Building upon Doug's excellent description on bunker oil combustion -- in later years, certain facilities on the SP (as one of my mentors says, "the first and last American railroad to run oil-fired steam...and for good reason!") were equipped with natural gas lines for lighting off cold locomotives when house steam was not available. The gas hose tapped into oil main between the firing valve and the burner and the locomotive would be brought up to minimum pressure necessary to operate the tank/line heaters, blower and atomizer (or full operating pressure in some cases, as described in on p.39 in the 1/1/47 issue SP firing manual). The Roaring Camp & Big Trees still uses a similar practice today, although the branch pipe for the gas is tapped in before the firing valve to allow control of the fire from the cab (the SP would have to regulate gas fires from the ground, either from a plug valve on the locomotive's fuel main or the gas column in the roundhouse), and the engines are always switched over by 50-60psi.

Prior to that, the only other real way to get pressure up for the heaters without the availability of house steam was to light a careful wood fire (Edaville was doing this with their oil-fired Hudswell Clarke when I was there some years ago). This was permissible until the end on the SP system long as care was taken not to damage the brickwork and embers were completely burned/cleaned out of the firepan before the locomotive was moved to prevent starting lineside fires.

And while rare, it was also not totally unheard of for a locomotive which could burn bunker without preheating. The late SP hogger Neil Vodden often spoke of a certain MT class which had a pension for loving cold oil and fired perfectly with the heaters completely shut off!

The 148 came to Black River with a full tank of Bunker C. Since there was no house steam available, we used the wood fire method to get up enough steam to run the tank heater, which had more than a few leaks. After several weekends of trying to burn water, there was enough room in the tank to start diluting the Bunker C with waste oil- which also had it's fair share of water.

I've been away from steam for quite awhile, but my understanding is that waste oil is now considered a hazmat, and by law must be disposed of by properly licensed facilities. If so, that takes waste oil out of the picture for use as a relatively inexpensive steam locomotive fuel.

Check your state laws and the EPA and DoE - I think waste oil can be considered hazmat in transporting bulk quantities, dumping, or disposing improperly, but as I understand it, burning it for "energy" is allowable. Check out the number of links from any search engine if you look up "burn waste oil" with heaters for homes and industries. One industry that I know burns filtered waste oil is asphalt plants, they need the BTU content.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/usedoil/usedoil.htm#how
BTW - I'm pretty sure burning it in a loco is using it as energy. ;-)

Sully

SP 2472 burns a mixture of "waste oil" that has been processed by the oil recycling plant (centrifuged, then chemically tested for purity) to remove the toxic anti-corrosion and anti-wear additives that make modern motor oil and modern gear oil so much better than the oils used in 1930. Pure refined petroleum lubricating oil, such as JournalTex HD-57 for railroad axle journalboxes, is non-toxic according to the MSDS. "No known toxicity." (Although drinking much of the stuff will really clean out your personal interior plumbing, same as drinking too much olive oil...)

Conclusion: We do burn recycled "waste oil", but only after it has been processed professionally. This is why we can't accept donations of untreated waste oil.

- Doug Debs

I asked this same question on another site and got a bit of a scolding for my efforts, but I'll try again here...The design flaw in the roofsheet of the Belpaire firebox that stopped the 1361 project is the same problem that is being solved on the 39, correct? The boiler/firebox design is identical on 1361/39/35? That being said, has Strasburg found a solution that will allow the 1361 restoration to continue?
And wait, one more, with the replacement of the roofsheet with a new one using thicker material, do they still need to install additional staybolts, and if so, will that require crown sheet replacement also?

Cheers, Dave

My understanding is that Strasburg has a solution to the problem, and it is the same issue that side-tracked the K4s restoration. That being said, isn't the issue to over-expenditure of money on the K4s, rather than having the problem dealt with and finalized appropriately? The K4s could be fixed, it simply was that so much money had been thrown at the project before somebody implemented the fix. Assuming Strasburg renders the fix to #39, first time, to specs, it would follow that the same could be done for 1361. Correct me if I'm wrong. (Covers his head and burrows in.)

