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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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
Juniatha.
You are seriously professorial when it come to steam generation. What would be the costs in building a modern welded boiler for such an enterprise? Has a modern welded boiler been tried on a mobile chassis? I'm sure most problems could be solved with the drastic swings in pressure but how about hot and cold cycles? How many heating cycles can you expect from a modern boiler? Millions have already been lost. While I would love to see such an iconic piece of American history hit the rails once more, I am afraid I will not see it in my lifetime.
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!
The conical shape (addenda *1) of the boiler drum can for sure be manufactured by welding *exactly* as it was with the historic boiler . What I meant was : with welding , boiler sheets are being joined end to end with identical radii for double v-groove or butt welding – no more steps by overlapping of sheets for riveting and caulking . That , by the way , means a saving in empty boiler mass ( metal , without water and without turrets and applications ) of some 5 – 7 % ; if you take into account lower material mass by using superior grades of steel savings can run up to some 10 % . Avoiding doubling of sheets is especially advantageous for firebox construction and up-keep in service in view of avoiding overheating at material doubling and for keeping tight under alternating heat cycles . I think the original firebox should be replaced by a fully welded steel box with subtly modified dimensions to allow for longer staybolts and wider water legs to improve thermo-mechanical behavior and improve water circulation . All in all the changes in radii due to end-to-end joining of boiler shells will be according to thickness of sheets , i.e. less than an inch anyways . Nothing of that will remain visible when boiler jacketing is being applied still *absolutely true* to original dimensions .
Major changes could be made to staybolt design which could – without harm to historic aspects – be replaced by late hour steam construction , special types had been used for welded boilers . Mind that with fully welded design , boilers kept tight and without staybolt trouble for years on end , even with oil-firing which by rapid changes of heat intensity provoked by its easy and rapid control of combustion rate had submitted classic Stephensonian boilers to heat loads hitherto unknown in regular traffic , both in absolute *intensity* as well as in rapid and radical *changes* of heat loads . Since the Stephensonian , staybolted firebox more or less rigidly bonds hot with warm metal sheets , inevitably an ideal solution is impossible , except if materials without any heat expansion properties could be used . However in practice , the results obtained with fully welded firebox and staybolts of suitable design gave about all that could be asked for .
Another change not hurting external appearance would be set up and partition of tubes and size of tubes choosing from best dimensions freely available from industry today . By suitably modifying the tubes bundle set up , response to draughting can be improved which in turn improves steaming and reliability of steaming , as well as superheating temperature .
Finally , using the above mentioned advantage in mass saving , some increase in boiler pressure can be had , say from 200 psi to 220 - 240 psi – depending on further regards . This will provide a larger boiler reserve and provides some advantage in view of priming / water carry over since the same amount of steam as originally is then contained in a smaller volume – thus entraining of water drops by boiling at boiler water surface is somewhat less intense . ( In case there should be doubt about the mechanics of the engine unit , all that needs to be done is not to use full throttle but just up to 200 psi in steam chest to keep original conditions of running , however to my feeling such reservations would be unsubstantiated )
If you want to conserve the choking narrow blast nozzle with its crashing metallic sound depends on preferences – technically speaking , for reasons abounding the front end design desperately begs for improving .
With a few subtle changes such as touched here plus a few to piston valves and cylinder inner ports the K4s could turn out 4000 ihp at 80 mph without undue firing rate nor larger than original forces in its engine unit .
addenda *1
Explanation : 'conical' means the boiler is *not cylindrical* but convergent towards the front ; with this principal shape you may either have the center line of the conical shell(s) horizontal , or the upper or lower side ; the Wagon Top boiler as one user remarked the K4s boiler was , imho did not have the conical shape extend over more but the rearmost of the shells right in front of firebox ( or combustion chamber you might want to point out ) . My wording was purposefully held rather general to cover *all* those non-cylindrical shapes , the point being that is no problem to make them ; self-understood , with this being so , a shape true to the *original K4s boiler* ( except for butt-welding instead of rivetting - see above remarks ) could of course *also* be made ; I was thus *not* supposing to willfully change that shape but closely to keep to it with a new boiler .
