I've heard many accounts of new welded boilers for the restoration of steamers that didn't fit. A few right off the top of my head, #100 at Whitewater (now florida), The Glenbrook at the Nevada state railroad museum, and oahu #45 (an outside frame 4-6-0). I know there are more i just can't remember that many right now. Anyways if the boiler maker screwed up the measurements, shouldn't they be entitled to make another one for little to no charge? Seems many projects have no stopped all together or put on hold because of this. I think who ever messed up the measurements is entitled to fix them with a new boiler. So my question is why weren't new boilers made to fix the incorrect ones on these locomotives?

There may be contract issues; the incorrect measurements may not be critical, etc. I refuse to speculate in the absence of specific hard information.

An interesting case where rebuilding IS being made is the boiler made in Meiningen and shipped to Australia for Pacific 3801. Some of the things that were reported to be wrong with the fabrication make Baldwin's work look like Abraham Breguet's. Then there were said to be months of 'delicate negotiations' (probably a code word for blameslinging) culminating in Meiningen agreeing to fix the thing.

A different sort of question came up with respect to the cracking in Tornado's boiler, which could be attributed to using riveted-spec material in a boiler which had had its measurements converted for welded construction. How the 'blame' for this is apportioned when a project is supposed to be a perfect replica is not exactly certain. Here is an example where perfectly good historical measurements turned out to be flat wrong. But was it the contractor/builder's responsibility to fact-check the detail design and *verify* that what was historically correct is now wrong in the new welded design? Whose experts do you trust?


RME

Most of the time railroads sent the original boiler for an exact match so there should be no excuse to why a mistake was made. I dont think i've heard of a railroad not send the original boiler to make a new one.

The "Glenbrook" boiler's problem and the probable reason for the error is reported in the Fall of 2004 issue of the Friends of the Nevada State RR Museum's Sagebrush Headlight.
The on-line PDF of the issue can be found here: http://www.nsrm-friends.org/fal04.pdf

Chris DeWitt, the Museum's Restoration Supervisor, believes the problem to have been the self-assured nature of the outside, contract restoration manager at the start of the project who 1) did not have his drawing of the boiler checked and 2) did not think it necessary to provide the original boiler the boiler fabricator (after all his drawing had to be correct).

I understand that the "Glenbrook" original boiler is going to receive a new pressure course as part of the current project proposal.

In this particular case it makes sense that the manufacturer didn't make a new one. Although it's pretty stupid IMO that they didn't want the original boiler there. But in the other locomotives cases where they had the original boilers there then there's no excuse.

This may come as interesting news to people who died decades ago, and used standard and practice documents along with detailed specs and drawings as well as standard designs. Please tell us just how you reached this conclusion?

Just how experienced are you in the replica boiler manufacturing business? I've noticed a disturbing trend in many of your postings which makes you come across as an overly enthusiastic and baselessly opinionated 14 year old not grounded in the real world of railway preservation. I applaud your interest, but .......wonder about your depth of knowledge.

dave

Do you mean making new boilers back in the day or in the preservation era?

I suppose they could have at least come and measured it, taken photos, and otherwise verify those plans for themselves. It's the very fact that skilled steam knowledge is much less common nowadays which makes trusting someone else's drawings without verification rather iffy.

Then again, if they built what they were contracted to build then it's hardly their fault if it's what the customer ordered but not what the customer needed. Maybe someone can build a locomotive to go with the the new boiler! Sell it to Kloke.

Steve

In the interest of fairness, here is a compressed version of the "Bill Oden" side of things regarding Glenbrook:

http://www.movie-trains.com/resume14.html

which can be reached, with some clicking and patience, from

http://www.movie-trains.com/index.html

One interesting note that is made is that Baldwin drawings of Glenbrook exist at the CSRM; I would think there is at least a good chance that Oden either had access to them or was in fact responsible for their being there. In either case it seems odd that with access to the original drawings, he would produce drawings that did not 'accord' in some way.

Meanwhile, I have a problem with accepting the general tone of Mr. DeWitt's article, especially since Mr. Oden is deceased and can't answer for himself. This may be more than usually significant since there's some evidence of legal action leading to the 'dissolv[ing]' of Short Line Enterprises, and "deWitt-Franklin Engineering" took over the restoration in 1987. It would be interesting to see a neutral account of this controversial issue, including more specific information about what problems there were.

