So i heard recently that the mid continents railway mesuem pirde and joy ...... CN&W 4-6-0 1385 Needs a new boiler. My main question is WHY????
if i am correct. and i will alway,s admitt when i am wrong. the CN&W did a class 1 rebuild of 1385 before putting her on display. now i may be wrong on that..... but i am bafalled that this engine needs a new boiler. that boiler should be still in guidelines to be used again. that type of boiler is still quite modern. at least i think. now.... is it possible that during her service at the museum. i do know she was used allot. even used as part of the circus train. but is it possible that she was used so much into the ground. that her boiler is just too far gone. or is it possibe that during the new FRa rules that her boiler is now outlawed. like the lapseam boiler. but it still bothers me that she needs a new one.
what do you guys think?
There can be a lot of reasons why 1385 needs a new boiler. I'd assume the decision wasn't made lightly, new boilers are expensive things.
For a VERY good dissertation on the "new boiler-old boiler" question let me recommend an article titled "Rebuild or Reboiler" from "Trains" special issue "Steam Today", published in 2008. "Trains" may still have it available as a back-issue. Nearly all the leading lights on steam operation sound off on the subject.
A great issue at any rate. It never made it to the recycle bin here at the Fortress Firelock.
Funny you mention. I own it . and the new one published. There great Hugh.
Oh you've got it? Wonderful! I'm surprised I haven't worn mine out by now.
At any rate "Rebuild or Reboiler" is a pretty good illustration that there's frequently no easy answers in steam restoration. The thing to keep in mind is safety, safety for the head-end crew and especially for the passengers.
Mark my words, the next steam locomotive that has a boiler explosion will be the LAST one that turns a wheel in public display or excursion service. Don't think the Feds won't shut steam operations down if that ever happens.
And we don't want that.
Wayne
I think the term "needs a new boiler" is often used rather loosely. Generaly when I have heard it the term really means "needs boiler work to be useable." Very few steam locomotives today recieve a new boiler as in the days of steam. Why? because modern welding and repair procedures can restore most boilers to service and the cost of an entirely new boiler is astronomical. The only place I know where an entirely new boiler for a steam locomotive has been constructed was in China when they were build brand new steam or when the British reconstructed the Toranado class 4-6-2 Pacific.
Old locomotive boilers today are stripped and given an "ultrasound" measurement for thickness. This is done in a checkerboard pattern over the entire boiler surface. If thin or weak areas are found they are repaired by cutting out the thin sections and patches of steel are welded in place. This was done on NW 1218 and UP 844.
Boilers when built new in the steam era were of riveted construction by law made to be several time stronger than needed as a safety margin. At the time welding procedures were good enough to make an all welded boiler possible but legally this was not allowed. So boilers were welded after riveting to make them leak proof. Today a welded boiler is much stronger that a riveted one and I would be surprised if a new one would be made with rivets.
A few years ago Dennis Braid and I were looking MSTRP's new locomotive - Ohio Central 2-8-0 #76 - just acquired by Steam Locomotive Institute in Owosso, MI. The engine stack had been left uncovered for years and the rain water had entirely rusted out the bottom of the smoke box/boiler. Weld repair was planned.
When Union Pacific was considering running a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 they first had to consider the UP 4023 which had been saved for this purpose. Thirty years this engine was stored inside the Cheyene backshop in perfect condition. The unthinking railroad then hauled it out and put it on display out doors for several years. The damage done by moisture resulted in Union Pacific abandoning it as a usable engine and going to Southern California to re acquire UP 4014 because there was less corrosion damage and the engine was in better shape.
When I see a great excursion engine like CO 614 sitting outdoors with all the boiler jacket in place to trap moisture I wonder why is this being done to a fully restored engine?
When I see a railroad like Western Maryland retrieve C&O 1304 and begin restoration after years of outside storage with the boiler jacket in place over asbestos lagging I marvel at the locomotive restoration genius.
It seems that this would also be a good place to mention that when a steam locomotive is converted to use oil fire instead of coal such as in the case of Union Pacific UP 844 and UP 4014 the firebox and boiler recieve much damage from sand blasting to the inner working boiler surfaces.