Sorry to draw you out to take incoming fire Richard, and I appreciate the answer...I realize the 13somethingsomething is a sore subject, and while not meaning to hijack the thread, isn't it true in manufacturing that the initial "tooling up",so to speak, is the biggest expense? If that is the case, with one "fix" in the bag by Strasburg', it would make completion of the afore mentioned moneypit a possibility...a chance to recoup the loss of time and money that got it to this point without another large payout to come up with the cure? Just a thought.

Following you to the Foxhole....Dave

Gents - the target not only kept moving, it wasn't really well defined in the first place, and the rules of engagement altered in the midst of the conflict. Which has nothing to do with the technicalities of the specific issue with the Standard Railroad of the World's standard for design of added margin into Belpaire boilers. Apparently all the other railroads were DeLuxe.......

I don't know anybody in the US more expert in Belpaire than Strasburg. They defined the problem - found it universal in PRR design - and created a method of how to solve it. It couldn't be in better hands. While I'm not more than an interested bystander, my understanding is that replacing the roof sheet with one of greater thickness while retaining the standard staybolt pitch is the solution - I'd really welcome better information if I have misunderstood. Compounded with the quality of steel PRR used makes it even more interesting. This would make a great "Case Study" article for RyPN come to think of it..........if Linn is willing to share.

dave

Assuming Brother Dave's reporting is accurate, we have established that Strasburg's crews have a proposed remedy to the reputed design flaw inherent in the PRR Belpaire boiler/firebox design.

The questions thereby resulting regarding a certain other PRR steamer:

1) Can the proposed redesign/rebuild be applied to that specific boiler (i.e. no thin metal as found in 1223 and "7002")?
2) Absent any committed place for a 4-6-2 to run that is both economically rational and politically acceptable (i.e. no selling/leasing to the Ohio Central or Napa Valley Wine Train, no NS steam excursion program, etc.)........... why bother?

Sorry, I'll put away the can o' worms opener now.............

I would respectfully suggest that step one is the get the thirteen something pieces (hopefully not losing any in the shuffle) back to home base and then to take a SOBER long look at the options available--not the least of which is how much more money would be needed to apply the Strasburg cure etc.

AND if its most likely "live" life would be essentially limited to sitting outside the museum on display and boiling water, is that a prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars??

All valid questions- IMHO-

Beware-the thread locker lurketh!!

Ross Rowland

Question, The G-5s, is this the same class that the PRR built, and if so, does this mean that there will two operating PRR steam locomotives in the world?
The other being 0-6-0 643 built 1901 class B4.

Len.

Mr. Mitchell ,
I quote "1) Can the proposed redesign/rebuild be applied to that specific boiler (i.e. no thin metal as found in 1223 and "7002")?"

As long as Mr. David Dunn is in charge of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, None of us will ever see another museum pice operating. I know of at least five locomotives in the museum collection that can run, but as long as Mr. Dunn is there you will never see those's locomotive work again.

When the E-7 was out to the shops in Altoona to be painted, they told Dunn that they could have the E-7 working very easily , but he said being it's the only one left he rader have it as a display pice.

When the Conrail locomotive got painted at the shop , it was in operating conditions, the only thing wrong with it is the reverse doesn't work right, other then that it can run.

The Lehigh Valley Bud Car can run, it needs some repair but it's in good condition.

And of course the two PRR loco's 7002 & 1223, Plus the John Bull they all could be repair if they wanted them to work. but he and a few other say NO!

The olny two locomotives we will see oprerate out of the yard this year ,are the Reading FP-7's. And they don't belong to the museum.

The PRR 250 ton crain does run, but you'll never see it work again.

I'm a member of the F. R. M.

Len.

