Well, all of this is a bit more of a discussion than I thought it would be. My comment about "traction engine mud bottom" was really tongue-in-cheek. I recall Mr. Soule commenting on what he termed British "tinker-toy" designs and was always amused by the many Soule-isms.

I suspect that Mr. Bensman is correct in his suspicions about operating practices being a significant contributing factor.

As one having spent a great deal of time on the "Other Side" of the Pond.....oh, and by the way, we are running the 141R 568 next week on a test run as the locomotive has just received a new signal safety system at another shop and yes, we will post video of the move.....

Any way, as one who spends great deal of time over "there" as it were, may I make some specific comments about materials.

The EN/EU material standards are much more strict than ours are. Further, they still produce REAL boiler steel. We called this steel 285C, which today is simply 516/517-70. Additionally, we are learning as part of projects with the ESC that copper and nickel contents in the steel are vital components. I can assure you, the range of these items in the US is far too flexible, where as the component make up over there, for the tolerable allowance is far more strict! In other words, the amounts need to be more specific than they are here.

Additionally, their welding requirements are far more stringent than ours here in the US. For example, our E7018 electrode or our E6010 will convert to over 15 different electrodes over there, where as we only have two or three acceptable electrodes for what we do here.

I can tell you, here in the States we strive to simplify and to have one or two great methods, where-as, over there, they strive to have a specific method for everything they do.

I am willing to bet my "Dollar Donut" on the fact that they will find some stress that was not accurately accounted for in design, or some stress that has presented itself as a result of use or general operation that could not or was not calculated in design. (keep in mind the design of the Tornado is not 100% exact to the old drawing, it was modernized and with good cause.) The use of the U shaped mud ring is not the problem, the welding is not the problem, the heat treatment requirement is not the problem, the material is SURELY NOT the problem and the theories used by DB are NOT the problem. What ever is going on here is something new and unique to this locomotive and once they find it, it will be solved for good!

As a side note, we are playing with the idea of bringing high quality boiler steel from Germany to the US as we simply can not get the quality material they still make over there. These guys are 100's of miles ahead of us when it comes to proper material and material specs......I promise, I know!

Yes, Gary is right, this has to do with operations and use, not materials or building practices.

I have one other guess as to what this is.........but....I am going to wait on sharing it. I'll bet I am close though.....Gary, what do you think it is? Matt, how about you?

Oh...I will say this, I don't think it is a boiler direct problem...I am looking at something else.

Kindly yours,

First off, I strongly reject the contention that the premature failure is due to sloppy operating practice or poor locomotive management. This organization spent 18+ years and $6M+ to construct an all new locomotive. How conceivable is it that they would turn the operations over to some neophyte engine crews to beat the crap out of it? NOT VERY LIKELY.

I would suggest that those who intend to follow this closely, avail themselves of the Tross analysis translations provided by Matt Janssen and available on the Wasatch RRC website.

Tross spent 9 years generating data related to poor performance of steel fireboxes in boiler backends that worked well with copper fireboxes.

Please note the radial cracks at the 5 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions of Image 2 and at Image 3.

FROM: Rear Boiler Knowledge:

Attachment:

Image2.jpg [ 63.68 KiB | Viewed 7546 times ]

Attachment:

Image3plusmagnify.jpg [ 257.36 KiB | Viewed 7546 times ]

Please note the radial cracks at the 7 o'clock and 1 o'clock positions of the back side of the mud trough/side sheet sample from the German boiler which would reflect to the 5 and 11 o'clock positions on the fireside in Image 2 and lower left side of Image 3.

Attachment:

Image10.jpg [ 45.09 KiB | Viewed 7546 times ]

As described in the Tross text, this cracking resulted in sheet replacement in as little as 60,000 miles. Minor design changes such as increase in firebox sheet thickness could grossly increase the onset of cracking.



John,
I wish you would do some historical research before broadcasting blanket statements such as this. This only confuses those new to the industry. SA-285C and SA-516-70 are current ASME specifications for use in Section I construction of Power Boilers. SA-285C did not morph into SA-516-70. SA-517 is an ASME specification for quenched and tempered alloy steel plate. This steel would not be needed for any locomotive boiler construction however the alloy content would require very elaborate welding and heat treat procedures.
Regarding European steel specs, since WWII, steel mills in Europe were tasked to supply steel to meet over a dozen different countries unique boiler and construction codes. The steel specs in general overlapped in each category. How the mills dealt with this was to produce steel product that parked the final product analysis in very tight chemical ranges. Ditto for welding rods.



I was under the impression that Meiningen did NOT post weld heat treat their boilers.
Does anybody know for sure if the Tornado boiler received PWHT?