Sand is used to clean the carbon produced by the oil fire and this constant sand cleaning gradually erodes away the steel. This damage requires the eventual replacement of sections of boiler and firebox from sand erosion. Coal firing does not produce this effect. Oil fire is easier to operate an excursion engine with and has less risk from sparks producing lineside fires, but its use can be more costly in the form of boiler damage in the long run.
I doubt if the term "needs a new boiler" is used the way it is spoken.
Doc
Dr D The only place I know where an entirely new boiler for a steam locomotive has been constructed was in China when they were build brand new steam or when the British reconstructed the Toranado class 4-6-2 Pacific.
The only place I know where an entirely new boiler for a steam locomotive has been constructed was in China when they were build brand new steam or when the British reconstructed the Toranado class 4-6-2 Pacific.
As a matter of fact, Southern #401 (At Monticello R.R. Museum, Illinois) received a new-build boiler several years back.
The boiler was made in St. Louis.
While it is expensive to make and ship, it is far from lost knowledge. We are fully capable of making locomotive boilers in the US. I think many don't realise this because "new-made boilers" are associated with the Tornado and other European engines.
Makes me proud to have a St. Louis-made boiler on 401's frame.
Boothbay Railway Village shop up in Maine has built new boilers for Wiscasset, Waterville and Farmington #9 and Maine Narrow Gauge former Bridgeton & Harrison #7. I think they may have also reboilered one of their own engines.
Sierra Railroad #3, the "Movie Star Locomotive" has also recieved a new boiler.
Again, I can't recommend "Steam Today" enough for the information provided.
City of Winnipeg Hydro #3 also recently received a new boiler and returned to service on the Prairie Dog Central. She is an ex-CPR 4-4-0 dating from the 1880s, and reboilered around 1910. Eventually a boiler reaches the point where extensive repairs are nearly as costly as a new boiler, and the result is still an old boiler with limited life before even more repairs are required.
I was surprised at the comment that oil firing results in faster erosion in the flues and firebox because of the sand that is occasionally tossed in. I had assumed that the continual stream of cinders from coal would have been just as abrasive, if not more so. That could also depend on the type of coal. I have no experience so could easily be mistaken.
John
I believe that oil firing can result in a greater degree of thermal shock to the boiler structure as coal firing tends to create a more even, constant heat. Oil firing can vary the firebox temperature a great deal when the firing valve is opened or shut off.
Speaking of new boilers in the US, the Leviathan and the York both have newly constructed boilers. I don't know who built them.
John, both Leviathan and York don't just have new boilers, both locomotives are new! Check www.leviathan63.com for the story.
They were built by David Kloke at his machine works from scratch, boilers and all.
The "William Mason", an 1850's era locomotive at the B&O museum in Baltimore was re-boilered some time in the 1920's, I believe to make it operational for "The Fair Of The Iron Horse." The "Inyo", an 1870's 4-4-0 at the Nevada State Railroad Museum still has it's original boiler, but to my knowledge when it's operated it's run in light steam.
Nothing new about reboilering.
Well,yea, they're new. Boilers and all. I new that!
When a railroad consideres rebuilding a steam locomotive, the main things are how much is it going to cost, and where and how can I get it done the cheapest with the best end results.
In this case, it may have been decided that purchasing a new boiler for 1385 was going to be the cheapest and wisest financial decision for Mid-Continent. Maybe repairing the old boiler would have been cheaper now, but down the road at the next 1,472 or the next 5 year overhaul it is just going to keep adding up in costs to keep the old boiler in specs. With a new boiler new technology and new steel is used to make sure that it will last and be as trouble free as possible as long as the original was if not longer.
The C&NW just about wore out 1385 before it was retired in the 1950s. When the Mid Continent Railway Museum originally acquired 1385 they put it in use on their Rattlesnake & Northern line but as I recall they got just a season or two out of it before putting it aside (in the early 1960s they had a number of working steam locomotives, including some 2-6-0s). They worked on the engine and a few years later 1385 became a mainstay engine at the museum. Most days the 1385 would be in steam.
