Am I correct that a feed heater/pump combo will not fill the boiler as fast as an injector? Still sounds like someone was trading water for steam.

In any event, it sounds like it will be a LONG time before 745 hits the road again.

I feel bad for Greg Dodd, the man that did the beautiful boiler work. It was my understanding that he completed much of the project at his own risk financially.

Much of what we talk of is admittedly of an arcane nature. For example - it is doubtful that the present location of the odd passenger car, caboose or locomotive will raise much ire among the readers of this board (who, by the way, far outnumber its participants).

Discussion of current operating practices however is one of the hottest of the hot buttons that we come across. The moderators here watch such threads carefully and will remove all but the highest levels respectfulness and tactfulness in conversations – as there is a fine line between sharing information and defamation.

Therefore in reporting on such situations, it is helpful to both use your real name, and to report the source of your information. This will help to bolster your own credibility and enable others to verify your information. Additionally, the credibility of a report is greatly aided when sources are identified by a real name. If an internet source (such as website or yahoogroup) is cited – it is helpful include the source URL.

Finally, the old journalistic rule of measuring effective reporting in how it answers the who, where, when, what, why, and how applies equally as well to distributed journalism sites like the Interchange as it does to print journalism.

The same guidelines apply to the arcane information too – as knowing the source of information and providing fully developed reports helps us all become both better informed and more able to find information independently.

Tom Cornillie

Any combination of injector/pump is supposed to just keep ahead of your evaporation rate, although this can be a mite tetious with an oil burner, which can be pushed a lot harder than solid fueled engines.


It had nothing to do with trading water for steam;it had to do with folks being in charge of the locomotive that didn't need to be. Subsequent interviews with the crew reveiled that they simply weren't paying attention.

Gents, and Ladies, we have to be openly critical of operations that are unsafe and unprofessional. This isn't some foamer conversation about the correct color for a Katy Geep running in August of 1962, this is about safety and the credibility of operating rail preservation. We sing and dance about historic preservation, that we are a mature and professional bunch, and about how important that it is that we can operate to show the public what railroading is about. But just one bunch of Casey Jones wannabes (in more ways than one) can make the operation of steam all but impossible.

There is a big move in the steam traction community to become more self policing. In fact, the late protagonist in the Medina affair had been made unwelcome at many events due to concerns about safety and ego driven displays.Since Medina, most every one doesn't think twice about calling unsafe practice to account, and there are really good steam schools being held at several locations all over the country. Where are our steam schools?

We are having a catch 22-if we don't let volunteers get to take their turn in the cab fairly early on, we fear they will get mad and leave; on the other hand this leads to underqualified and in experienced people running the equipment, which means you had better have a super good training program and qualifying procedure in place. And good training is a lot more important when things go wrong than when they are going right.

I have had to contend with contaminated fuel several times, including antifreeze and hydraulic oil that had fire retardant as part of its blend. Except for one time (flame retardant hydraulic oil just won't burn), we were able to run.

As far as I am concerned, this is the type of discussion we need to have here; we aren't name calling nor are we trying to hurt anyones feelings but I am pointing out that there are folks that don't need to be in charge of a Mr Coffee, much less a steam locomotive on a busy main line.

On a different but related topic one also has to ask just how wise it is to invest precious public money on a potential hanger queen and then turn it over to folks with zero track record at steam operation. What could that million dollars have done at a REAL preservation project like Long Leaf, La, rather than fixing a Louisiana locomotive to run in Kansas and toast a crownsheet in Oklahoma?

And I don't care if you are burning liquid lead, if the water gets too low, you dump the fire.[/i]

Amen.....amen..and AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

One has to wonder how many more times steam operators can dodge a bullet before we all suffer the results.

A wise man (Doyle McCormack) once told me that more steam operations are ruined by people than by mechanical happenings. Egos, politics, know it alls, etc.

