoded by 1941. This is true. However, we are talking about the 1361 and she carried that outmoded extended wagon top boiler with a Belpaire firebox her entire career.
So, anyway, I got that out of my system. Thank you for making me think a little. It's not something I normally do!
rfpjohn Wed, Aug 21 2013 3:11 AM:
>> I hate to be a pill about the wagon top boiler thing, <<
We will agree on that .
I invite you to re-read my posting , paragraph on tapered boiler and tubes arrangement .
The E6 boiler of 1910 was *also* fully out-moded in 1941 and since it was a very short boiler its shape was not applicable to a large 1940s type of steam locomotive .
The M1 boiler had a special arrangement in its firebox to combustion chamber connection and a complementing arrangement in the front tubes plate . If you insist on the book , take a look at the drawing and you'll find what I wrote about .
Btw - if you look real closely at some drawings you'll find bends and dents in some lines - these are drawing errors , these drawings were made in the 'ruler and pencil hand drawing era' - the real thing was supposed to be straight of course - no need to 'manufacture' a dent in a boiler shell or a bent in a frame bar there in case of making a replica , *ggg* .
And to repeat once more :
I was *not* ( not !) proposing *any other form* of boiler for building a replica boiler for # 1361 than the original - on the contrary , all that we are discussing here is : I pointed out *any* shape *can* be manufactured by welding ( and so that includes the original shape , too ) The original boiler shape can be met by welding process , if the sheets actually are butt-joined or overlapping will *not* ( not !) show when the boiler cladding is on . There will be *no* difference in outer looks , not by an inch , if a new boiler should be built to original shape and dimensions .
And to be extra-sure : yes , it can be made Wagon Top , too .
Yes, I am aware that the E6s was a fully outmoded design in 1941. The Cyclopedia offers illustrations of several locomotives from previous decades. I guess the E6s was considered a successful design, 100% still in service in 1941. I'm not sure of their motivation. I was merely attempting to point out the tube arrangement as portrayed by the drawing mentioned in my previous post. The dimensions I sited were derived from the figures on the drawing, showing distance, in inches from the boiler centerline. They also show a different center line for the smokebox! I learn something every day.
As for constructing a new welded boiler for the 1361, I'm all for it. I'm certain that if steam had continued on the PRR, reboilering with newer construction methods would have been a natural evolution. If doing such would extend the operating life and possibly enhance the performance of a living K4s, by all means, let it be done!
Hi RFPJOHN
Ok , let's just leave it at that , I see you pointed out not all designs were fully to considerations we can trace back today . Some ideas such as raising the front end of tubes slightly might help firing up a locomotive arguably were less than fully rational .
Reboilering by the railroad running the engines commercially did happen to some extend for example on German railways . Same way as there , the Pennsy might not have kept original shapes of boilers but may have opted for centralized conical type or in other words may have put boilers on their locos that were to the more modern types describes in the LC41 . That would have put K4s fans into some conflict about an original or a reboilered type ... as is actually the case with German fans of certain classes that existed in both original and reboilered form .
# *50*
.. and since we are at it :
if new yet historic -
why not 're-build' a K5 ?
.. and since the two K5 locomotives , with two different valve gear and continuing variations during their active life , may be considered having been would-be prototypes with a certain experimental touch about them - the Pennsy tried to challenge Hudsons by 'superizing' their iconic Pacific type - a certain 'superizing' again of the K5 'Super Pacific Type' by some improvements to combustion efficiency , steam production and steam circuit could better fit a new-built K5s than a new one of a fleet of K4s ( with the new K5 's' meaning superized i.e. improved rather than superheating )
Juniatha:
I couldn't agree more with ending the great tube tussle.
As for rebuilding a K5s, that's an interesting proposition. The two examples on the Pennsy were kind of oddball orphans. They were noted for having too low a factor of adhesion, slippery as goose exhaust. What strikes me as strange, is where they spent a good deal of their career, lugging heavy trains over the steep and twisting Northern Central line, between Baltimore and Harrisburg!
The Pennsy did tinker with the K4s. Poppet valves (three different configurations) roller bearings, etc. One variation, applied to five engines, I think, was classed K4sa. I seem to recall reading these engines sported a boiler pressure increase to 220lbs. Can't find where I got that from, but I know they had front end throttles and 15" piston valves. Maybe some Pennsy-phile can enlighten us.