When the C&NW asked to borrow the engine for mainline use in the early 1980s they did indeed pay for a fair amount of reconditioning. They worked it pretty hard and from time to time 1385 would fail and have to be worked on on an emergency basis. The C&NW did pay for some boiler work, but again they worked it hard. From time to time they de-rated the maximum boiler pressure the locomotive would be worked at in order to squeeze more life out of the old boiler. Fortunately as a rule it was couples to diesels that could do most of the hard work. I heard that some of the museum guys were muttering that while the 1385 was being a goodwill ambassador for the C&NW, and to a certain extent for the museum too, they were going to be getting a worn out engine when the C&NW was through with it and to an extent that was the case. The cycles of heating, cooling, being under pressure - all take their toll on the metal.
And having 1385 sit outside in pieces in the snow and weather for a few years probably did not help. That might account for why a new cab is being built and why the tender needed replacement as well. I think this is the 1385s third and maybe fourth tender.
Replacing boilers (and tenders for that matter) was very common in steam days. The Milwaukee Road's 4-8-4s were getting new boilers less than 10 years after they were built. I believe the C&NW Class H engines also got new boilers about a decade and a half or so after they were built, because they worked serious milage. Boiler replacement was unremarkable in the days of steam, particularly when the steam loco had been developed to give more miles between service. Now it is remarkable because new boilers are such custom pieces of work.
Dave Nelson
I spoke to someone involved with Mid-Continent and #1385. This is what they had to say about 1385 getting a new boiler.
These are not my views, nor do they represent Mid-Continent in any way. Please, no attacks.
The short answer is that we don't know if the old boiler is beyond repair. There was never an ultrasound study done. And, given the prevailing atmosphere, there will never be one done. The guys got out the torches back in 2000 and cut out what they thought was bad and, after looking at what they had done decided that a new boiler was needed. Those of us who read Part 230 understood that the boiler was probably economically repairable, certainly for less than the cost of a new, welded boiler. But we will never know. The FRA will not pre-approve a boiler DESIGN. They only pass judgement on the completed article. That means that a new boiler is a big $500K risk as only a small percentage of all the new boilers built since part 230 went into effect have been approved by the FRA.
They asked for their name/username not to be mentioned.
Why is Mid-Continent trying to do this new "one off" boiler design with CN&W 1385?
Remember, there was no govenment supervision of steam railroad boilers after President Ronald Reagan removed the Interstate Commerse Commission, ICC supervision of railroads in the 1980's. Prior to that the ICC regulation was set up to supervise day to day operation of steam railroad locomotives under union labor when working steam power was America's freight mover.
He was getting all this 1930's bureaucratic law designed to oversee the operating steam rail industry "off of everyone's back," which was especially helpful to the occasional operation of excursion steam locomotives.
FRA 230 is a new government response to the Gettysburg Railroad steam excursion engine boiler explosion that could have killed or injured many people. Thats right Gettysburg RR your carelessness and lack of skill running steam "put the hurt" on yourselves and everyone else! And you maimed your own son carelessly maintaining that Canadian Pacific steam locomotive like it was a big tea kettle.
Clogged water glass, in-operative lifting injector, marginal feed water heater - if it wasn't for Canadian Pacific's insightful "fail safe" fire box plug your engine would have blown to "kingdom come" and your son been more than scalded!
FRA 230 is obviously set up to make sure excursion steam engines are safe for the public. FRA 230 is not set up for new construction designs because of the widely held belief that a practical new built steam locomotive is never going to exist or be built.
Mid-Continent just needs to do a boiler ultrasound on CN&W 1385 and repair what steel is bad - this old boiler is probably more than capable of safely generating whatever power is going to be needed. CN&W 1385 is not going to run a hundred thousand miles and be used 16 hours every day for the next twenty years!
UP 844 for example needed 30 feet of steel firebox replaced, probably owing to the "sand erosion" from the sand used to clean the oil fire conversion boiler - you didn't see Union Pacific going in for an "all new" boiler construction and they are going to really be putting some long miles on UP 844 - they have an entire rail system they can operate over.
I cannot imagine Mid-Continent wanting to go through all that un-necessary new construction expense for CN&W 1385. This sounds like someone such as a commerical boiler maker with a lot of technical background, and no experience in excursion steam locomotives was trying to get things done according to their own understanding.
