I take it this will be a supercritical or once through unit?

IIRC, Eddystone lost the highest pressure "crown" to a unit in Japan and maybe Europe. Is this high enough to "bring the crown" back home?

Yes, it is "supercritical".

Have no idea about the "Crown".

Sorry to derail the thread.....now back to the 1225.....

Mark

All this talk about welding brings up another question… How much of the boiler industry today is still using the traditional "roll expand and bead over" method of tube installation, as opposed to welding? It would seem to me that each brings different problems to the fore; welding would be sensitive to slag inclusions in the steel, and possibly localized hardening in the heat affected zone, while work hardening would be the major consideration when rolling and beading. It would appear that if the majority of seamless tube today is intended for welded installations, there would be not much consideration given to work hardening issues.

I do, however, seem to recall that there is a method of welding the beads on the firebox end of flues, and this was the installation mode that was employed on the 844 that failed several years ago. Anyone want to explain the reasons why welding would be chosen; the pros and cons of a welded installation vs. strictly relying on friction?

[quote="Dennis Storzek"]
I do, however, seem to recall that there is a method of welding the beads on the firebox end of flues, and this was the installation mode that was employed on the 844 that failed several years ago. Anyone want to explain the reasons why welding would be chosen; the pros and cons of a welded installation vs. strictly relying on friction?[/quote]

The reason for welding the beaded firebox end of the flues is simply a heat transfer issue. Even though this is called seal welding it has nothing to do with pressure sealing. The issue is transferring the heat from the "proud" end of the flue to keep them from being burnt from the flame. Notice that if it were a pressure seal weld then why were the tubes at the front flue sheet not welded in the same manor?

The flues have to be rolled into place otherwise you leave an opening between the sheet and the flue for water to enter and corrosion to start. You want flue failure then start with improperly rolled tubes.

By far the vast majority of high and low pressure boilers that use tubes have them rolled and flared (water tube) or rolled and beaded (fire tube). Seal welding is used on the ends closest to the flame. Structural welding of tubes is still somewhat rare.

Am I correct that rolling/expanding the flues facilitates their ultimate removal and replacement? If they were welded all over, particularly the joint, the tube sheets would be scarred and ruined every time you wished to replace the flues.

That is what they make young men with strong arms and large grinders for! (the seal welding is not full penetrating into the joint)

Steve

[quote="softwerkslex"]Am I correct that rolling/expanding the flues facilitates their ultimate removal and replacement? If they were welded all over, particularly the joint, the tube sheets would be scarred and ruined every time you wished to replace the flues.[/quote]

as was mentioned, last post, the weld is not a penetration weld. The weld procedure is with a mild steel rod like 1018 downhand from top both sides. However both the weld and proud end (bead) of the flue have to be removed when pulling tubes. There are different methods for this but with new tooling the bead and weld can be removed with a machine that is much like a lathe that is indexed into the tube I.D. The cutter will peel both weld and bead down to very close of the tube sheet. Then the tube can be cut away from the back side through the I.D. then the stub is split and pushed out. Still a long process but much easier that using a pneumatic chisel and grinder. If you have a careful mechanic the tube sheet will be just fine.

I apologize for taking this long to comment. I also thank Mr Davis for posting my official response here. The comments made and raised are valuable; for us, it gets down to what is safe, and as Randy Gustafson noted, what best serves our public. We felt that the decision we made was best at the time, and that the #1225 will be back up and running as soon as we can. Rumors are rumors, but a hot Berk fulfilling the remainder of its schedule says more than a thousand words.

I bigger issue or concern that I would ask others who face similar issues to myself and my staff: as I have gone farther into my working career in historic preservation, I seem to have less and less time to comment on RYPN. I don't know about others, but with a small staff, a small budget, and a 1941 Lima Locomotive to find ways to keep running and find money for with no direct state, national, or local government support beyond the occassional grant, donation, etc., I just don't have the time I used to address every comment made about #1225 on here or the thousand other railfan sites out there. I do my best --- but everyday it seems I turn around and someone else is saying things that I question whether I should address or not.

