On the K4 project, Bob Yuill of Historic Machinery Services was performing some work on the roof sheet when the staybolt pitch caught his eye and he brought his concerns to me. Upon performing the calculations and having them confirmed by the Strasburg Railroad's Rick Musser and a change in the way the funding was provided by the State of PA the project was shut down. The question in everybody's mind is why was there never a proper boiler survey performed when the new rules took effect in 1999. I do not have an answer for that, as I had labored on the project under 2 of the previous project managers and was under the assumption that the engineer had performed the calculations and produced a new form 4. When we waded through the paperwork after the project was dumped in my lap in late 2006 we searched for a new form 4, it seems it was never produced and that is one of the reason's why we engaged the services of Historic Machinery Services. Please read the old topic at:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23495&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=1361&start=15 if you have not done so previously as it pretty much has all the answers about the K4 roof sheet issue.
Mike Tillger

Thanks for the info Mike, hopefully the fix will be able to be accomplished without undoing countless hours of work. I know a lot of stays were made, a time consuming laborious process, hopefully they don't have to all be thrown away.

Can anyone just answer one simple question regarding this "rebuild"?
Was it necessary?
By 'IT' I mean, every piece of equipment that came off that locomotive.
Was it absolutely necessary to rebuild, reconstruct or remanufacture everything that they took off of her?

I have heard of engines which have sat idle for an even longer period of time and have been on the 'road' in less than half the time.

Despite the fact that the boiler/crown sheet is too thin and it will take some time to repair it and if this was NOT a major and deciding factor, was it ABSOLUTELY necessary to keep her down for this long? THAT is what I am asking. Could she have been running sooner if they hadn't dismantled and rebuild everything!?!?!?

Yes.

Steve,
Yes it was very necessary to overhaul the K4 as completely as has been started. The initial overhaul got it on the road, but there was a lot of further work that needed to be performed in order to make the locomotive reliable. The very fact of not doing this work is what sidelined the locomotive after its first restoration. Remember the old Fram commercial, "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later", that old adage holds true with steam lococmotives too! This locomotive was one old, and worn out locomotive when the PRR retired it.

Mike Tillger

A great weakness in our industry has been reliance on using up every last ounce of margin left in a locomotive - usually rendering it relegated to the disassembled junk line while something with a little more remaining margin is pressed into service quick and dirty in its place, repeatedly, until...........everything is just wore flat out. At this point, if your organization is also marginal, it fails as an operating entity.

I'm very pleased (having spent the majority of my working life doing the lowest budget jobs for the least of the marginal operators) to see us having matured past the use-it-up-and-replace-it phase.

It is difficult to make an economic case for operating steam without operating it intensively enough to pay its way, for the overhaul it just had, and to bankroll its next overhaul. This implies a high standard of reliability in intensive and frequent service. Making sure everything that can be done to assure that standard is done before going out on the road is the only way to stack the deck in your favor. The most expensive train is the one you can't run to earn revenue - when that little gizmo in the dynamo goes haywire and shuts you down for several trips worth of income you will wish you has spent the money to rebuild it when you were rebuilding the running gear and retubing and didn't need working headlights sitting dead in the enginehouse.

So shorter answer - if this was 1965 we wouldn't need to do complete overhauls. Expectations were lower, skills and parts were available, and so were plenty of other hulks with life left in them. In 2008 no more.

dave

You're still not asking the REALLY relevant question.

The question that SHOULD have been asked:

"Given the actual current design/construction and condition of the particular locomotive in consideration, does one:
1) undertake a rebuild that will carry her through just long enough for several "mainline" trips;
2) undertake a comprehensive rebuild/restoration/rebuild that will see said loco roadworthy for another "life cycle" of 25 hard-use years or 50+ gentle-use years;
3) decide that the money and effort would be best put towards an alternative locomotive [say in this case PRR M1a 4-8-2 6755 or a PRR-design G5, assuming actual availability] OR construction of a new-code replica [as per the British A1 Tornado]?"

The realities, of course, are that 1) Altoona "political" money and goodwill would most likely not have gone to an alternative loco such as a LIRR G5 or the PRR I1 4483, and 2) that no locomotive currently in the RR Museum of Pa. would have been released for an operating rebuild of such an extensive nature even in 1985, "7002" notwithstanding. Even if said rebuild of, say, 6755 had occurred, who's to say that the boiler wouldn't have later been condemned later by the same Form 4 calculations that beset 1361?

Okay Mike, thanks for explaning that further, but at the time of her overhaul back in the '80's, who was at fault for not giving her a complete overhaul then? Was it Doyle McCormack (did I spell his name right) or was it someone else? Why did they rush the restoration process then if so many things were wrong then that could have been avoided now and given her a new life back THEN? From what I read on either this or another forum, there were certain areas that needed more welding on the loco and tender that were only spot welded in small areas when it needed more and something along the lines of "tape". If this was supposed to be The State Locomotive of PA, why cut corners on a restoration?
If they knew this engine to be old and worn out, why not just pick another one? After the 20+ years of hype, t-shirts, videos, DVD's, electric trains and everything else in sales because of this engine, wouldn't make sense that whomever is next in line to oversee this "current" restoration back to completion? I say yes. Her process has started and now they just need to finish it. As was mentioned here, another engine is being worked on for the past 25 years! So, what's 5 more in this case?

Again, why cut corners?

Yes as in she COULD have been running sooner or yes as in it was necessary to rebuild EVERYTHING?

Umm, english please?

Come on!

Steve,
No one is at fault, the business plan for the locomotive was to get her running in reasonable shape with the funding that was available and run a series of excursions to fund a more complete overhaul in the not too distant future. The bearing failure precluded raising the funds from excursions and an alternate source of funding was found to finish the repairs. I have to guess about the rest of this scenario, the work scope of desired repairs was not sufficient upon tearing down the locomotive and more funds(years) were needed. Now add in a few changes in project leadership and the years have zoomed past. (a very simplistic view, real life included a multitude of curve balls).

The passion of the people making the decisions to restore the K4, IMHO, controlled the decision making far more than the good business sense that should have prevailed.

The volunteer preservationist movement is driven by passion to recreate the past. and without that passion many good projects would never get off the ground.

Mike Tillger

Okay Mike. That being said, why cut corners if 'you' were restoring such an old and worn out engine that could malfunction, cease or explode at anytime and not do it right the first time?

Let me attempt--probably in vain--one last stab at this.

Supposing, just to make up an example out of thin air, that we want to restore the last Fairbanks-Morse Train Master to operation. Someone undertakes to rebuild that last derelict hulk to operation with an original F-M OP engine. Lo and behold, it runs.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, along comes the Federal government with new rules mandating new clean air standards that, somehow (just as an example, bear with me) makes the use of any F-M OP engine on a locomotive illegal.

Your options are to drop a different diesel/biodiesel/hydrogen/whatever engine in the carbody or to keep the relic original and operable but not running.

So what do you do? Blame the guy who restored the loco to the old rules? Curse the new regulations and go home? Find a way to operate the loco in this new alternative universe?

What would YOU do?

I certainally would not turn tail and go home...