Nobody's arguing ( at least I hope not) that for a locomotive working intensively such as hauling a freight across a division in 1935 or hauling a long string of passenger cars from Durango to Silverton today, superheaters provide good economy. It is the infrequent short runs with a lot of idling in which it is of lesser value.

dave

Seems to me that there was an awfully large number of superheated 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 switchers in service. They moved heavy cuts of cars but were frequently idle.

My point exactly.

Back in the day, a railroad's coal bill was a lot closer to its maintenance labor costs. These days, the cost of the coal is miniscule compared to the labor cost of maintaining the locomotive.

Making a decision to restore a locomotive is a very serious decision or should be. Even the best laid plans of mice and men will have some very expensive surprises. I think we all know that. Though some good homework and hiring the right contractors to assist you in your restoration can save literally millions of dollars. I think the decision to build a newly designed boiler with major redesign such as the #1385 {original topic} lends a whole new aspect to an already heavy duty decision process. To me it is as important as doing a survey on the old boiler to determine what and if you need to replace the boiler. Once that is done, then the questions being asked here should be looked at if the decision is made to go forward with a newly designed boiler. No matter which way a boiler is built the decisions could be argued. I think what has ended up happening at Texas State RR is a good example of what can happen and what might happen and how you might end up correcting a problem. The whole newly designed boiler project is huge when you consider the decision to go forward with the project to the day the whole thing comes together and fits and works properly. Not to mention being acceptable to FRA.

The "layman"{as well as a qualified boiler maker} might argue why on earth would anybody build a modern redesigned "soak" when we could bring that boiler up to at least 1947 technology with all new material and bla bla bla, and I am not arguing that point either. But the idea of looking very closely at your cost to build and your perceived savings should indeed be looked at. Factor in the potential extra maintenance as well. Back in the day when builders were numerous and parts a plenty with an army of cheap labor who all knew and understood what they were doing and what the mission was all about, has little to do with todays decisions. Some maybe, but being that nobody {or very few} is building functioning locomotive boilers the present day questions become more relevant. What was right for the main line railroads back in 1937 might not be right for a shortline museum pulling very light trains 50 miles a day at 20-25 mph on two weekends a month. I don't think MC will build a soak, if they did I would be shocked.

Again thank you all contributors to a very interesting discussion that I feel is relevant to all of us. Whether your in the market to redesign and and build a brand new boiler for your organization or not. Regards, John.

This just put up on the Mid-Continent website.

385 Update
Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:33 pm

Update from 1385 Task Force -- A PO has been issued to Continental Fabricators in St. Louis for the new boiler, with delivery the beginning of March. Continental has built two other locomotive boilers with very good results, and is excited to join with us in making this happen. The cab is very near completion, has been inspected by the Task Force with a very favorable response, and will be delivered by the end of the month. The front truck overhaul is complete, looks beautiful, and will be placed under the frame by the end of the month also.

This represents a sea change in what has been published and talked about for the last 5 (or more!) years. Previously, the boiler maker was to have been Deltak Industries in Plymouth Minnesota. Delta specializes in high pressure heat exchangers and pressure vessels but had little experience with stayed boilers. It is good to read that a more experienced vendor has been selected, reducing the risk considerably.

This is good news! In my expirience with Continental Fabricators, they have always done good work and always completed the job well within schedule.

I trust the task is in good hands, and I hope to hear more good news as the project progresses.

What locomotives have boilers by Continental?

Southern 401 comes to mind.

Roger. Nice engine.

Does SOU 401 have square cornered firebox sheets, or flanged? What are the plans for 1385 in that regard?

Going back to the comments on switch engines with superheat, I believe some others will agree, there is another factor. The superheat makes the engine more responsive to the throttle, and reduces condensate in the cylinders. These would be good performance factors for intensive switching jobs.

Did the Northwester Steel and Wire engines keep their superheaters to the end?

Greetings:
Yes, the NWS&W 0-8-0s all were superheated to the end (not saying that there might not have been the odd unit or three blanked off).
One preserved locomotive which was converted from superheated to saturate steam is former Crab Orchard & Egyptian 2-8-0 No.17 which was converted because someone at the CO&E thought that superhearers were a maintenance problem.
I happened to stop by their shop and saw the superheater units lying on the ground, asked about them and was told the story
The units were like brand new, still with Canadian Elesco metal tags wired onto them. They were about to cut them apart to salvage the clamp blocks and bolts.
I made a deal with them (on behalf of Illinois Railway Museum) to supply new blocks, bolts and ball ends with "U" shaped tubing in exchange for the units.
They cut out the portion of the tube sheets where the superheater flues were and made patches with just 2" diameter holes.
CO&E got No.17 running, but were never happy with it and eventually purchased a diesel.
J.David
PS: At Valley Railroad, we find that our No.40 2-8-2 which is saturated, uses about 25% more coal and water than our No.3025 which is superheated (and has a combustion chamber) doing the same work on the same 10 mile (round trip) run. One of my dreams is to superheat No.40 someday. JDC

Very interesting. I remember reading an article in Railfan about the engine (same issue that covered the ACE 3000 intro IIRC). I always wondered exactly how they went about the "conversion". I guess technically it still developed a (very) few degrees of superheat with the U bends in lieu of full superheater elements.

What became of #17?

On a related subject, I believe the ACL had some USRA 0-8-0 copies that were built without superheaters.

I believe COE 17 is at Boone & Scenic in Boone, IA.

As I recall they acquired it, tried to get it running and gave up and bought Chinese.

-Hudson