While I'm too young for the steam era, how did the western roads fuel oil locomotives in daily operations? Was there something like a stand pipe for the bunker fuel? Any photos? ... we've all seen coaling towers and docks.

Part of my interest is related to growing up in Columbus, Ohio in the 60/70's in the shadow of the Ohio Railway Museum where the summer (1956) of Santa Fe Texans running on the PRR Sandusky branch was the stuff of legend among the old hands.

For a write up on this, see http://www.columbusrailroads.com/prr%20santa%20fe.htm. Note the neat arrangement used to turn the 5011's on a turntable that was too short! Any one know of this happening recently?

Bob

And what, pray tell, does ANY of this have to do with PRR K4s 1361 and ITS boiler?

"While I'm too young for the steam era, how did the western roads fuel oil locomotives in daily operations? Was there something like a stand pipe for the bunker fuel? Any photos? ... we've all seen coaling towers and docks."

Bob: Your assumption is correct. They used an "oil column" that looked similar to a water stand pipe. As mentioned earlier, bunker C needed to be heated to flow very well, so the oil was heated. I've read stories of firemen complaining that the oil they got out of the oil column was either too hot or too cold, giving them fits while firing until the oil got to the "right" temperature. Especially, if they took on a large quantity of oil, and it was too hot, it took quite a while for it to cool off.

I've seen photos, but, unfortunately, I haven't found any in my poor indexing system.


Jim Baker, PSRM, San Diego

Getting back to the theme of LIRR #39 and Pennsylvania RR belpaire boilers, I'd like to pass along some information and answer some of the questions in this thread regarding that topic. This project is of considerable interest to me for a number of reasons. I hope to not make any incorrect statements here, but I welcome my peers, Mr. Musser or Moedinger, to weigh in with any corrections.

LIRR #39 and PRR #1361 both suffer from the same defect relating to the roof sheet of their boilers. This is the "design flaw" we keep hearing about. It's important to keep in mind that while there is evidence that this flaw may have been common to some classes of PRR locomotives, only these two locomotives are actually known for certain to be afflicted. I say this because these are the only two pennsy belpaire boilers to have serious FRA form 4 calculation work performed on them. Two boilers represent a nearly insignificant cross-section of the entire PRR roster.

The roof sheet of a belpaire boiler is the sheet of the outer shell of the boiler directly above the crown sheet of the firebox. If viewed in cross-section from the front or rear in place, the sheet looks like a very broad, inverted U. The sheet is supported vertically by rows of staybolts that connect to the crown sheet below. Also, to answer one question from earlier in this thread, the legs of the U above the crown are supported horizontally by rows of transverse stays running the entire width of the boiler. The problem with the roof sheet of these two boilers is that the sheets are too thin, and appear to have been constructed that way rather than being a product of corrosion, compared to the spacing, or pitch, of the staybolts supporting them to allow these boilers to operate at their intended pressures. The evidence actually seems to indicate that this flaw came about after the original design stage and was a result of post design changes made in standard constuction practices. On original PRR drawings the threaded ends of the crown stays protruded above the roof sheet and were intended to have nuts screwed onto them against the roof sheet. Adding these nuts enabled the pennsy boilers to be designed with the thinnest possible roof sheets because of the extra staying strength the nuts provided. At some point over the course of time, pennsy construction practice eliminated the nuts, probably to cut construction cost, but the roof sheet thickness was never increased to compensate for that change. A minor communication SNAFU between engineering and shop floor has resulted in a huge headache for us preservationists decades later.

In order to fix the problem, there are a few possible solutions, but only one that makes any fiscal sense. Of course someone will ask the obvious, "Can't you just make new bolts long enough to put nuts on?" The answer is yes, but the problem with this idea is that the original PRR designs only left the slightest margain of error. It is doubtful that even with the nuts the existing sheets would last very long before they had deteriorated enough to the point where we'd be right back in the same boat. Another option would be to reduce the spacing between stay bolts by adding new rows of bolts, but ask anyone who has ever welded up staybolt holes whether they would be interested in that job and see what kind of response you get. This leaves the only practical solution, replace the entire roof sheet with a thicker one using the original bolt pitch. This, while labor intensive, has the benefit of the least amount of welding, greater longevity of the repair, and allows for the reuse of the existing crown sheet without modification as long as it is in acceptable condition.