Anyway, I do appreciate your expertise in the steam locomotive field. Carry on, please!
rfpjon
rfpjohnOne variation, applied to five engines, I think, was classed K4sa. I seem to recall reading these engines sported a boiler pressure increase to 220lbs. Can't find where I got that from, but I know they had front end throttles and 15" piston valves
You are correct, five were converted to the K4sa classification, numbers 612, 1985, 5405, 5481 and 5484. In addition to the front end throttles and the 15" piston valve, disk drivers and circulators were also added to them. The circulator increased the heating area by 42 sq. ft. The K4s had a boiler pressure of 205, the K4sa did see a slight increase in pressure so your 220lb is in the ballpark. (Can't locate my copies of test plant results to verify that.)
K4sPRR:
I'm guessing these modifications were done post-war. Would there not have been a corresponding increase in tractive effort with the increase in boiler pressure?
Also, I've always assumed the K4s was built with type "A" superheating. Somewhere along the way, I seem to recall seeing a photo of a K4s equipped with type "E" superheaters. Just wondering if this was a modification in conjunction with upgrading to K4sa.
Thanks for your info.
A Word on Slipping and Boiler Pressure
It wasn’t really increased boiler pressure that provoked “ slipping “ but increased cylinder tractive effort while wheel diameter and adhesion mass remained the same or was but slightly increased .
Cylinder tractive effort could be increased by *any* of the determining factors mean cylinder steam pressure , diameter and stroke – this way t.e. *could* be increased even by no more but amending a throttling point in steam flow upstream from steam chest to steam dome . Since to increase piston stroke would directly affect wheels design , in practice this was limited to cases when building another batch of engines to a second version of a given design . Scope for increasing pressure in existing boiler was rather small , so it was modification of cylinder diameter that was more commonly being used to adapt cylinder t.e. to demands – i.e. boring out or lining cylinders , and that but within strict limits defined by structural strengths of cylinder block and drive .
In a completely revamped design of a given class , such as the PRR K5 was to the K4 class , all three factors *could* and in this very case *had* been increased .
The resulting engine really was not likely ‘more slippery’ than the original if comparison was being properly based , namely : per same amount of t.e. exerted – or , more precisely , for same factor of adhesion applied !
What made the K5 appear more “slippery” in actual traffic was their reaching actual limit of rail adhesion much easier than the K4 , at but a certain percentage of b.p. in steam chest rather than allowing maximum pressure to steam chest . Since in the K5 the factors of steam pressure , cylinder diameter and stroke *all* got quite substantially increased , the engine’s cylinder t.e. would have been much higher at full 1/1 throttle than in a K4 .
It must be understood , with both engine classes having much been designed to the same technology concerning frames structure , wheels , axles , rods and cylinders there was no reason to expect the K5 to put a substantially larger t.e. down on tracks with but little more adhesion mass on driven wheels . Sure enough however , she was able to put down t.e. according to *the same* factor of adhesion t.e. per unit of adhesion mass as the K4 – and thus , correctly handled , was *not* by any means more prone to slip wheels at just that .
Only – and that bespeaks severe lack of communication between design and running departments – if handled like a K4 – incorrectly that is , starting with throttle wide open or 1/1 – the K5 got overstressed and had to slip on any but the most dry and clean rails .
Still , it had been correct to increase cylinder volume and with it t.e. in the K5 since the larger boiler capacity was expected to realize a larger cylinder power output . In an engine with ample cylinder volume in relation to b.p. and adhesion mass , when linking up , the concordant drop of mean cylinder pressure could at least partly be compensated by widening on the throttle and increasing steam chest pressure . Thus , ironically , with *ample* cylinder volume engine performance was improved only *above* starting / low speed , in speed ranges where full boiler output was being reached by running at clearly shorter than ‘drop down’ cut-off , say , like 50 % during acceleration around medium speed range , shortening to 40 % and less as speed rose , all that while applying full boiler output continuously with rpm increasing . In the K5 this was somewhat optimistically backed up by a hefty 25 % plus in b.p. . Yet , properly handled the engine should have been able substantially to outperform a K4 in acceleration . Then again , what must have put a premature upper speed down trend to this promising since rising development of cylinder power graph over speeds was dramatically inadequate steam distribution and steam port cross sections , lack of inner streamlining of cylinders , not to mention influence of superheating , cylinder insulation and effective low back pressure exhaust . So in upper to top speed range all the larger cylinder volume will have been of little benefit to the K5 , effectively confining the heavy Pacific to work ranges of a formidable ‘Pullman train puller’ while becoming increasingly phlegmatic when pressed to reach speeds above some 65 .. 75 mph .