Sometimes, its just better to keep your mouth shut, put your head down, get to work, and move on it seems.

Again, I apologize for my lack of response as late, especially given the hubbub over our tube issue. Again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

T.J. Gaffney
Ex. Director
Steam Railroading Institute

Hi All

I am confused on this discussion.

First how is a different carbon content result in the "Same Material"? Isn't this like needing a long shaft GM water pump and getting a short one? While they are both water pumps they do not have the same applications?

Also how does rolling a tube make it easier to remove? It would seem to me and my experience that the expansion would make it more difficult to remove the tubes due to their larger ouside diameter in the rolled zone. I heard that some railroads had a flue or tube hole that was larger than the rest to facilitate flue removal on locomotives.

Robby Peartree

[quote="Robby Peartree"]Hi All

I am confused on this discussion.

First how is a different carbon content result in the "Same Material"? Isn't this like needing a long shaft GM water pump and getting a short one? While they are both water pumps they do not have the same applications?

Also how does rolling a tube make it easier to remove? It would seem to me and my experience that the expansion would make it more difficult to remove the tubes due to their larger ouside diameter in the rolled zone. I heard that some railroads had a flue or tube hole that was larger than the rest to facilitate flue removal on locomotives. Robby Peartree[/quote]


Rolling the flues certainly doesn't make removal easier. It is work either way you look at it. The seal welds and bead are not fun to deal with as well. Yes, a somewhat larger flue hole, "King Hole" was provided in most cases. If the flues have any appreciable scale then this hole is needed. If the flues are clean and then not buggered up by slag from gas cutting they should slide out through any fluehole.

While I'm late to the discussion, let me pose this observation. What did Alco, Baldwin, Cooke, Lima, Hamilton, Budd, ACF, GE, EMD, US&S, Westinghouse, all the railroads, etc., do since the day they opened their doors, until today or when they closed their businesses (as appropriate) do? Well, to me, they innovated, changed, and did their best to be better tomorrow than today. Whether its 1225 or another item, what would it have been like when you received it, had it stayed in service 1 more year, 5, ten?
To me, the history of our business is not frozen in time, so especially if you operate something, we owe it to history to innovate, update, and move forward just as it would have in the past. I for one, when it relates to safety, think we should look to make use of improvements that can be made economically. As an example, SRR E8 6914 will end up with improvements that were not part of its past. Better wire, a 30CDW brake system, and probably other things as we go forward.
So, I think no one should feel guilty if they use better flue materials, or updated electronics. Maybe the "old" parts can be made part of a useful exhibit of why something was improved.
Mike Overlander

Well, I think decisions to improve things need to be made with great caution and care.

It's very much a judgment call, and it needs to reflect the mission and philosophy of your organization. For one organization with a South Shore coach, it might be right for them to strip it of motors and controls and turn it into a bare coach - this might be necessary to avert lengthy FRA-required maintenance of all those systems. For another organization, it might be absolutely _verboten_ to strip parts from their derelict South Shore car to maintain the operating ones.

To a badly worn iron casting, different organizations might say "Fabricate in some wear plates". "Braze repair it." "Weld up a replica out of steel." "Send out and have a casting made."

Naturally, I say "Remain faithful as best as possible" ... too bad the world ain't made of money. What I'm trying to say here is that, as much as I dislike hearing about Birneys that aren't safety cars, or turning a GG1 into an SD40, the fact is, it isn't necessarily wrong, because it may be what the organization is capable of, or may align with their goals.

I'd point at the pipe maker and demand what you want, don't compromise.

I'm trying to recall if any steamer overhauls replaced the crown sheet.

You will pick off the weld, the weld should be softer metal, so it may tear off and separate without too much scarring and then the new welding puts metal back on.
Stripping carefully you won't do much. I think 765 they were cut just inside the boiler and popped out firebox side or hammerred thru. Many of the original flues were re-used with new flue pipe welded on, done by a trucker exhaust outfit.
New flues slip right thru the holes. If you can't get the flue thru your gonna hammer it in so it does, your replacing the flue anyways (or fixing it).