= J =
Finally! It took Juniatha to hit the nail on the head. When this engine was finally retired by the PRR it was, in common with most of their older steamers, thoroughly worn out. Trying to repair and restore it so that it would hold steam pressure safely and be mechanically reliable would be an endless and endlessly frustrating task that could never be accurately expensed out. We still have the plans and blueprints, don't we? Why not build a K4 new from scratch like Britain's Tornado and let the original rest in Altoona as a cosmetic restoration. We'd have to accept the trade off in authenticity versus having a reliable locomotive that would duplicate the experience we're all craving which is to relive the excitement of the original.
Firelock76 And I STILL fail to understand how something that was up and running and in apparantly beautiful shape in 1989 could deteriorate to near junk status in the time since. Makes no sense. 1989's not THAT long ago!
And I STILL fail to understand how something that was up and running and in apparantly beautiful shape in 1989 could deteriorate to near junk status in the time since. Makes no sense. 1989's not THAT long ago!
That's what I'm wondering about its brother, no. 3750. Didn't it get a cosmetic restoration job in the 80s?
Firelock76I think what Juniatha's talking about is sutble and un-authentic changes in appearance of the classic K4 boiler should a welded replica be substituted for the original.
What she is actually talking about is that there need to be some changes in materials thickness and transition curvature to adapt the riveted and welted boiler design to welded construction. At the same time you could correct some of the 'issues' in the firebox construction.
I believe there are reasons other than poor stewardship regarding why the 1361's boiler needs to be replaced rather than repaired. So a proper new 'welded replica' is more than usually appropriate.
Juniatha -- are there any descriptions of the precise welding method, build-up, and jigging for making the frames? Were any of Bulleid's techniques seen as worth adapting?
I think what Juniatha's talking about is sutble and un-authentic changes in appearance of the classic K4 boiler should a welded replica be substituted for the original. As she said, those changes would be hidden when the boiler jacketing's put back on. There's no reason I can think of to not put a new welded boiler on 1361 if it comes to that.
The tapered barrel boiler on the USRA designs, that's another story I'd be interested in hearing as well.
Juniatha, do you mean the tapered barrel boiler we see so commonly on USRA and similar designs in N. America? If so, would you please explain the problems with that configuration? I like it, but only for its aesthetics. I have never read of a reason for choosing it over a simple cylinder, for example, but I would like to know what you think/know of the matter.
Crandell
Seems like it would be sensible to think about an all-new fully welded boiler to the general dimensions of the historic one ( general not totally because with welding you better do away with overlapping of sheets and that will cause a few small changes in diameters / cross sections - however it's all within concealing by the boiler cladding so the external shape will not be changed an inch .
However that could provide an opportunity to smoothen out a few wanting points in the - age old - design ( admirable enough at it's time , yet not flawless )
According to a special issue of "Trains" several years ago, "Steam Alive" I believe, the UP steam program has had some work done for them by the Strasburg shop. What was done the article didn't specify.
nyc#25 If it had been sent to the Strasburg Rail Road shops, Lynn Modinger and his team would have had it running several years ago!
If it had been sent to the Strasburg Rail Road shops, Lynn Modinger and his team would
have had it running several years ago!
I have to believe that's true. The Strasburg boys aren't supermen but there's very little they can't do.
Hmm, sounds like they missed a few things at the restoration. Paraphrasing something Linn Moedinger said about steam restoration, take the time, spend the money, you're going to find more problems than you think you will, get it right the first time. You'll be better off in the long run. Pity.
Back in the 90's "Locomotive and Railway Preservation" magazine, old "Eleanor P" had an article about the Strasburgs restoration of # 475, the ex-Norfolk and Western 4-8-0. Quite a saga with everything thay had to do to bring that old girl back to life. Mr. Moedinger knows what he's talking about.
Firelock.
From what I have been told is when it was running it had too many leaky stay bolts, the crown sheet was distorted, the lower legs were mud caked, and it had leaking tubes. The supporting gear such as injector pump and other equipment were not functioning to keep it going for any extended amount of time. This was not entirely due to lack of maintenance but the fact that this type of boiler is designed to be kept hot. Too many hot and cold cycles will increase the amount of maintenance required. I suppose if left under steam the amount of work required to get it running would have been better for it in the long run. This is true of all low pressure steam generators.
And I STILL fail to understand how something that was up and running and in apparantly beautiful shape in 1989 could deteriorate to near junk status in the time since. Makes no sense. 1989's not THAT long ago! The locomotive aged a lot more gracefully left alone on Horse Shoe Curve. OK, the paint peeled but you know what I mean.
You're right, my apologies for my sloppy reading of your post.
