Wow, that does sound like excessive wear.

I was briefly involved with NKP 765 when it re-entered service for the 2nd time back in the early 80's, and the N&W General Foreman at our shop (a former NKP machinist) was pretty worried about the amount of slop in its valve gear at the time. There was little fore-to-aft play, but you could push and pull on the forward end of the eccentric rod and move it a good 2 or 3 inches side-to-side. He said he had seen valve gear parts completely destroyed when they'd worn this much when something would move just enough to physically interfere with another part. Prior to the locomotive being leased to the Southern that summer, they made up and installed bearing plates (from plastic hub liners IIRC) to limit the side-to-side movement. That got them by until they could replace the worn pins and bearings.

I know it's much easier said than done, but the one of the main points of Baker Valve Gear was that it allowed "easy" and "quick" maintenance through the replacement of standard wearing parts; E.G.- pins and bushings. It seems like the parts could be made ahead of time and changed out in a day or two. That would be far preferable to really tearing something up and having to fabricate new major valve gear parts.

That's unfortunately an easy question to answer. Passengers really have no idea what a steam locomotive sounds like square, and most don't have the rhythm to pay attention...as long as steam is on the point, it satisfies what they paid for. Us steam professionals know better and understand a limping locomotive will soon be a dead locomotive if things are not corrected...I have no way of knowing this, but her mechanical condition MAY have been the reason CSX would not allow the locomotive to travel on it's own rails. They may have had information we did not, but chose to instead lean on their "no steam" policy instead of throwing WMSR under the wheels,hoping they would get their act together for another chance. Such chances have been squandered before by other operators.

Absolutely, the public has no clue....this is not news. However, while the public cannot tell the difference between a well maintained locomotive and a poorly maintained locomotive an institutions bank account can.
One could say that cost to repair multiplies at an exponential rate past a certain point of wear. If a locomotive receives new rod bearings when the clearance reaches .050 or so then it will likely be able to go through 3 sets of rod bearings before the pins really need to be turned. If axle tram is maintained on a yearly basis the bearings last longer yet. Case in point, the 4960 circa '07 had the rod bearings which had been originally applied in '96, only about .045 clearance on the solid bearings.....possibly .050 on the number one but that after running 11 years and over 100,000 miles. The axle tram was checked and if needed adjusted EVERY year.
In the case of the baker valve gear, what is more cost effective:

1) replace bushings and, if needed, take a skin cut on the pins at a cost of about $1,000 for hardened bushings and MAYBE $2,000 in labor? or

2) allow all bushings to wear well beyond condemning limits, allow pins to get hammered out of round to the point of requiring replacement, allow bushings to become loose in their fit thus hammering bushing holes out of round requiring all components to be line bored and then as a culmination of all of this allow the components of the valve gear to hammer against eachother causing further damage?


Where in any of this is it financially responsible to allow a locomotive to wear beyond RAILROAD MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT NOT FRA condemning limits let alone failure? How many locomotives sit for YEARS for a new 1472 day and related work? How long did it take the GCRY to put the 4960 through this same process? Only 4 months or so as it had been kept up to proper standards.

Cheers Jason

Perfect example of waiting until an overhaul to solve a mechanical issue, SECR C class 0-6-0 592 on the Bluebell Railway in Sheffield Park, England. Here's an exerpt from the page for 592;
"Mechanically the locomotive was in reasonable order, although the condition of the cylinders may determine how long it runs after overhaul; it is thought likely to require a new cylinder block at a subsequent overhaul."
Regardless of the locomotive, it all comes down to workability. Now, a cylinder block for an inside-coupled engine is far more complicated that 734's valve gear timing, but it goes to detail that the resources for some projects or repairs are best used when needed.

Railroads have been running out of square engines since they stopped using horses. It is not unusual for a locomotive run like that until she gets some time in the shop. Even with the regular climb up to Frostburg she is in much lighter service than a big 2-8-0 could have seen in the days of steam. No big deal.

As far as I'm concerned, the facts are on the table. The locomotive speaks for itself and who maintains it. The point is, if the chief masochist officer was intelligent enough to properly maintain the running gear as Jason so meticulously described, the 15-year or 1,472 service-day inspection would be completed much sooner, and with a lesser costing impact. It's simple business practice that yields high return on investments over time.

Assuming the 734 receives stellar survey numbers on the UT, and no additional boiler work is necessary (such is not often the case), they will now incur the costs of heavy running gear work, which will drive total rebuild costing up further. That will weigh quite heavily on WMSR's decision to rebuild or not.

Based on what I'm seeing happen to the locomotive mechanically at this time, I'd be genuinely surprised to see the WMSR put funds toward a new form 4 IMHO. I hope I'm wrong, and if I am, I wouldn't expect to see 734's return for a number of years.

DC

For the record, if you read the post which you reference notice I said IF. I was speaking hypothetically, for all we know the mechanical management may not be allowed to spend required funds.


