Looks like CNW 1385 will be getting a new boiler; I found this on Trains Magazine:



This must have been a major decision for the group restoring her. Was the original boiler really bad enough to outright replace?

The article from Trains:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archive/2015/02/23/what-a-difference-a-year-makes-chicago-amp-north-western-1385.aspx

It had been looked at years ago by a professional who gave a very expensive quote to repair it. The decision was more or less based on this. Another professional just eye balled it and stated it was near the 50/50 point or repair or replace. But no engineering study was completed on it. Nor was the second assessment a real assessment or study. There were some questionable repairs made during its career with CN&W and the entire firebox is shot including the mud ring. A new mud ring was cast and work started on the firebox many years ago, but the more they went into it the worse it got. So after you replace everything but the barrel and then the barrel itself is questionable the decision was made to build new. Some CN&W R-1 boilers were replaced but this one is the original 1907 as issued boiler. Not original as built as it had been modified and repaired extensively during its lifetime.

I am not involved in the project nor a spokesman for MC on this project, but I believe this is pretty much how and why the decision was made to replace the entire boiler rather than patch the old one up some more. Corrections welcome from the "Steam Team" who is involved as I might of missed something in my translation and perspective of the who's what's and where of the project. Regards, John.

Having seen the boiler interior, yes it needed replacement. The alternative of replacing only the worst parts would have cost as much if not more due to the time and labor
of doing it in a piecemeal fashion.

The lower part of the boiler shell had been cracked, repaired, cracked again, repaired again, ad nauseum.

This is an EXCELLENT decision, IMO.

Sure beats chasing cracks and problems all over in a 100+ year old boiler. Cheaper in the long run also. With proper care and maintenance as well as operating practices will provide many years of service.

you'll be better with a fresh boiler and up to date boiler treatments and get another 100 plus years....put the old boiler out for display pointing out this and that, heck cut it open for some education.

Cut in half down the middle and you have TWO display boilers!

1385 does deserve a new boiler. Remember the most modern American steamer are already 60+ years old. Boilers takes a toll it's better to give it a brand new boiler. I think that in every steam locomotive built at time when 1385 was built or earlier or newer to 1910 should get a new boiler so you can operate it for another 100+ years. Preservationists what to save and use the old boiler but you want to think decades from now. The question is do you what this thing operate or do you want it as a display piece? A new boiler was the right decision in my opinion.

I remember a few years ago Deltak was building a new boiler for 1385. What happened to that?

Deltak still is the contractor for the new boiler. The design has not been completed, though, so they have done no work except for some engineering consulting. Mid-Continent did buy some steel and has it stored at Deltak against the day when construction begins.

Is the new boiler going to be a riveted or welded boiler?

The design is for a welded boiler. I am told that the last design problem has to do with sizing and placements of longitudinal braces between the tube sheets. The CNW boiler included these braces, apparently added when it was converted to superheat back in the 19-teens or twenties. Usually the tubes and flues are sufficiently strong to provide the needed stay strength, however this design requires these special stays in addition to the tubes and flues.

I had this issue solved when I sent a proposal for a new welded boiler to MC way back in Dec. of 2000. Apparently that got document was lost.



Picture of Skip in #2's boiler on the day I was there...

That seems odd. Why are there no tubes at the bottom of the barrel?

Also, why not brace the tube sheets with angled braces attached to the boiler shell in the adjacent course?

Yeah, not intuitively obvious at all. You'd think that bracing the bottom center with more firetubes would be a no brainer. Nice riveted belly patch.......

dave

It's hard to see how adding larger superheater flues to the upper portions of the tube sheets would have had any effect on the stresses in the lower portions of the sheet, or why adding stay rods versus more fire tubes was thought to be necessary.

Any more info Matt?