88 (GN 107) and 148 have all flexible staybolts. 750, 153 and 113 have a more "normal" pattern of flexies in the breaking range and rigid bolts otherwise. Anybody out there a FEC guru who has some history on what I feel certain is a retrofit?

Dave


irondave@bellsouth.net

> Dear Dave:
Are you planning to convert "your" loco? If so, see 49CFR Part 230.33e for guidence. The "established railroad practice" refered to need not be FEC, but it must be written, preferably in some railroad's "Standard Practice" manual or such. The
"accepted national national standard" covering an alteration of this nature would in all probability be NBIC appendix 3, etc.
Note that increasing the size of bolt or changing the style of sleeve used is considered a repair, but an intital installation of a flexi (or flexis) would be an alteration.
Good luck.
J.David


jdconrad@snet.net

Dave,

I'll be interested to hear the answer to this too. I've often wondered at the variety of staybolt arrangements fitted to locomotive boilers. The most common arrangement was a mix of rigid and flexible bolts located in the "high stress" areas, which makes sense. Then you have engines like the ones Dave mentions, which have all flexible stays. I wonder if this is really worth the effort? Does it virtually elminate broken stays?

On the other hand, Hampton & Branchville #44, a 1927 Baldwin 4-6-0 owned by the South Carolina Railroad Museum, has NO flexible stays. How common was this arrangement? Was the H&B too cheap to pay extra for a few flexible stays, or did this work OK for a small, narrow firebox like #44 has?

Good Steaming,
Hugh Odom

> 88 (GN 107) and 148 have all flexible
> staybolts. 750, 153 and 113 have a more
> "normal" pattern of flexies in the
> breaking range and rigid bolts otherwise.
> Anybody out there a FEC guru who has some
> history on what I feel certain is a
> retrofit?

> Dave


the Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

No plans at this time for conversion - just wondering if this was done by FEC or subsequent owners and why.

Since 148 went to US Sugar and 88 went to GN, 153 and 113 were US Sugar and 750 went to S&A, no common practice for any particular subsequent owner is indicated.

I don't recall 153 having problems with lots of rigid bolt breakage back on Gold Coast in the '70s, not sure about 750 on New Georgia, so it is something of a mystery to me - did FEC perhaps experiment with this on some locomotives in a class to determine if it led to more reliability?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

FYI,

S&A 750 is all flexie except for the crown. We always suspected it was due to be upsized out of rigids. It was not designed by Alco that way or at least not on the order that 153 came from according to an erecting drawing I have seen for the late version. 107 aka 88 shound be of the same vintage. If you want I can get you a copy of the original Form 4 for 750 aka 80. The equipment dealer just struck out the FEC name and entered the S&A's when she was sold. Like that would fly these days.

You must still be toying with the idea of working 107 up I guess.

Best of luck with it.
Randy

minterjr@minspring.com

Thanks Randy, if you have a copy of the erection drawings and Form 4 from FEC days I would like very much to have a copy. If you would, please just give it to Jason sometime in the next couple weeks.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Dear Hugh:
I'm not sure that size has much to do with it. Look at ex-B&LE No. 643, a huge loco with few flexis. I believe that cost (both first time and maintenance) had a lot to do with it, as well as the design philosophy of the builder/buyer. The first cost of a flexi was probably over 20 times that of a rigid, plus increased fixed maintenance costs (semi-annual "caps" job[now every 5th annual]) verses the possibility of a rigid bolt breaking and the cost of replacing it.
J. David

jdconrad@snet.net