Woah! What happened there?

I think someone just worked the blowdown valve, that blasts plenty of steam.

That can be done if you need a quick reduction of pressure if the pop valve can't do it.

Or else just working the the injector....

note, when around a steam engine...expect steam...somewhere...

Nope- that's the famous boiler tube failure #844 suffered while on display at the '99 Sacramento Railfair. It's easy to joke about now, but was pretty serious at the time. I watched it all unfold from the platform of Lucius Beebe's private car 'Virginia City' which was on display nearby.

I am not sure I have seen a devastating flue tube failure, at least when one tube is involved, Is there a description detail where and why it happenned?

Part of the purpose of various designs on a steam engine is safety on certain failures like staybolts having center drilled holes, a failure and steam leakes thru them at least on the firebox area.

...

edit..

just searching 844 has never been retired from the active steam roster, continuous duty since built!

Here's a summary I clipped from another site:

"At Railfair 1999, a defective fire tube in the boiler of No. 844 gave way, but the boiler did not explode. The crew turned off the oil burner amid clouds of steam that shot back into the firebox. They helped visitors out of the cab. That blown tube did not impair the structural integrity of the boiler and firebox."

The incident resulted in diesels being substituted for #3985 on Railfair excursions the following day because #3985 had been re-tubed with tubes from the same lot as the failed ones in #844. Both locos were subsequently towed back to Cheyenne. #844 then received a complete overhaul including firebox, backhead, staybolts, and flues, and #3985 was re-tubed.

I'm not a steam expert; just a fan of steam. But reading the posts here, this thought came to mind: the tube failure and subsequent inspections and/or repair activity of 844 and 3985, coupled (no pun intended) with the fact that steam still survives on the Union Pacific, says a lot about the quality of people on the UP steam program.

In an era where litigation runs rampant, related risk management is around every corner, and quarterly earnings are of such high sensitivity, the people running the UP steam program are a model for anyone who wants to understand what it takes to keep steam running today, especially on the mainlines. Large quantities of mechanical/operational expertise, coupled with keen business sense, and a strong ability to get along with people from many walks of life (regulatory, corporate, you name it)-that's the formula for success. Kudos to the UP crew.

this was an everyday thing during the steam days, but the money grabbing lawyers are part of the other problems.

The situation with the flue tubes is the metal quality and the lack of regular operating steam has changed available metallurgy on tubing that would be in demand on a daily basis, its your profitability thing again.
Similar thing happened with 1225's failure, flue material was really incorrect, and the 1225 group asked the 261 group for the correct flues.

Those of you running steam make sure your flue tubes are the right metallurgy.

Ok, I'll play devils advocate, what is the right metallurgy for boiler tubes? Is not an ASTM standard acceptable or do we need to start specifying better high and low limits on the trace elements?

Mike Tillger

Good question Mike. And an obvious one. We have a new set of boiler tubes sitting in one of our storage boxcars waiting for the day when we start a restoration of our C&O Kanawha. Sure would like to know if the metallurgy on those tubes is correct.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

deleted

So does everyone buy or accept boiler tubes without a material certification? If you have tubes laying around what were the circumstances for purchasing or did they just show up on the property. Generally you specify everything on your purchase order even stating that material cerifications and Ht Numbers to be furnished. If you have tubes laying around and they haven't rusted beyond recognition then perhaps you can find the heat number still on the tubes. This HT number is your traceability to certifications held at the manufacturer of the product.

"In an era where litigation runs rampant, related risk management is around every corner"

Very true; and while much "risk management" is just fear-there's a good reason to be fearful of the closest thing we have to matter/antimatter meeting: whenever an experienced "litigator" lets loose with a hyperemotional closing argument after a steady stream of teary victims stories in front of a jury filled with bon-bon chewing soap opera refugees.

.

So could collecting some MTR or batch spec sheets from several vendors when shopping for SA-178A tubes and comparing the alloyed elements be adviseble?
Perhaps some shops and parties already experienced with good vs/ bad tube batches would be willing to share previous data about good and bad sets of tubes like Kelly mentioned and the ESC could consider a suggested tolerance tighter than the SA-178A spec. Just quickly looking, it looks like carbon and manganese have some range: http://www.rsmatco.com/content/view/29/73/
Perhaps, a higher carbon range, less manganese, etc batch is actually better (just as an example).
A few things I see omitted or left n/a on that link page, that have been mentioned before regarding staybolt material, that would be of interest and concern to me - are copper, nickel, and silicon.
I'm not a metallurgist, so perhaps my remarks are naive.

EDIT/ADDED: so looking back in search, I see this discussion viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29208
and point well taken that even within the same batch/set of tubes from a vendor there can be differences. Can batches/sets be purchased with the same heat numbers or with a MTR/spec for the batch? It seems ridiculous to have a standard that is so varied.


Sully