A new built K5s due to much superior grades of steel could have some 300 psi b.p. with the historic size of boiler and would preferably have concordantly reduced volume in cylinders of much improved tribology , long lap Walschaerts with large piston valves .. and many more improved features .
rfpjohnAlso, I've always assumed the K4s was built with type "A" superheating. Somewhere along the way, I seem to recall seeing a photo of a K4s equipped with type "E" superheaters. Just wondering if this was a modification in conjunction with upgrading to K4sa.
According to "THE MANY FACES OF THE PENNSY K-4", page 92 # 5400 - 5499 built by Baldwin and Juniata in 1927 - 1928 had type E superheaters. "The superheating surface was reduced from 1153.9 to 962 square feet ..."
rfpjohn I'm guessing these modifications were done post-war. Would there not have been a corresponding increase in tractive effort with the increase in boiler pressure?
There was a minimal increase in TE when Baldwin got in the picture in 1927, the "5400 series" had all things equal except for a slight increase in heating surface size, the installation of E type superheaters and a weight increase of about 4500 pounds. A PRR comparison of variations done to the K4, including the K4sa, the poppet valve and gear types indicated no measurable difference, although the adheason factor was slightly affected. A "standard K4" was 5.02, the K4sa was 4.72.
J.
Comparing the K5s with the K4s is like comparing apples and oranges. The poppet valve K5s #5699 had slightly more TE but less FoA than the Walschaert valve #5698. The K4 already had the maximum weight on drivers allowed where both K5s had the same or slightly more weight on drivers. The Kiesel designed boiler of the K5s was prone to water carryover and not as efficient as it should have been if the clearances were increased had a taller steam dome were installed. Both K5s were an experiment of sorts to eliminate double heading on lines where a larger locomotive could not go. Why not build a 4-6-4? Two reasons. Weight on drivers and believe it or not drafting room time. Then ask why not use the M1? There were places the M1 was not used due to clearances and supporting facilities. Was the K5s a success? Yes and no. Frequent failures of the poppet valve on the Baldwin built #5699 and the #5698 Juniata built K5s was high maintenance and did not eliminate double heading heavy trains. Both were plagued by smoke problems, cinder build up in the smokebox and superheater tubes and water carryover. They both lived long lives though. I feel that if they were moved to the Lines west and increased the height of the steam dome and added some weight on drivers they would have been a much different locomotive.
Charlie Meyer did a fantastic article for the Winter 1995 Keystone. Designed and built by true railroad men as a hand fired beast. The PRR was a no frilled railroad.
locoi1sa wrote the following post at Sat, Aug 24 2013 6:33 PM:
>> J. Comparing the K5s with the K4s is like comparing apples and oranges. <<
Who's meant by >> J. << ? Jenny , John , Jeremy , Junipher , Janis , Jack , Jill , Jordan , Judith ..?
Since my name also starts with same letter :
in case this should be addressed to me
Sorry , but you completely missed the point , actually missed all of what I was conveying .
However , I think it probably wasn't meant as an answer to my post , so just ignore this text .
" don't think twice - it's alright " ( Bob Dylan )
Hi Wayne
>> A DeHavilland Comet? Hmm, let's see now, would that be the Comet from the '50s that, uh, had its share of problems? <<
Correct . However it's not that I'm seeking a spectacular way for commiting suicide , they later sorted out the hulk fatigue problem ( yet by then no airline dared to order , I think they only built another series for the RAF )
As stated on your linked site : by today's materials and suiting detail re-design , with the large wing surface she offered she could be made into one great aircraft .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.