"Why are we working with this old fashioned boiler when a new all welded boiler would 'set everything right?'" This would probably be the correct repair if the railroad was going to put CN&W 1385 to work every day as modern power.
One thing is for sure - that Mid-Continent won't know anything about CN&W 1385's boiler and what can be done with it until they do a ultra sound and find out the condition.
This discussion about FRA 230 and CN&W 1385 does make an interesting point for a reproduction steam locomotive - such as British Toranado Pacific 4-6-2 with its all new boiler.
The desire exists to build a new Pennsy T-1 and boiler or a new replacement boiler for NYC 5315 Hudson J1e. I am guessing they would have to make this new replacement boiler exactly the same as the 1930 originals by riveting it up exactly as the original boiler was made - so that this duplicte design would not need an FRA 230 design approval. Then the boiler test would just evaluate an existing boiler design for operational use.
Obviously the British did not have to deal with FRA 230 approval when they built their new Toranado boiler.
Go Figure!
I agree with doc on this. How do they even know they need a new boiler if no ultra sound has been performed.... It may save them money if they do the ultra sound and found out that the current boiler may still be good and maybe only some patches may need to be performed. It bothers me that they don't,t know and will ever know. That dozen,t mean get a new boiler right away. Why
JOSEPH the steam buff It may save them money if they do the ultra sound and found out that the current boiler may still be good and maybe only some patches may need to be performed
Might be good for their budget if they played and won the lottery, too -- about the same odds, I think. Not for nothing did Kelly Anderson et al. call their old ultrasound unit the 'death ray'...
I'd be very, very surprised if a competent ultrasound didn't find additional faults in the boiler structure, faults not cost-effective to fix with the means available cost-effectively. Cost of the test is non-trivial too. I agree that it would be nice to know, but when what you're going to know is almost certainly going to be worse than expected -- put the money into the rebuild from the start, and keep the old boiler for its historic-artifact value.
From Jim A
I have just gotten started in this post business ie Slow on the computer.In the fifties i fired steam on both the MILW and the CNW at Mason City Iowa. The R1s were used long after most steam was discontinued on the CNW. To give you a little back ground on steam, On the Milw I fired 2-8-2 L2Bs. At the start of each trip, all enginmen had to read the latest bulletins from the the I.C.C. regarding boiler explosions plus we had to sign the book that we read them. On the CNW The R1s were used on wayfreight service for about two more years after steam came on the North Iowa Division. These engines were hand fired and carried 200psi boiler pressure. I have said many times to people that a high pressure boiler is like a bomb if the water runs low or the boilers were not regularly inspected. The point of this story is that risk of boiler explosion is greatly increased if the boilers are not tested acording to modern boiler test. As many of you know there have been many steam boiler failures on old steam tractors which ran at much lower pressures.
It is my opinion that the best option is to get a new boiler which of course is very expensive. It would need much fund raising but it is better to be safe than sorry.
Best Regards,
Jim A.
S. Connor, very convenient to post that anonymous statement. If the person who made it will not stand behind what they said, nobody should take it seriously either.
The original boiler has a few design flaws that will be remedied with the new build, the largest being the through stays along the bottomg of the barrel. This area of cold water is the source of many problems including cracking of the shell.
Dr. D, an ultrasound is just one tool in ascertaining the thickness of steel plates, but is not the be-all and end-all of boiler inspection. Visible cracks, previous repairs and a faulty design may have been enough evidence to bring MC to the conclusion that a new boiler is required. It had already been determined that the firebox sheets were thin and mud ring shot, so major surgery was called for in any case.
There have been problems in the past when ASME code shops have attempted to build locomotive boilers, mainly because the purchaser did not properly set out the specifications that the boiler had to be built to. It is imperative that the boiler shop not be left to its own devices to design the new boiler without supervision.
Part 230.23 clearly specifies that the steam locomotive owner is responsible for the general design and construction of the steam locomotive boiler. If that owner complies with the applicable regulations then the FRA will accept the boiler. There is nothing to gamble if you know what you are doing.
Rick Rowlands
J&L Narrow Gauge Railroad
Youngstown, OH
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.