Cheers, Jason

I have to disagree. That engine works much harder, at least during peak foliage, than it ever did during its first career. If your talking about 90% of the videos you see on youtube, or any of the photo freights, yes, you are correct. However when she is attempting to lug a fully loaded 14 car train up the C&P grade she is down on all 8's, it's raining cinders, and every chuff hits your chest like an explosion. Unfortunately she usually stalls out and the train has to be split and come up the mountain in two parts. It really is a full body experience that hits all the senses.

Friends,

Please keep discussion within the guidelines. I don't like how this is going.

Tom Gears
Moderator

If it is as you say (and I tend to agree with you for the most part, as I have been witness to what you describe above), then doesn't it seem a little counterintuitive to allow a situation with the running gear and vales to deteriorate to the present condition? There is no way that the locomotive will be able to perform in the above described fashion with steam blowing by the valve rings on at least one side of the locomotive.

First, forget everything you either know or think you know about what ideal conditions and circumstances might be or how things were done in the classical age of steam railroading. Don't even bother with what you feel.....none of this is of greater than academic interest in the real world.

I have no firsthand knowledge of WMSRR and its current circumstances; I have made a career of low budget startups, operating light equipment in punishing service and keeping things going under very marginal circumstances. There's no doubt that the people involved are aware of the problem, and that they have chosen to let it ride for the moment for other reasons. If hobbyists and foamers are aware of it, legitimate railroaders can't be in the dark.

Ther are many good and valid reasons why a master mechanic might choose the strategy of completing the use of the last bit of remaining marginal life in any component of any machine depending on not only the circumstances of the component, but the organic totality of the business surrounding the use of the machine. It isn't about cost in general - its about the competing priorities for time and dollars NOW. It's about planned long term strategies for a whole program of work. It's about shop time, available talent and time, down time, eastern standard time..........sometimes you keep the train running until it is the right time to take it down under planned circumstances, and grit your teeth, cross your fingers and bear with it in the meantime.

Creating the best synthesis of time, talent and money and pulling it together into a cohesive rational program is way harder than the mechanical work itself, which even a foamer can be trained to do.

There's also the rock-VS-hard place balance....which dictates just which of the many pressing and critical issues you need to prioritize as most critical to get through the days business. I'm not saying that's what is going on here....just it is more like the real world than the way things "should be".

There's even the planned demise - run it until it dies knowing that's the final hurrah. Again, not saying that is what is going on here, just it is another valid business case.

So, unless you are the management at WMSRR you don't have any opinion about this specific situation worthy of sharing with anybody because you don't know the circumstances. Why not stop now?

These are tough times; it's a tough business. Cut these guys some slack and wish them well.

Also, TIMING??????? That's what you adjust in the ignition system on a gasoline engine. You SET or TRAIL THE VALVES on a steam locomotive. Learn the language even if you stay ignorant of the business.

dave

You're going to force me to foam a little here. Years back, I vacationed to the Cumberland area to see the 734 rip the grade. She was on point with said 14-car train in tow. We caught her just before entering the curve at Helmstetter's. In my second post, I mention that the 734 was my one of my all time favorites...because of that day. Standing up near the cemetery, she came thundering (and I mean thundering) into the curve with such a strong exhaust beat that it drowned out even the mighty Hancock three-chime that one graced the steamdome. Secondly, the exhaust was so strong up front, it started to flex the smokebox door making the headlight vibrate in a manner similar to a mars light. Now, maybe it wasn't that exaggerated and was probably because the dogs were not as tight as they should have been, but nevertheless what an AWESOME display of sight and sound!



In my time I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of the old-heads who worked in the mechanical departments of railroads such as the N&W, PRR and Southern who referred to valve setting as a locomotive's valve-timing. Just because one book or standard practice words a procedure a certain way doesn't mean its the only definition.

Um, read a book and you will find that SETTING or TRAILING of valves are ways of initially setting or later correcting valve events or TIMING. It is stated as such in many manuals. So, who here is ignorant?



It would seem that when referencing vintage manuals there is no "know or don't know", there is I choose to accept what the railroads determined to be best for long term utilization or I don't. These guys didn't maintain them to the levels they did because they had a bunch of employees standing around with nothing to do, the employees existed in the massive numbers they did to keep the locomotives in an economically manageable condition.

How is it that to many steam operators today can find $500,000 (arbitrary number) to have their employees completely rebuild a locomotive in service after it is beat to death but they could not find $250,000 (proportionately correct arbitrary number) to maintain it to a consistent condition over the course of it's operating life?

John

This is historically correct, factually.....

Cheers, Jason

POLL:
Which of the respondents to this thread, have held a supervisory position in a DAILY operational steam railroad with:
1. A General Manager dictating your budget over motive power and rolling stock,
2. Only one steam locomotive,
3. At least 3 underlings with varying steam experience and expertise?

It is really immature for newbies and wannabes to point out the obvious and then pontificate the evils of not resolving the issue. IF you have a choice of operating inefficiently or not at all, what is the answer? Guys like Dan Pluta with years of making good judgment calls as to what HAS to be fixed and what can live to the next season are the reason the 734 even runs. Ditto, Doyle McCormick, Steve Lee, Ed Dickens, Dan Ranger, John Bush, ad infinitum.......

I contend the subject posters that don't meet the above management qualifications owe the WMR management a public apology here.