The copies of the 'restoration saga" article that I can access all have what may be incomplete text -- column 2, p.4 ends with "the entire boiler..." and an abbreviated column 3 with "boiler that NSRM received..." and precisely here would be any substantive discussion of what was actually wrong with the design or why it proved unsuitable. There is a drawing with "original shape" and 'error' on it, but no indication why the difference is supposed to be 'error' (other than that it is different from the 'historical' profile) -- I would like to see this situation rectified, perhaps by editing the .pdf file.

Why Mr. DeWitt objects to welded staybolts in a modern small boiler is an issue that might fairly be discussed on RyPN better than any other place. Is this kind of constructional 'improvement' (and I think that, on a boiler this size, proper welded staybolting would be beneficial) a proper aspect of restoration? We are missing (I think) a very interesting opinion about when historical accuracy is at cross purposes with mechanical improvement (and very possibly added safety margins).

While I am firmly in agreement with the general Churchward idea of involving as many people in different disciplines as possible in the design process, I am a bit unclear on exactly who Oden was supposed to have 'sign off' on his design. Wasn't he the lead guy on that restoration? I'm familiar with the 'approved by' box on blueprints being used by senior authority (with a possible exception being Ed King's description of the N&W design office at the time the As were being developed) -- just exactly who else there, at the time, had distinctive competence in boiler design and construction superior to Oden's, or was in a position to exercise control over him?

I did have to chuckle at the idea that $36,500 for construction of a new boiler represented a "project of [such] magnitude" that it would justify sending the original boiler along as a 'check'. I would be somewhat surprised if Dixon, fabricating from plans, would take the time... as part of the scope of the bid price... to go over all the dimensions, especially the course diameter or dome height, and call back to report discrepancies as they found them. (This particularly so with reference to the physical original boiler, when changes to suit applicable ASME regs would have to be determined afterward...) Does anyone else know of a situation in which original boilers were provided strictly as additional fact-checking reference to back up written plans and specs?

Meanwhile, where is the account of the responsibility Dixon bore in this matter? Were they adjudged responsible (or indeed liable) for failure to inquire whether the drawings might not be suitable or precisely drawn, or indeed to ensure through checking whether the replacement boiler would line up and fit the existing locomotive chassis, cab, or other components?

I could easily argue this thing either way. Yes, if I were supervising fabrication at Dixon, I would have obtained a set of Baldwin plans *for the chassis*, and done a measured drawing of the existing chassis to ensure all my datum points would line up through the expected temperature range, etc. (I normally try to avoid 'shoulda woulda coulda' kinds of argument, but this is hypothetical) But I doubt that this was part of the contracted scope of work, and there are plenty of legal and economic reasons why doing additional 'free' work that might potentially add to due-diligence requirements (no matter how sensible I might think ensuring fitness-to-purpose ought to factor into due diligence for professionals, or how sensible that would have turned out in this particular case) might be seen by a business entity as unnecessary. Might it not have been instructive to see the bid prices for this job if detailed comparison with original plans and specs, and independent measurement of the artifact boiler, were included in the contracted scope of work?


RME

Yes I meant locos of today. When restoring one back to operation again.

I am not familiar with all the details of this story, but I had heard Chris' side of the story in person many years ago.

If Dixon had been the General Contractor for the Glenbrook Restoration and they had flawed engineering drawings for the new boiler, AND they were responsible for its installation, then I could see how they would be required to confirm the drawings and ensure their boiler fit the frame. In this scenario, they would be getting paid to provide a working locomotive and all the steps that occurred between Design and Operation would be on their shoulders. It is my understanding they were only contracted to provide a boiler that matched the drawings a specifications of a professional engineer. This puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the designer. Dixon only had to build something that matched what they were asked to make. To say otherwise is to simply misunderstand the relationships that exist between designers, vendors, and contractors. If, however, there were inconsistencies or contradictions within the contract documents, then I believe Dixon should have requested clarification (It is well known amongst architects that if you have redundant dimensions strings, Murphy will ensure that one of them will always be wrong). I do not know the specifics of what went wrong, but this latter scenario would have made them liable.

As an Architect, I know design professionals make mistakes, and I rely upon the eyes of others (in-house and otherwise) to help me root them out, hopefully before they become a problem. When a General Contractor is hired to build a structure from drawings and specifications I have produced, they are obligated to bring any errors or inconsistencies to my attention. It is in their interest to do so, because they share an interest in (and liability for) the successful outcome of the project.

