| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| To re-boiler or not to re-boiler https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18096 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Jason Midyette [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
I have a question that I would like to get people's input on;Let's say you have a small 2-8-0 that is undergoing restoration and a chance has been offered for a fully funded operational restoration in exchange for the locomotive being used on a tourist railroad. The locomotive retains its original 1898 steel, lap seam boiler. The boiler barrel is in good shape but the firebox needs majore repairs (crown sheet, door sheet and partial side sheet replacement) The locomotive is going to be used in daily service on a tourist railroad for ten years. Following that it will be returned to the city that owns it for display or limited operation. (display being the more likley outcome). The railroad that it will be used on is insular and thus the locomotive does not have to meet FRA standards, but will be inspected by the state boiler inspector in a state that allows lap seam boilers.The locomotive is also the only surviving locomotive from the railroad that first owned it, one of a handful of surviviors from the company that built it and one of only two surviving narrow gauge locomotives from that builder. The boiler, cylinders, frame, drive wheel centers and side rods are all original to the locomotve and have never been replaced since he day it left the factory.The entity that is funding the operational restoration has determined that a new boiler is the way to go and is willing to pay for a new boiler. The old boiler would be saved, entirely intact.Given all of this, what would you do? From an operations standpoint a new boiler is a no brainer. From a historical preservation standpoint, quite the opposite may be true. Is it worth getting rid of a major chunk of the original locomotive in order to see the rest of it run?ThanksJason MidyetteThe folks funding the restoration have decided that a new boiler is the way to go |
|
| Author: | johnacraft [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Jason Midyette wrote: From an operations standpoint a new boiler is a no brainer. From a historical preservation standpoint, quite the opposite may be true. Is it worth getting rid of a major chunk of the original locomotive in order to see the rest of it run? Isn't this a false choice? Why does obtaining a new boiler force you to "get rid of a major chunk of the original locomotive?" Why not put the original boiler aside, run the locomotive with the new boiler for 10 years, then reinstall the original boiler when it's time to put the loco on display again?JAC
|
|
| Author: | survivingworldsteam [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
johnacraft wrote: Jason Midyette wrote: From an operations standpoint a new boiler is a no brainer. From a historical preservation standpoint, quite the opposite may be true. Is it worth getting rid of a major chunk of the original locomotive in order to see the rest of it run? Isn't this a false choice? Why does obtaining a new boiler force you to "get rid of a major chunk of the original locomotive?" Why not put the original boiler aside, run the locomotive with the new boiler for 10 years, then reinstall the original boiler when it's time to put the loco on display again?JAC |
|
| Author: | crij [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Actually there is another option, that I have heard of being done on steam tractors. Which is to install a new boiler within the original boiler shell.The old boiler would be gutted, and slide plates would be installed within the old boiler, to allow the expansion of the inner boiler. The Hp rating would be reduced because the boiler would be smaller, but for a tourist situation, it would probably not be noticed unless they plan on running the engine with proto-typical car loading.Basically this would be the best of both worlds. The tourist road would have a FRA rated modern boiler, the original boiler would be preserved, and the heat of the new boiler would keep the original shell dry while preserving it from rusting. Most people don't realize that moisture being trapped between the ground and the boiler when in storage, is the major reason why some stored boilers never get reunited with the original machine. The only way to prevent this would be to store the boiler inside a building, up on a rack or metal dollies.Also from an inspector's point of view, they would be dealing with a boiler that they are used to, instead of an old riveted boiler. Also what would the tourist railroad do if the state changes it rules to outlaw riveted lap seam boilers, and they have to get another new boiler or retire the locomotive?Regards,Rich C. |