It sounds like what we have here is what happens when the people cause mechanical happenings to ruin the day, not only for them but possibly the whole industry, for word spreads at lightning speed when something goes wrong. In this case, it took a while for it to come out. We were fortunate that the Gettysburg incident didn’t spell the end of steam operations. As Doyle said, the first big disaster will be the last.

Steam locomotives are moody, high maintenance machines and a trip can go from pleasurable to a nightmare in an instant. Bad fuel is frustrating. Been there, done that. In itself, it’s not life threatening. Bad water is frightening such as we on 1522 experienced in Texas. When you are carrying water at the desirable level, a minute spent railfanning on the seatbox can make your heart jump out of your chest when you look at the water glass and wonder where it went so fast or why the pressure is down 20 psi. Bad water makes it almost impossible to carry water at your desirable level so you can't relax for a moment, especially when you need to blow the whistle for crossings and it just gurgles and foam carries over. Thank God the 745 had soft plugs. I’m confused by two different accounts of what happened there. Was she working or sitting on a spot fire?

Good training, common sense and communication should be at the top of the list for anyone who wants to fire or run an engine. Thorough knowledge of how the thing works and air brake/train handling, knowledge of the rules and a professional attitude will earn you the respect of the railroad. At the risk of bragging, the St. Louis Steam Train Association worked extremely hard in training folks for their tasks, behavior on the railroad and put a heavy emphasis on Safety First. The three of us who were engineers received professional ABTH/Rules training and were involved in the restoration from day one. Still, it’s a never-ending learning process and you can’t let your guard down for a second. Murphy lurks around every corner! In short we worked very hard for the carrier’s respect and it paid off.

Please folks, treat these machines with respect. Look at old photos of boiler explosions if you want to really realize what they are capable of. Institute training programs and look at worst-case scenarios in training. After all, anyone can get over the road on a good day, but how often do they happen? We had our share of mechanically bad days and survived to tell about it. As one of our board members put it, “They are character building exercises”.

Be safe out there!

Don Wirth

I have a variety of professional and amateur steam experience. I have the dubious credential of having experienced a low water failure, although I was not on board at the event. I arrived to recover the engine. This was not at Strasburg.

We were taking turns crewing the engine, and the leaders were a mix of steam experienced crew and shop experienced crew (mistake 0). That is the first problem you have with volunteer steam operations. It is very difficult to tell the shop crew, who have spent 12 hours a week rebuilding the engine, who may be skilled welders and machinists, but who may not have previous steam operation experience, that they are not yet qualified to operate old 96 unsupervised. Anyway, this event happened with a shop crew onboard. There were riders on the tender and a video was made.

"Somebody" forgot to check the tender water level (mistake 1). The inexperienced crew had difficulty figuring out how to get the injectors to pick up. Sometimes they did not realize the injector was not actually pumping. They were chugging along and the tender dried up, but they did not know it. They kept trying to get the injector to pick up. The funny thing, is that the riders on the tender watched the lid pop off the water fill. This was the loose kind without a hinge. The steam blowing back from the injector had filled the tender and blew it off. It was heavy. The funny thing is, the riders had no clue, so they just put it back on. They told us so after the fact.

So they are chugging along, and at least watching the water level. When it sank below the glass, the leader called out to "drop the fire", but the train was still moving. Here two mistakes were made, first continuing to move with water below safety limits, and second dropping a fire while moving (mistakes 2 and 3). Off course, shaking the grates while moving stirred up the fire and actually made it hotter for a while. I seem to recall the engine did not have a dump grate.

Then, they got scared, and my memory fails me some at this point. I guess without a dump grate, they failed in dropping the fire. They stopped the train, and a rescue diesel retrieved the passengers. I can't share the exact details without revealing the line. Meanwhile, I am at the depot slurping on a soda when the news is burst upon me and I am called out to rescue. We dieseled back out with a tank car of water to find an abandoned engine with a hostler's fire, all the appliances still on, and water visible at the lower gauge glass nut.