Cool. So, my next question is, presuming we are replicating an old boiler with a copper firebox with a new steel fabrication, how would we reconsider the design OR would we start with the size and shape of the outside envelope and work backwards from there on a new sheet of paper?

Yeah, I STILL use paper.

dave

Dear Mr. Austin,

Lest we too quickly offend our good friends in England, I would point out that it was you, not Gary nor I who eluded to nor called the English.....neophytes.....We should make it clear that it was you and only you who has used such a term. As I read what I wrote and what Gary wrote, there was no offense offered nor implied to the "ability" of the great people of England.

In fact, Mr. Austin, I can testify that the English, Germans, French and Swiss are EXACTLY like us when it come to restoration and volunteer groups that operate steam. They have those who engage in stimulating debate, like this. They have some who prefer to watch from the side lines and they have those who are great operators, mechanics and engine-men. I have come to find that human nature is just that, human nature and no matter what "country" you may attach to it, we are all basically the same. As such, may I extend my deepest and highest regard to those who are working so hard to solve the problem. They, like us strive to learn, expand and explore. By the way, it was they who made the first new standard gauge steam locomotive since the end of steam (reproduction), not us, so we should really take caution when "titles" are attached to their great efforts!

In respect to your request that I do more study prior to making a comment and then "confusing" the readers. May I share with you the study that has been performed at Wasatch Railroad Contractors in respect to the AVAILABILITY of SA 285 C.

First off, we are very well aware of the Code when it comes to materials that are acceptable for use in Power Pressure Vessals. Additionally, I like you can clearly comment that indeed, SA 285 is on the list of acceptable materials. As we here at WRRC build a "respectable" volume of steam boilers per year, I would share with you that it has been about 10 years, at least 8 years ago that I was able to purchase a 3/8" sheet of 285 (for a reasonable cost and effort). Though we are both correct in knowing that it is an acceptable material, IT IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE and the reason it is not readily available is that it too easily crosses over to 516/517-70 as an acceptable material. 285 is generally a boiler steel product and as the demand for new boilers is as low as it is here in the US, mills have elected to replace the production of 285 with that of larger amounts of 516/517.

At the spring 2010 ESC meeting Kelly A and I, along with a few others, Gary B, Scott L and Matt J had separate but all relating discussions pertaining to the need to have readily accessible 285 here on the main land. I am not the only one who faces the issue of availability in the 285C range. True, we can mill run the material, but the reality is, our steam locomotive industry does not justify the demand.

Again, I credit you for correctness, the EN's (European Nations) have a need and a demand as well as a code that requires that materials like 285 remain readily accessible. Again, it is sad that our code has become so lax in terms of stringent material specifications that we can no longer place a high demand on 285 material.

So....has 516 MORFED into 285? No, that is not what I said, nor is it a reality. Is 285 readily available? No and has 516/517-70 taken the place of 285 as the most widely used material.....indeed it has!

May I kindly suggest that you read more carefully my postings, as well as those of others before posting a criticizing remark about what has been presented. You and I have been warned about criticizing or flaming comments on RYPN and as I know the moderators are reading, I ask that you and I both ensure that we uphold the rules.

Finally, I take some exception to the posting of photos of a locomotive with far more hours of service, under far different operating conditions, from a locomotive nothing like the A class (as I understand, from other posts, the photos you are sharing come from a German class locomotive boiler, not the original A1 boiler. If I am wrong, please correct me.) Though I admire your ability to find such photos, if you wish to preclude me or others from "confusing" our readers, I would kindly and respectfully request that we keep photos of the topic specific to the topic and not share photos of non-relevance to the subject (even if the photos are the original A1 boiler, they are NOT THIS BOILER). The reality is; we do not have actual photos of what is going on. The British are being very careful about what they put out lest they be called "neophytes" and, as time passes, I am sure they will be the first to tell us what went wrong and what they did to fix it. I am excited to hear the outcome as I am sure it will be a great education.

I part this discussion for the day by saying that what I "THINK" is the actual problem stems from the OPERATION and conditions of OPERATION and in no way does my opinion reflect on the PEOPLE or practices that are being used. I feel strongly that we have a mechanical condition that has nothing to do with the boiler, but is being manifest as a boiler problem. Matt, a small locomotive that was shipped to the Heber Creeper in the late 70's early 80's that was ejected from a transport trailer while in transit comes to mind. You know as well as I do the damage that occurred to the BOILER as a result of that situation. (and NO the A1 did not fall off a trailer nor has it had an accident, I am suggesting that what has happened is a result of some OTHER condition.) Maybe that is enough of a clue as to what I think is going on.