|
| Author: | Randy Gustafson [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Jason, I hadn't heard that the plan was to preserve the old boiler. That really changes it in my mind. I hadn't really been much in favor of this myself before I heard this approach.If the old boiler really can be preserved - where preserved doesn't mean essentially wrecked on removal or abandoned in the middle of a field until somebody ever tries to find it again - that's a pretty good plan. The boiler is a living record of technology here, not everybody may love it, but it still is. Most times the old boilers are immediately lost and scrapped. Or they've been messed up beyond all recognition before the decision is made to build a replacement, and then it is moot anyway.I wonder out loud if this approach was even considered for one of the more irreplaceable yet wonderful locos out there - Strasburg 1223 - the surviving PRR D16sb. At the time I'd heard that the firebox was just too far gone and rather than 'ruin' it they retired her to the museum. I'm glad she's OK, but I'll never forget that sharp, authoratative bark to her exhaust, either, and wish my kids could hear it. After the 10-year period, the replacement boiler will certainly have useful life remaining. Is there anything else out there it might be useful on? Should that be considered in the initial design? |
|
| Author: | Randy Gustafson [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
I had a client that tried that exact option on a locomotive that was on the National Register. They had obtained a good-sized TEA-21 grant for boiler rehab, and this was the preferential approach - the high-pressure boiler inside the original shell.The State Historic Preservation Office went kinda nuts when the plan was announced, and promptly withdrew their support for the grant, and actively fought against the approach, because the original boiler (and the technology) was no longer 'historic'.In the end, the project was not done, the grant expired, and the locomotive is out of service today. |
|
| Author: | Danska [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
It seems to me that gutting a boiler and installing a new one inside the original shell would be akin to removing the original engine from an AC Mack truck, scrapping it and installing a new modern engine, but keeping the original Mack bull-dog hood.Historical integrity is gone. |
|
| Author: | Mike LaBouliere [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
I agree with the option of putting on a new boiler and setting aside the old one. If they were to restore the original boiler than it would require them to replace the crown sheet door sheet and partial side sheet as Jason mentioned. By doing this the boiler is for historical intents and purposes not original. If the goal is to one day be able to reassemble the locomotive with its original parts for display/historical purposes, then putting the original boiler in "mothballs" so to speak is the best option. Setting aside other parts may be a good idea as well. If they are willing to put a new boiler on it for operation then I say go for it just make sure the original isn't damaged or left to rot in the process. |
|
| Author: | jd johnson [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Jason,I was at the Monticello Railway Museum in Monticello, Illinois a few weeks ago. They have put a brand new boiler on the Southern 401 which is also a 2-8-0. They saved the old boiler for display.You may want to ask them how they arrived at their decision.By the way, the new boiler looks really well made and it was made in ST. Louis, I was told.Take Care,JD Johnson, Morehead and North Fork Railroad Historian |
|
| Author: | crij [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Danska wrote: It seems to me that gutting a boiler and installing a new one inside the original shell would be akin to removing the original engine from an AC Mack truck, scrapping it and installing a new modern engine, but keeping the original Mack bull-dog hood.Historical integrity is gone. Actually Danska, what I am talking about would be more analogous to remachining the block, heads and manifolds of a 1940 Mack engine to install 1999 Mack cylinder liners, pistons, camshaft, crankshaft, etc... Normal servicing of a boiler is to replace the crown sheet (at least every few), flues and tube sheets, thus you are keeping the same historical materials, whether you reflue her or insert a boiler within the old shell.Regards,Rich C.