Sorry guys.
I did not say put it back on the curve. Just get it looking as good as when it was there in the beginning. It definitely needs a shelter to be displayed in. I wish someone would take the last remaining I1sa and cosmetically restore it and shelter it. Rusting away in Hamburg is not doing it justice.
Your right, the curve is not a good idea and I do not believe the RRMM had such intentions due to the cost and NS cooperating with the time consuming task to put her back. I am a lifetime member of the museum, my membership is regarded as a "founding father" status, been a member a long time. When I went to the museum to ask what was up with the K4, all I got was a "deer in the headlights" look back at me. No one could give me an answer and I expressed my concern about the money that I and many others donated to get her running as this is a slap in the face to all of us. Again, no difinitive answer.
I also belong to the PRRT&HS, editor Chuck Blardone ran several editorials trying to get answers about the K4 and its current dilemma, his efforts were like pulling teeth. I admire his tenacity in pressing the issue as so many wanted answers. People in the PRR circle of things are greatly disappointed, the basis for the problem was a lack of oversight and management from the museum. You don't send a child out to the Nanny and not check on them.
Ever check out the others museum pieces at the RRMM? The GG1 is a mess, Mountain View is starting to rust...this does not look well in the eyes of the public as to the museum's operation. Squandering the millions of dollars dedicated to the K4, a politician or a corporate CEO doing that would be investigated. Lets hope a more organized civic group in Altoona takes Alto Tower under their wing, the museum...well, thats another story.
Excuses, there are none. If you can build a steam locomotive from scratch like some have recently done...you can restore a locomotive as well. The money and opportunity were there, so that only leaves one aspect that failed. I would love to see it run, but right now I am willing to settle for a cosmetic rebuild, stored in the new roundhouse so people can at least see it.
Displaying it at the curve isn't a good idea.
Would likely seal the deal that she will never be fully restored and she would be exposed to the elements out there and likely increase vandalism chances which is hardly what you want to do with a steam locomotive in the 21st century that was operable a few years ago, has had rebuild work done, and still has hopes of running again. And full shelter for her would detract from sight lines and rather defeat much of the point of her being displayed there in the first place.
Safely inside the small roundhouse they're building for her is far better and she's just as much at home there in Altoona. Plus, there's a fine display of a PRR Geep now at the curve that would be displaced and possibly at risk if the K4s returned.
Wayne.
We seem to agree. If it can not be made to run at a reasonable cost then at least reassemble it and display it as it was when placed on the curve. Having it in pieces in several different locations is a recipe for disaster. This is what angers me the most. Lost and misplaced parts would do no one any good.
Don't get me wrong Pete, we're both on the same side here. I want to see that old classic run as much as you do.
I guess the thing is no-one seems to know just what the hell is going on here. Can it be brought back? What has to be done to bring it back? IF it's brought back is there a place to run it? No-one seems to be talking. I wish a steam genius like Lynn Moedinger of the Strasburg could be brought in to look it over and make an evaluation.
I think this lack of direction and communication is what's really driving everyone mad.
From what I have read from the society is that when changes were made to comply with boiler inspections, rules were changed and at times it seamed that the inspectors were not giving the right information. Money was wasted in complying with some inspections only to be failed in others. There is absolutely no modern book of standards for mobile boilers. Some say this type of boiler would be grandfathered to earlier safety standards but some other say no.
At the least it should be reassembled for display until mobile boiler standards can be agreed on. You can't be making up the rules after the starting bell has set the game in motion. This is what has happened. The last time the boiler was renewed was back in the mid fifties. The boiler and safety appliances complied then as it should be now. It may be 2013 but the boiler is still mid 1950s. The Gettysburg accident was due to lack of maintenance on the safety appliances and boiler. The choked up low water alarm and the fact that the water glass cocks were closed led to the overheating of the crown sheet. Running a steam locomotive on a shoestring budget will defer maintenance that can be critical.
Pete, I can understand your anger and frustration over what's happened to 1361, believe me I feel it too. The incompetance and mismanagement are just inexcusable.
However, the new safety regs concerning steam operations now are there for a reason, and were arrived at by some very experienced steam hands consulted by the government. Surprise, surprise. This was to prevent a repeat of the accident on the Gettysburg Railroad back in the '90s.
Remember, the next steam locomotive that blows up will be the last one that ever turns a wheel in public. Trust me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.