Trevor Heath, a visitor to www.steamlocomotive.info, posted the following note for CP 4-8-4 No. 3101:



Thought y'all might find it interesting.

Very interesting, and thank you for the posting. The sister locomotive is stored indoors in Ottawa, in excellent condition, except for a few cab parts stolen by Museum visitors!

This particular locomotive will make a very interesting running mate to the 2816.

These would be the only two 4-8-4s ever owned by the Canadian Pacific, correct? The funny thing about CP locomotives is they looked so nice in service that you couldn't tell if they were freight engines or passenger engines unless you saw them hauling trains.

Yup! The whole roster of CPR 4-8-4's were saved. I wonder which other railroads could say they preserved an entire class?

Intrestingly - according to the new book by Omer Lavallee 'Canadian Pacific to the East' the 3101 and 3100 were reassigned to Montreal - St. John service, but due to there nickel steel boilers the ICC wouldn't allow the engines to come across the International of Maine Div. So they would switch power at Megantic, PQ from the northerns to G3's for the trip across Maine. This only lasted during the summer and fall of '54. So there is you little fun fact of the day.

Seeing the 3100's go across the very hilly Sherbrooke must have been impresive for those few months. Maybe we'll see something like that again!

-Justin

I have heard it oft quoted that the CPR northers were banned from US service because of their nickel steel boilers.

I have never heard the details of why. After all, there were US locomotives with them, as well as other Canadian locos.

Can anyone shed light on why these particular locomotives were supposedly banned?

Rob

Rob;

I just read some commons on the steam_tech form that nickel steel boilers suffered from minute cracking around the rivet holes when they were punched. This cracking lead to premature failing of the boiler shell; many steam locomotives with nickel steel boilers had to be retired early because of this (PRR Q class were given as an example), more quickly ushering in their diesel replacements.

Carbon steel boilers did not have this problem. So maybe that is the reason why.

Hi James,

Interesting. If cracking was a known issue, I wonder why the Canadians were more tolerant?

Rob

Greetings:
I had some experience with CPR steam locomotives with "nickel" boilers while working for Steamtown Foundation.
The class G-5s were built with boilers using "modern" materials. Nos. 1246 and 1278 both have their original boilers, Both have large patches due to cracking in the circumferential seams.
No. 1293, built in 1948, recieved an entire new boiler in 1950, paid for and supplied by the builder, Canadian Locomotive Co.
I was told that the earlier G-5 boilers were patched when they cracked, the later ones were replaced.
Chris Ahrens (another former Steamtown Foundation CMO) might have more/better information on this subject...
J.David

J. David,

Thank you for the first-hand info. It explains a lot, but it leaves me further perplexed as to why the Northerns were banned from US operation, but both 1246 and 1278 ran long excursion lives here.

Of course, I have to wonder with the info you have shared, if 1293's fate as the only operating G-5s is partly because of her "new" boiler?

Rob

J. David -

Interesting info. I believe, if I recall correctly, that the last CP G-5 built was #1301. Or roughly a total of about 100 engines. But I think I read somewhere recently, that there were supposed to be many more G-5's built. The program apparently cancelled a/c diesels. I wonder if the builders of the G-5's had some boilers on hand for the expanded program and when the cracks started coming, they used these boilers on the worst cases. But of course, if that WAS the case, then these boilers too would almost certainly be nickel steel and not carbon. You mentioned J. David that 1293 got a new boiler, but didn't specifically mention that it was a carbon boiler. Do you know?

Also would be interesting to find out WHICH of the G-5's got new boilers. Does a list exist somewhere?

Les

Dear Les:
I am sorry, I don't recall if No. 1293's new boiler was the same material as the original. It did, however, carry the same boiler pressure: 250PSI.
J.David

Hi J. David,

Is the chemical composition of the alloy known? Also, is there any information beyond cracking such as the cracking type or any other analytical information?

Thanks,
Robby

Hugh Odom is a regular poster here and speak for himself; I am simply quoting here his complete posting on the steam_tech forum:



To sum up other postings since; other posters thought the practice of punching holes was banned around/before WWI; and that holes were instead drilled and reamed as stated in engineering books of the time. If that is the case, then failure due to punched holes is not correct; caustic embrittlement or other issues were the problem.

A locomotive boiler is a great environment for the formation and propagation of cracks. Caustic embrittlement is probably an intergranular cracking that is caused by high energy levels between the grain boundaries. What caused this high energy? If a good chemical analysis of the actual steel is known we may find that the nickel may or may not be the problem. Tramp elements which were not as well controlled during that era (largely because they were undetected at sensitive enough levels during the era) lead to a lot of failures including liberty ships. How tramp elements are distributed thru the microstructure can tell us a lot.

Punching may have had an effect but I suspect there is more than just the issue of punching. I suspect a compounding of issues in this case. With tramp elements affecting the interface between grain interfaces we would see more crack development from a punching activity than we would see if it was not there. Until I know more all I have is possibilities.

Robby