I was just looking through the Steam Info site, and just happened upon the notes on Showalter's engines, which stated that the engines both need new boilers. Now is this typical armchair railfan know it all crappola, or are do the boilers suffer from issues relating to their being constructed from Alloy Steels? I know some late boilers suffered from cracking of these high strength boiler materials, but I don't know if these CP engines used them.

Not being an engineer, I can't speak authoritatively, but the CPR G5 Pacifics were a fairly advanced design in their time. The boilers were designed to be superior to anything built previously. Quite possibly, the best person to talk to would be Ross Rowland, who maintained a solid relationship with 1278 in fan trip service.

I'm not a mechanic so can only comment that I found the G 5's to be excellent runners and very capable machines.

Jack's engines have been out of service for many years and would have to go through the full FRA workup before returning to service.

Ross Rowland

Thanks, Brer Ross,
I know that the engines would take a 1475 day teardown, workup and fixup, but the "new boiler needed" notation was somewhat startling. I had always heard the Santa Fe and the Pennsy experienced some problems with new boilers made out of high tensile strength alloy steels on some of their most modern power, and was just curious if the G5s were so equipped and thus afflicted. I know I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with the several G5s run in the last thirty or forty years, but then I don't hear everything. I also wondered if some of the cracking problems associated with the material may or may not have been mitigated by proper annealing/heat treating of the vessel. I guess the simple question is did the G5s use the super duper modern steel prone to cracking??

G-5 boiler issues were discussed way back...

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24511&view=next

Yes, the G-5's used a higher tensile steel for the boiler courses. Several of these locos we have helped restore still have riveted patches applied to the original courses - some patches stepping over a circumferential or longitudinal seam. The Ohio Central #1293 - currently in service - has a replacement boiler from 1952 if I recall correctly. Still a riveted boiler- but the 1952 version used the older standard tensile steel. Some roads had little problems with the higher tensile steels -due to excellent water chemistry I believe. But other roads had many problems. One of the reports I read pinned most of the blame for the later cracking problems on poor bullriveting practice/ poor fit up when the boiler was riveted together. I believe the problems that the Santa Fe had with the 2900 Class boilers were determined to be caused by poor fit up and bull riveting practice at the Baldwin Works. Most of these locos received replacement welded courses or entire new boilers under a warranty settlement with Baldwin in 1952 or 53. And the cost of that put most of the nails into the BLW coffin.
I am unaware of Jack Showalter's locos having fatal flaws as described.

Thanks for calling this to my attention. The note in question should not have been approved for display in the first place. It has been removed from the system. My apologies to all concerned.

Gary- that's very interesting info. That had to be another one of those issues that not only hurt BLW, but steam in general.

I had read somewhere that the root of the problem was the use of hydraulic punches to make the rivet holes in the alloy steel used for the boilers. While this was acceptable practice for conventional steels, it apparently resulted in the formation of microscopic cracks around the perimeter of the rivet holes in the high tensile steel boilers. After the boilers were assembled and put into service, the microscopic cracks grew under normal stresses until they enlarged into full-blown cracks which had to be dealt with. Apparently the water treatment used exacerbated the problem. The implication was that if drilling had been used to make the rivet holes there would likely have not been a problem.

As if it were yesterday I recall sitting in the firebox of OC 1293 with Gary B. and others talking about the firebox. We talked at length about the alloy boiler and the troubles that came with it.

Gary said in his post that the failure of these alloy boilers was the death nail in the BLW coffin. To an extent I agree. However, when looking at the following time line, I think this experience for BLW was simply the hammer setting the nails in the coffin. Or, it was the first solve of dirt on top of the coffin resting in a deep, deep grave. Why are my comments so harsh?

In the early 1940's we see this mass acceleration of welding practices. The idea of welding and the use on boilers is gaining steam with the ASME, codes are being written, railroads are developing practices and the current rage is "WELDING" Science begins to show that our steel quality can be better. We have just endured WWII and a supply shortage ( one of the driving factors behind the development of alloys was to expand the range of acceptable materials and get more mileage out of every ounce of ore possible). Railroads are calling for disposable boilers (the Canadian G5 Fire box is an example of a disposable firebox. The Pennsylvania K4 Boiler, as I understand things, was intended to be a disposable boiler.

What you end up with is steam manufactures that were forced (by virtue of the war) to develop new practices, railroads demanding lower maintenance and down time as well as the application of the more cost effective welding all while in the mid 1930's these things called diesels showed up.

While GE and EMD set out to perfect this thing called "diesel", ALCO, Baldwin and Lima were still wasting time on this boiler issue. A few years too late into the game, ALCO, Lima and Baldwin all jumped into the diesel game, spending RD money on new boilers, new diesels and trying to win a fight that was won in 1930-something with the first EMD FT's. EMD built the BLW works coffin. BLW works failure to enter the game of modernization was too late, which is what lined the coffin. The continuance of steam technology by all three (ALCO, LIMA and BLW) was the death of each one of them. Failures in the technology of both alloy steels and welding practices was the first shovel full of dirt on the coffin in the deep grave, dug and paid for by GE and EMD.

Nothing (save government regulation) can stay the hand of modernization. When somebody comes up with a better idea that does more, costs less and is easier to take care of.....it wins.....hands down every time.

This G5 boiler issue really hurt BLW......but....it was just one event of many that finished it off for good. God Bless America and our enterprising attitude with-in the market place! All part of the reason we have RYPN and the internet to discuss these issues ;)

Always,

Let's not revise history too much, Mr. Rimmasch. Alco was actually a bit ahead of EMD in production of a road diesel with the RS-1 road-switcher starting in 1941. And Alco and GE enjoyed a lengthy partnership that lasted into the late 1950's. GE built lots of small industrial diesel locomotives as far back as the 1920's, and electric locomotives before that. GE's first road locomotive was the U-25b, production of which began in 1959, several years after Baldwin (by then Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton) had gone out of the locomotive business. There's no denying that Baldwin somehow totally missed the boat, but Alco managed to compete fairly well with EMD until its partnership with GE dissolved. EMD was able to win the battle of the locomotives over Baldwin, Lima and Alco because it had the backing of General Motors, with nearly unlimited resources. I've worked on and run EMD, Alco, GE and even Baldwin diesel locomotives, and EMD's win hands down.

As far I as know, the G5 class was built in Canada by MLW and CLC, except for the first two that were Angus-built. How does Baldwin fit in the G5 picture? Did they build the boilers?

Gary mentioned the shoddy workmanship BLW did on the AT&SF 2900's, but I am not getting the connection of BLW to the CPR G5's.

Rob

Good point Matt. We're mixing up Santa Fe 4-8-4 classes.

IIRC the 2900's were built during WWII when the alloy steel wasn't available (at least not for locomotive boilers) requiring the use of thicker carbon steel for the boilers resulting in them being the heaviest 4-8-4's ever. This was a blessing in disguise as they avoided the boiler problems that afflicted the earlier 4-8-4's equipped with alloy steel boilers.

Indeed, in my parting comment I made mention that, "This G5 Boiler issue really hurt BLW"....I meant to suggest that this "Alloy Steel Issue really hurt BLW" Miss-used my parting comment.....very sorry.

To the poster about the history of the diesel. I was speaking in big general terms. Your history lesson is much more involved and accurate, none the less hitting on the same point.....EMD won the battle no matter how long any of them stayed in the game!

Kindly,

Seems like the engines built with Nickel steel alloy boilers were the ones that we bad for developing cracks. Frisco's 4300s, MP's 2100s are two that come to mind.
Think I read somewhere that when ATSF dieselized, there were still a couple new boilers on the property and they were scrapped also. Shame.