Matt A., Thank you for the careful and thoughtful review of this posting,

As they say......

Cheers,

Oh....Yes, a P.S is due.

Matt, the EU welding codes require PWHT either on location at time of weld or after. Indeed, DB does not heat treat the entire boiler (on large boilers anyway. I know of smaller ones that have been placed in the oven). As one who has welded and is qualified to weld under their practices, I can attest to the fact that PWHT is a requirement in one form or another. They tend to do it on location as the welding is performed, much like our ability as per our code to do the same. I can assure you that when the mud ring was welded, they post weld treated the entire piece as required "on location".

This thread could use a few smiley faces!

Stephen

Best RyPN thread of 2011!

Ok, I'll bite. Can someone explain to the less-informed readership, such as myself, why a steel firebox, replacing a copper one, would cause these issues?

My gut reaction is that copper has different properties than steel, it may expand and contract at different rates. As such, one would use different forms of staying, bracing and design to deal with these issues. Of course, I'm not an engineer, so I'd love to see an answer from someone who knows.

David,

Personally, I do not believe that the copper has anything to do with the problem. Welds cracking can only be caused by stress of some sort. Once you attach your side sheets to the wrapper sheets and once you attach all of that to the mud ring and once you attach all of that to the barrel, you get a somewhat rigid deal. (we could go into a big discussion here on dynamic load exerted on a boiler, but we can save that for another day)

We have to assume that the fire box, regardless of the material make-up is adding support to the entire unit, not causing stress. Our focal point should be toward what is causing the stress that is causing the cracks, not so much on the material that makes-up the unit.

Your questions seems to be directed at why material would make a difference. In my opinion, for what is going on, I don't think material has any weight on the issue.

We have on hand a German Boiler with a full copper fire box. There is no structural difference between it and an all steel boiler. Clearly, the Germans felt there was no need for extensive design changes, copper or steel. (noted; the copper firebox walls are thicker than they would be in steel)

Good job for exploring. What do you think could cause enough stress to rip a weld capable (on paper anyway) of withstanding stresses at least as high as 60,000 lbs per square inch? That is a lot of stress or load!

In my book, the debate should be solely focused on this question:

What in the world is going on that is causing such a stress load to open up the welds, or crack base material where no welds exist?

Kindly yours,

What if - not an accusation, just an inquiry - operating practices that called for very rapid heating and cooling during fire up and shut down were carried out for multiple cycles. Could this cause combined differential stresses to exceed the ability of the fabrication to absorb it in specific areas at which parts are welded together, for short periods of time until heat transfer evens things out? Small localized areas of higher stress and fatigue is where I'm going with this idea.

The British invented steam locomotives and carried the design out to the basic Stephensonian form which still lasts today. The rest of us copy them in every essential, but with some differences of lesser importance. Neophytes? Nah........

Wanna buy a boiler that fell off the back of a truck?

dave

When did the Germans begin to replace copper fireboxes with steel?

David,

Thank you very much for the question. I page Matt Janssen for a better answer than the one that will follow;

I do not believe that they "replaced" steel with copper as much as they built them this way originally. I believe, that in the case of small boilers, they provided customers with the option of steel or copper (just as we do with model boilers here in the States today). I can not confirm, but I think, that the boiler we have on hand was compatible with either steel or copper, but was originally built with copper.

I do know that the wars in Europe put a real strain on material supplies, steel or copper. As such, in some cases, they used what they had on hand.....for better or worse!

Hopefully Matt J. will chime in and provide a more detailed building explanation. He is a Master on the subject.

Interesting...
The Boston and Maine #3713 has the exact same cracking pattern on the outer wrapper sheet around the staybolt holes. There were many cracks, mostly at the 12:00 and 6:00 positions with a few at the 5:00 and 7:00 positions Especially in the high heat areas of the side sheets. The B&M tried to stop this condition by welding 5/8" thick plates to the inside of the outer wrapper from the mud ring up to 3 feet up in the suspicious area. The mudring also had bad cracks at the corners.

My theory is that the holes were repaired so many times and the bolts got too thick (some of them 1 3/16" diameter up from a 1 inch origionally) and this did not allow the bolt to flex and thus cracked the sheet instead. Also, many of the smaller older bolts where the holes were not repaired were wrought iron or at least a very soft steel. This too would point to a bolt that did not flex and was hard on the sheet especially around the hole.

This is a great thread. It shows there are several theories and time will certainly tell the true story. Meanwhile, keep up the discussion and keep "us" in the loop.
Ira Schreiber
I steam, therefore, I pop off.