My God........has hell frozen over.........ADM IV & Ross actually seem to be agreeing on something...................:)

Locomotive firebox fire-side sidesheets are only 3/8" thick because of the heat-transfer limitations of mild steel. Consider the thermal gradient: with water at (for example) 210psi, the water temp and saturated steram temp is 387F. The oil fire or coal fire burns at well above 2000F. Even after accounting for boundary layers near the steel sheets, there is an enormous thermal gradient (400~500F) through only 3/8" of steel. Mild steel begins to soften at >1000F. This is why sidesheets aren't thicker than 3/8": the fire side would get too hot. Staybolts are typically located on 4" centers on the fire side to support the sheets against the tremendous pressure. For the 210psi example, each staybolt is pulling against (4" x 4" = 16 square inches) x (210psi) = 3,360 lbs force. Everything must be designed for a >=4:1 safety factor (per both the old ICC & new FRA 49CFR230 rules), and to be safe if an adjacent staybolt breaks and throws part of its load onto it's neighbors.

Firebox interiors have a more-or-less rectangular lateral cross-section inside.

A Belpaire firebox ("square-top" firebox) wrapper sheet follows the contours of the inside firebox. Belpaire staybolts are installed more-or-less parallel: horizontal on sides, and vertical on the crown sheet, so the wrapper sheet need not be much thicker than the fire-side sheets to maintain the same stress levels. I have been told by a reputable authority that the Pennsylvania chose to make the wrapper sheet thickness no thicker than needed - i.e. close to the fire-side sheet thickness. This choice was a tradeoff. It saved some money and weight. It was was safe and acceptable. But there wasn't much margin for future corrosion or other metal damage (cracking at staybolt holes, etc). However, corrosion wasn't normally a problem in the steam era because the engines were normally kept hot and/or stored inside a roundhouse.

In radial-stayed fireboxes, staybolt spacing - while uniform at say 4" center-to-center on the inside - is non-uniform on the wrapper sheet because of the mismatch between round outside and rectangular inside shapes. Therefore staybolt spacing is much longer than 4" on the wrapper sheet towards the top "shoulders". So the wrapper sheet must be thicker than the fire-side sheets to maintain stress to acceptable levels. This also means that many area of the wrapper sheet are thicker than they need to be, to provide enough thickness in the highest-stress areas.

Consider how these two designs are affected by decades of outdoor wet storage & corrosion - especially when wet asbestos / magnesia lagging leaches out sulfur compounds, creating a mild sulfuric acid solution:

The Pennsylvania RR Belpaire firebox has little extra steel to lose anywhere on the wrapper sheet before it's unacceptably thin. Some metal loss can be repaired by adding layers of steel by welding ("pad welding"), but this is limited to a certain percentage of the base metal thickness, IIRC. [Disclaimer: I have helped with boiler repairs, materials purchasing, & technical research on 4-6-2 S.P. 2472, but I am not a boilermaker.] Since the Belpaire firebox exterior base metal wasn't very thick to begin with, pad welding is limited to areas with minimal corrosion loss. If there is too much corrosion loss, then that whole section of the firebox must be replaced. This can and has been done successfully in the preservation era, but it's terribly expensive. A single machined staybolt [special low-carbon steel, hollow-drilled by gun-drilling] costs about $50 or more nowadays, plus labor to install.

The radial-stayed firebox, on the other hand, started with a thicker wrapper sheet, and much of that sheet is thicker than it needs to be (except in the areas of maximum exterior staybolt spacing), so more corrosion damage can occur before it must be replaced.

Conclusion: Pennsylvania RR Belapire fireboxes are significantly less tolerant of long-term wet outdoor storage and corrosion than radial-stayed fireboxes, and are likely to cost a lot more to repair after long years of neglect outdoors.

- Doug Debs

I'm also interested in the unstayed portion of the sheets between the last outer row of stays and the start of the knuckle - and how this area might affect the calculations. My assumption here is that it could well make a difference since it also includes the width of the water leg or area above the crown as essentially unstayed - unless there are internal stays of some sort I'm unfamiliar with, having never worked on a PRR belpaire design. Cross stays for above the crown, maybe, but what about the top sheet above the water legs?

Interesting stuff.

dave