|
|
| Author: | Dennis Storzek [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
But, unlike a steam traction engine, what people see as the "boiler" on a locomotive is actually the jacket. The common method of re-boilering a locomotive is essentially slipping a new boiler inside the original housing, in this case the jacket.After coming out strongly against altering the original fabric of artifacts several times in recent discussions, I'm going to surprise everyone by taking the opposite position this time.When we talk of preservation, we really could be talking about several different things, depending how we want to interpret the artifact. We could be talking about preserving the APPEARANCE of the artifact, the FUNCTION of the artifact, or the TECHNOLOGY that went into it. Ideally, we would like to preserve all three, but as it stands now, two of the three is the best we can hope for. As the locomotive is presently, it has the appearance and the technology, but because of the potential liabilities of operating lap seam boilers, will never again have function. Fitted with a new boiler made to the same dimensions as the original, it will retain the appearance and function, at cost of the technology. However, what says that all three have to be preserved in the same place? Mounted on the engine, the technology of the lap seam boiler is all but invisible the vast majority of people. Cut into a sectional view, the same lap seam boiler can become a wonderful display of the technology, while the locomotive continues to function without it. With a bit of luck, or perhaps some intensive ultrasound testing to find a questionable spot on the seam, the section could even intersect the seam at a place where a hidden internal crack is forming, that becoming the best teaching tool ever concerning the shortcomings of the technology. Once the boiler becomes a technology display, it needn't be located where the locomotive is; it becomes its own stand alone technology exhibit, to be displayed somewhere where the emphasis is on the technology rather than just the ride. |
|
| Author: | Alan Maples [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Quote: Why not put the original boiler aside, run the locomotive with the new boiler for 10 years, then reinstall the original boiler when it's time to put the loco on display again? It would seem to me that unless funds are specifically allocated to 1) store and protect the old boiler, and 2) reinstall said old boiler after ten years, for practical purposes this is a permanent boiler replacement with a high likelihood of the old boiler becoming a liability to someone.We can only speculate what the circumstances may be in ten years, but I would bet the idea of removing a perfectly serviceable boiler and replacing it with the old boiler would not make sense to anybody. I would guess the owner of the locomotive would want to take it back complete with all leasehold improvements. There are a lot of interesting ideas floating in this thread, but in my opinion, if preserving the locomotive's "historic fabric" is an overriding concern, then best to leave it alone, unless very specific contractual obligations - with with escrow funds - are in place to return it to its original state.Alan Maples
|
|
| Author: | gmray [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
The lap seam could be reinforced (as many were done) and not require the annual inspections per Part 230. The application of the reinforcing plate would add rivets to the seam but the plate itself would be on the inside of the boiler. |
|
| Author: | Gavin Hamilton [ Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
I have great difficulty in understanding the reasoning that arrives at "don't replace any parts" that seems prevelent amongst US railfans. In the times when locomotives and rolling stock were used in everyday service parts (including boilers) were replaced when necessary and these replacements did not always comply with the original design.I am UK based (and active in preservation circles) and if a new boiler is the route to go then we go down that road. Old boilers are sometimes scrapped to provide components for the new one.After all it can be compared to replacing worn out tyres on a car......G |
|
| Author: | Randy Hees [ Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: To re-boiler or not to re-boiler |
Put a new boiler on the locomotive, rebuild the running gear as needed and take the old boiler and place it on a pedestal in the parking lot as a display. If a boiler has a preservation value in itself (other than allowing us to claim that the loco is XX% original by weight) it is its design and construction with is invisible under normal circumstances. A new, well designed boiler (meaning in terms of maintaining the locomotive’s original appearance, not in terms of its ability to boil water and hold pressure) will not substantially effect the locomotive’s appearance or its interpretive potential. Wouldn’t the old boiler better serve as an independent interpretive piece, possibly even sectioned to allow the public to see things like the crown sheet, and stays?As noted by others, preservation is not leaving the old boiler sitting in the weeds on the Colorado Plains. Planning to reinstall the old boiler is unrealistic.You can argue that repairing an old boiler, even extensive repairs continues a history of railroad care, and adds to the artifact, but only as long as the repairs are made in the way the railroad would have. On a loco like this one the railroad repairs would have most likely included rivets which would not be used today. On the other hand putting a new boiler inside the old would create a technological freak, something that the railroad would have never done. Replacing the boiler with a new unit was at least an occasional railroad repair.Arguing that a locomotive is better preserved by static display works if you are the Smithsonian, the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, the B&O or CSRM, but the option for this locomotive is a park in Boulder Colorado, which has not been a good site for railroad preservation until the recent volunteer efforts, and which even with those volunteer efforts is an outside park display, subject to weather and vandals. Your time would be better served working with the City (and the restoration shop(s)) to assure that any work done on the locomotive is proper, from a preservation view, not just a quick and dirty job to get it running. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|