In the building industry, there are systems in place to check the accuracy of our information and to share responsibility. A fabrication needed in a building project would be made from shop drawings provided by the Contractor and checked by the Architect (me) before fabrication may commence. Does a Fabricator hired by the Contractor have to also check the site conditions or design drawings? No, absolutely not.

Having one engineer responsible for the accuracy of a crucial fabrication creates a more than plausible opportunity for a small error to result in failure. When that engineer is working in-house for the contractor responsible for the project, then that contractor needs to be doubly careful, because they are solely bearing the liability associated with delivering the project for the amount they bid the job.

In addition to the well-worn saying, "measure twice, cut once," one may want to add, have a peer check your work.

Mr. Seybold,

Your original question is very one sided, which, is fine. I can see, as a railfan why anybody would take the position that you have on an incorrect new boiler. Having read the rest of the thread, I can see where most comments are practical and appropriate. What I feel is lacking from the discussion are the following key points;

A.) The cost of a new boiler is very high. We at Wasatch Railroad Contractors are currently building new boilers for the country of Ecuador for their 42 inch gauge steam locomotives. It is impractical to have the old boilers shipped to the USA as "patterns". The cost of the material alone is well over 25% of the total cost of the project. If we had to bank on the fact that our first boiler would simply be a "sample", we would then have to factor in enough money to build TWO boilers, when only one would be delivered. This alone would double or triple the cost of a new boiler. The new boilers for Ecuador are not cheap by any stretch. If I had to double the cost, just to cover a mistake, our company would not have gotten the job. The answer to your question of 100% replacement if a mistake is made eliminates any option to compete (business wise) in boiler construction. The sad news is; The boiler mistakes that have been made were made by people (companies/contractors/consultants) who have NEVER built that type of boiler in the first place and who, most likely won the job because they were the low bidder and had not done the job before to know what it actually cost to do the job. The lesson of this point is; when building a boiler, hire a company with a track record of succeeding at boiler building and then, make sure the price was fair (maybe not the best, but fair.)

B.) The issue with the Tornado boiler was NOT a manufacturing issue. I repeat, as I have a dozen times or more; The Tornado people have never exposed the source of the real problem and in my own book, we do not have a firm answer to the issue with the Tornado. The German folks have built plenty of boilers with a high success rate. I maintain, other factors were to blame for the issue with the Tornado. Stop blaming the builder of the boiler!!!!!!!! The boiler was the victim, not the culprit.

C.) For those of us who have succeeded at boiler construction, we know something that the folks at Baldwin and ALCO and Lima all knew. That is; There are a few critical dimensions on any boiler. Notably, the position of the furnace bearers and the smoke box. From these locations, there is actually a lot of latitude (or can be a great amount of latitude). The original boiler plans to any boiler.....MEAN NOTHING!!!!! Why is that the FRA requires us to do a new Form 4? Short Answer; Because they know as well as a few of us that the original drawings mean NOTHING when it comes to the actual construction of the boiler on the locomotive bed (frame). I am yet to see an original boiler drawing that matches 100% the actual original unit I have on the floor!

Now, we can tie all of this back to point A.) If you want a correct boiler, that can be installed on the frame properly, hire a company and a consultant and a contractor that has actually done the job before and has succeeded at it. In all of the cases that have been discussed, you will find that one of the three has actually never done the job they were hired to do. In most cases, it was not the contractor (Dixon made a great product and was good at what they did). Go study all of your case studies again and find out how many of the people listed in the stories had actually ever done what they had set out to do.

Stop blaming the boiler builders.....start blaming the blind who are leading each other!

The answer to the question; Until boiler builders have people behind them that know as much about locomotives as they know about boilers.....we will probably always face this issue. Study closely the company/contractors and consultants of your next boiler project closely before you spend the next penny.

Just some free, 100% refundable kind and well placed suggestions to any group considering a new boiler for their steam restoration project.

Always yours,

Hi John,

Hey, about (A): cool! Is this news? Where can we learn more? I guess the Ecuador folks are serious about maintaining their historic trains if they are spending for new boilers.

I had a fuel tank that came in at 3'6" rather than 36" because a bug had died on the glass in the fax machine and left a smudge in just the wrong place when it was cleaned off. Shit happens, it's the railroad. 3 and 8 could be confused by some similar printing or typography error.

dave