It is now 2016, and a number of locomotives are entering their second FRA mandated 1472 Day inspection and refit. It is one thing to perform the 1472 on a locomotive being brought back from 30 or 40 years as a static display, and quite another for the second cycle. We know that the initial 1472 costs between $750,000 and $1.5 million. What does the second cycle typically end up costing? This information is of interest to everyone who must figure out how to plan for having the cash on hand for the next 1472.

So far, what is the experience in terms of required work and costs when comparing the first 1472 with the second? What kinds of wear and tear is being encountered? Have there been any surprises?

Greetings:
Valley Railroad (http://www.essexsteamtrain.com ) finished it's 2nd 1472 on our No.40 in October 2015. When taken out of service, it had 1467 Service Days used.
As mentioned previously (on rypn and "The Engine House Blog on our website), we choose to "fractionalize" the work as we couldn't spare the locomotive for an extended period of time (not to mention we spread the cost over 2 years).
First, the wheel work (all wheel sets on the locomotive) was done by Strasburg. The drivers were becoming "tread worn hollow", not condemnable yet, but unlikely to make another "term of service" prior to becoming so. Nothing was done to the axles or crank pins as we had done them in 1992 and all were found to still be well within backshop tolerances. Brake and spring rigging pins and bushing were replaced as needed.
Second, we did the boiler and firebox work. The boiler was stripped, the inside sandblasted, inspected and painted with Apexior (the Apexior from the last time was still 100% intact), the outside was needle chipped, inspected, primed and painted with a Rust-o-leum high temp. paint. Since time was of the essence, we bought a new set of boiler tubes rather than safe ending the old ones which were still in excellent condition. I would note that since we did the No.3025, the difference in cost between new tubes and safe ending has shrunk considerably. No firebox work was needed save cleaning out tell-tale holes and doing a caps job. Perhaps a dozen caps were replaced due to worn threads.
We did do some mechanical work at this time. The main rod bearings were renewed (big and small ends), the side rod bearings were removed, babbitted, bored to size and reinstalled. Also, all of the rods were converted from grease to oil lubrication.
All of the above was accomplished for less than $200K.
BUT, nothing has been charged against the cost of running the shop (heat, repairs, standard supplies kept in stock, administration, etc.
No "surprises" were found. These are generally found during the daily or monthly inspections and are dealt with at that time.
Be well,
J.David

The first one is almost always far more expensive, if for no other reason than it reveals the stuff that was already beyond limits or is borderline. The astute operator will go a little beyond "just enough to make it Another 1,472 days.

The REALLY astute operator will do repairs that will last far longer than just another cycle. Thus, the next 1,472 will not have any borderline items to worry about, as those would have been addressed in the one before.

The first scycle will also yield data that will allow the operator to figure out lifecycles of components, which allows far more accurate planning and budgeting.

Think the question is an interesting one. It would seem fairly logical that the second 1472 would be cheaper to complete. Barring some unfortunate discovery that was missed the first time around most locomotives are not used very hard. Barring a few examples, the majority are not worked very hard very often.

Just a note. I do not think that every 1472 has to cost as much as mentioned. Not all locomotives are NKP Berks or C&O monsters. If you have talented owners and crews the cost can be much lower. The Polson #2 {Saginaw # or Raynier #2} had the "real" engineering study done, extensive firebox and barrel work, tires turned, new main axle, new tank, cyl bored and running gear gone through, new crown and rod brass and a host of minor things that all add up into a huge undertaking. His cost was under $250,000. Gary B oversaw much of the critical work so it was not a butcher job either. The point here is you don't have to spend as much as some folks do. Granted some folks do not have the talent available to them to do a lot of the smaller tasks or they want the locomotive done in two years where the cost of labor is going to be more as paid labor is quicker. I think some organizations throw money around somewhat carelessly but that is just my opinion. Point is there is more than one way to skin a cat, or rebuild a locomotive.

The SY at Valley to me was a very interesting job and interesting to watch. Was surprised at how much work went into it. Originally thought it would of been less extensive. But as LP suggests they went for the long haul and next time the work hopefully will be much less as anything questionable was addressed at the time of the 1st 1472. At least it seemed that way to me when I followed the project from a far distance away.

Slightly off topic, but J. David just how is the SY working out for the organization? Normally don't go for anything Chinese, but that SY just fascinates me. Probably because of the rather late production, potential sustainability {buzz word that I dislike} and good looks. Regards, John.

Hi John:
Prior to purchasing SY1658M (now VRR 3025) at the auction, we already knew that the much of the running and driving gear was badly worn, so we budgeted for turning all the wheels, replacing all rod bearings & valve gear pins & bushings, rebuilding the lead and trailing trucks, spring and brake rigging, etc.
This locomotive had just under 100K miles on it, but it was badly worn. Why? Well for several reasons. First, a good bit of the K&K was built as 3 foot narrow gauge and when it was converted to Standard gauge they did not re-alline the track, so it had miles of very sharp curves. Second, the track was in very poor condition (out of cross level, etc.) Lastly, the locomotive was not well maintained.
Ron Amberger (ME), who did the original FRA Form 4 on the locomotive was invited by Sloan for a cab ride, at the end of a hair raising trip, Sloan said: "I love this locomotive, you never have to do any maintenance on it".
J.David
PS: We also planned on the typical 1472 Service Day boiler work plus adding a second steam dome liner.
We didn't have to make a new cab or modify the tender, etc., that we did for ourselves!
PPS:We budgeted $550K for the project (including acquision and transportation. It actually cost $670K, but it has been a reliable performer.
PPPS: It is in the shop now for it's 5 year (flexible staybolt) inspection. A bit premature, but we don't want it coming due during our Christmas Season!
JDC

Thanks for the history lesson. Guess I had no idea on how many miles she had on her. Figured it came in country rebuilt and had few miles on her. There I go figuring again ha! Guess that explains the extensive running gear work. Thanks for answering, your posts are often quite interesting and I love the little details you ad to them.

Regards, John.

.

J David - just glad you went into the SY with your eyes wide open, as we 'locals' watched a showroom-new 1985-era 2-8-2 get to the point where the tender was leaking heavily and the running gear was beginning to sound beaten. Spot on comments. I was dismayed in its condition when I went to Marienville just before the bridge came down. The SY was pretty flexible, but the line and surface were just completely beaten from coal traffic under B&O/CSX, and it just had cinder ballast. The Marienville-Knox segment was basically embargoed after a tie program, it further destabilized the surface so badly the loaded freight cars started rocking off.

At TSRR, the #300 (with a new Dixon boiler at the last 1472) came in at around $380K with very little additional heavy work in 2009; some lead truck corrections, general fix-up but nothing really major and has finished up a 5-year in pretty good shape as well. The #400 was more problematic with a thin door sheet that had to be completely cut out and replaced, but that was the worst of it. It finished up in the high $700 range in 2015. That was off the original boiler that really hadn't had any previous heavy work.

Both those were paid force-account grant labor with TSRR staff. As they say, your mileage may vary, but you really don't know anything meaningful until you complete a boiler survey - tubes out and torn down.