I hope this info helps to bring to light some of the very interesting things that will be occuring of the next few months in the Strasburg RR shops. Sorry about writing the boilermaker version of War and Peace.

Thanks for a very good and understandable explanation.
Others have hinted that the PRR used its engines so often and hard that they needed extensive rebuilding or replacement before the roof sheets wore out. I've seen similar practice in M of W standards. PRR rail joint lockwashers were thin and not built to last many years, because they were replaced when the rail was changed, and PRR's heavy traffic wore rail out in a short time.
How is LIRR 35?

Thanks from me too - not too long, actually a bit more general than I would have liked. I still think that it would make for a good case study article, with a lot of technical data about how measurements were taken and calculations done included.

If we can't get past pretty pictures and into real technical meat on this forum, where else will we find it? Plenty of coffee table format foaming fora out there elsewhere.

dave

Jim: LIRR G5s #35 sits on blocks, disassembled, at the Oyster Bay Rail Road Museum site, at the end of the LIRR commuter tracks, at Oyster Bay, New York. Her parts are secured. Ultimately, the OBRM intends to rebuild #35 for operation as well. That is a long term strategy and goal.

On 8/7/07, I posted on RYPN what the reason was that the K-4 roof sheet had failed. If you have time on your hands you may check it out. (Or not!)
Basically, without the nuts on the roof sheet, you can’t get 205 MAWP, even with a new 3/8” sheet. This also includes the G-5 in our shop. Interestingly, when we first discovered the problem, I asked a cohort who has a lot of PRR blue prints if he had a drawing of the Q-2 roof sheet. My thought was that since these engines were the last steam locomotives they built, (1946) they must have addressed the “problem”. Well, guess what? The sheet as built was ½” thick instead of 3/8”, but the bolt pitches were very similar to the earlier engines. There were no nuts, and without them I got an MAWP of 278 lbs, not the designed MAWP of 300 lbs. With nuts you get around 310! The bottom line is that although this worked fine in actual operations, you can’t validate it with the known calculations.

Rick

To The Strasburg guys,

Thank you for all the technical information you have been providing about 39. I have learned allot and have a much better idea about 39’s “problems” You guys doing the work on the engine means the worlds to me, a long time Strasburg rider and railfan. There is not a dought in my mind that you guys are the best people for the job and can’t wait to see the progress. I hope in the next few months on my next Strasburg trip I have the chance to thank you all in person.

Regards,
Anthony C. DeBellis
Railroad Museum of Long Island

So, that begs the question…. Since the roof sheet of a Belpaire boiler is essentially parallel to the crown sheet, the bolt pitch should be the same on both. Given that pitch, if the calculations won't work for a 3/8" thick roof sheet, what about the crown sheet? Or, is the crown sheet thicker?

Dennis,
A good question it is. The roof sheet and the crown sheet are roughly parallel, but there is a difference. The roof measures at a 16' radius and the crown sheet is at 14'. Over a bolt length of around 22" at the top center you can see how the pitch will be greater on the roof sheet. In this case at the front, the pitch on the crown = 4 3/8" and the roof = 5 1/4".
In the case of the K-4, the longitudinal pitch is too great for the existing sheet, so the transverse pitch doesn't matter.

Rick

Rick,

Thanx. I didn't realize these boilers had that much arch above the firebox.

Why is adding nuts to the stays not an option?

Noting the discussion of waste oil as locomotive fuel... how about waste VEGETABLE oil? I know a museum that drove all over their area collecting a gallon here, a gallon there of used motor oil... they were driving right past restaurants that had spent fryer oil in much larger quantity. The biodiesel homebrewers have had great success gathering from restaurants. And of course, being used in food prep, it's entirely non-toxic. And free.

Anyone ever used veggie oil in a steamer?

Yes - not good results just dumping it in to a tank full of fuel oil, never tried it as a fuel by itself. Nigel Day did convert one of the steamers at Mt Washington to burn it very successfully in one of his burner designs. I don't know if it was filtered or reprocessed by the companies that collect food waste oil, but would expect that some degree of processing to assure the final product fit into some large envelope of standards would only make it better.

dave