I took charge, and I am guilty of mistake 4. I should have killed the fire and towed the engine back. There is truth to the immaturity and recklessness of youth. Instead, we pumped the tender full, and refilled the boiler. Then we made the fire hot again and went back into service. Everything seemed fine, but at the end of the day, we found the fusible plug was spitting.

So many errors, but all of them can be traced to the lack of a formal training program and operating procedures, and a misplaced enthusiasm for old time methods at this location. For example, once I was learning how to put away a rail car, and it had no hand brake and we did not use chocks. Now, at Strasburg I had beautiful wooden chocks with convenient handles, and we used them all the time, sometimes in multiples. So I said, "Shouldn't we chock this car?" Reply: "No, this track is level." Similarly, I had offered to help write a training manual for the steamer a year before this event, but I became caught in the intellectual semantics and was not able to proceed. For example, I was asked to reproduce an old pre-war engineman's training manual. The manual was not really that educational, and was primarily of the "do this because I said so" format. I remember one question well: "Q: What is the difference between lifting and non-lifting injectors?" Text answer: "A: Lifting injectors are located above the running boards and non-lifting injectors are located below the running boards." (!) Actually, this question was irrelevant to our engine, all the injectors were lifting, and had no place in our training manual. I rewrote this answer to explain how a lifting injector sucks the water from the tender, and the non-lifting injector needs gravity to bring the water down to the injector, but our project leader at the time vetoed my change. I think he actually felt uncomfortable with the technical details. Actually, now that I think of it, it was odd foreshadowing that injectors would be part of our future problems.

We had other cute technical mis-applications. I had missed the first steamup of this engine, and came in on work day to help fix bugs. They complained that the independent brake released slowly. Quick inspection by me, "Say, why is there a plug in the brakestand exhaust port?" Answer, "Gee, we didn't know what that was for, so we just plugged it." Apparently there was enough leakage in the system for the brake to release on its own and that is how they operated the first weekend.

A new and very large source of our risk exposure today comes from lack of familiarity and experience with this equipment. So many things, when performed exactly as in the old days, require regular repetition to maintain the skill and mental knowledge required for safety. Lacking this familiarity and experience, equipment and operations require much more "in your face" labeling and instruction. In this case, the tender should have a water level indicator, and the crown sheet level should have been marked on the backhead. I assumed the crown sheet/gauge glass relationship based on my Strasburg experience. I could have been wrong, and maybe was. Maybe we should endorse a modern electronic water level monitor with siren alarm? Maybe a set of temperature probes on the crownsheet with siren alarm? We need these aggressive belt and suspenders safety monitors to compensate for our inescapable inadequacies.

Once, we were using a diesel, and were fussing with the air hoses. This engine had extra hoses for dump car operation. The gladhand plugs (dummies, covers, what are they called?) were in place, there were problems, we did not know which hose was which, etc. I thought I had turned the angle cock off, and knocked the plug off. Whooooosh that hose whipped around and missed my nose by a hair. Oh? Didn't you know that accesory air cocks are the reverse of brake line cocks? The off position is handle aligned with the pipe. Say, shouldn't we mark these with painted "off" and "on" labels? NO, you need to learn the difference and remember next time!

Attitudes are hard to change.

Don you are so right. From what I was told,745 was working steam when the crew was told not to do so and they were enoying the ride when things went in the toilet. I've had trips like yours that started out great,but then you realize you got more foam than water and you fight the rest of the day trying to move tonnage and keep the crown covered. Experience means everything,and egos need to be checked at the door. Many of us have hard won practical knowledge of what making these things run is all about.I get a bit nervous if someone walks up to me and gives me the impression that he knows everything.Our biggest problem in this business is people who think they have all the answers and can barely boil water in the kitchen,much less than on a locomotive. When I've trained firemen I've always told them too much water you can blow down...too little water and you can be blown up.Never take (pick your engine number here) for granted......she's a spiteful thing and she will bite you. The severity of the bite is up to you.

And i tell them I don't care as much if they run out of steam as if they run out of water - it is easier to make more steam than a new boiler. And the paperwork! Terrible!

Perhaps one of our Canadian brethren will chime in and tell us about what it takes to get a "Steam Ticket" in order to be authorized to attend a boiler up north. It could be a useful model for us to consider, given the languages are similar and all.

dave

And, by the way Tom, what is a "real name?"

If Txhighballer wants to be called that, it is his real name as far as I am concerned. I know him by his history of posts using it, and wouldn't know him if he used Ignatz Kotorwyskigzcs or whatever handle his parents saddled him with. I'd be honored to share a pint and some wings with him, maybe call him Tex for short once I got to know him ('Baller could have some unfortunate connotations).

Likewise you or Jim Templin, of Frisco 1522, or many of the fine folks that post here. A few not so much, but by and large.....

Real is what we perceive it to be. Our choices of symbols we want to apply to ourselves are more "real" to us if they are our choices rather than impositions. Now if only Mr Churchward was really Mr Churchward we could have some very interesting conversations.

dave

Tom:

In my career I have been privvy to many confidential situations that require secrecy....for these reasons I have to keep things which I know are true quiet,or when they do break out in the open,to confirm or correct the facts. I'm not a hard man to find,and in fact many in here do know exactly who I am. Some speak rumor,but I stake my reputation on the facts as I know them to be and I want it known for the record that if the moderators know exactly who I am,and know of my experiences in this business. If confidentiality is a problem for you,perhaps you should stop reading the newspaper or watching the news. True stories in both places sometimes are made by confidential persons in the know which should not be compromised. Here in this forum,we have an opportunity to observe,comment,cajole,and criticize,hopefully for the better of all persons who truly are interested in the preservation and operation of steam locomotives. Is this is truly why you are here,then you also should understand that confidentiality of certain events and protecting those providers of information is in fact a doorway to the education of us all.

It would seem to me that it would be both appropriate and helpful if someone in authority at LASTA would give an accurate account of what happened here, as opposed to the innuendoes etc. now being used on this thread.
One of the great values of this forum is to let us all learn from the experiences of others (good and bad) so as to improve our own prospects for success.
LASTA's sharing the facts would be appreciated.
Ross Rowland

Who here remembers my post from the begining of the summer regarding the egos of people involved with steam? Specifically the attitude of "if we have a running locomotive then we know what we are doing and will not listen to advice or reason". This group was supposed to have Greg Dodd train them on the operation of a steam locomotive but decided they could handle it.
This is a problem, a big problem in this industry and in the long run we will all suffer until a high level of maturity is achieved.

There is no shame in not knowing, only in not wanting to learn.

Hello all,

Ross' post highlights exactly why I have been asking people to take extra steps in discussing this situation. Content on internet discussion boards is inherently viewed with suspicion. Dave is correct that on this board using a real name goes only as far as a person has established credibility on this forum. However, the ability to remain confidential that the internet uniquely provides is often used carelessly or maliciously – more often than it is used to share information (as Txhighballer described). The repercussions for maliciously using this ability are far less on the internet – the worst that RYPN could do is ban a username - where a reporter could be fired and black balled from the industry.

In the recent past RYPN has enforced strict scrutiny over the discussion of operating practices – that if applied here would have found the thread removed immediately after it was posted. See: http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20997

I agree that it is important to discuss where, when, and how things have gone wrong (whether it was choosing the wrong paint or forgetting to watch the water glass) so we can all learn from the experience and not repeat the same mistake twice. However, being critical also means that we (you, me, and everybody on the interchange) must hold ourselves to the highest levels of responsibility and accountability. If we don’t, it will be very easy for others to dismiss our discussion and RYPN itself as a heresy and innuendo – undermining the very reason for holding the discussion in the first place.

In the recent past I have argued stridently for allowing a broad range of free speech on the interchange. It would be much easier to direct the moderators to rule out discussions (such as this one) that are seen as inherently difficult.

Tom Cornillie