South Simcoe Railway

k5ahudson · **Joined:** Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:30 am **Posts:** 773

Does anybody know if CPR 136 or 1057 will be operating next season? I know there was some boiler working being done on 136, but I have no idea whether is has been completed or not.

robertjohndavis · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am **Posts:** 2499

Funny, I was just thinking they would be a great home for the D4. $30k doesn't seem outrageous.

Rob

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6482

robertjohndavis wrote:

Funny, I was just thinking they would be a great home for the D4. $30k doesn't seem outrageous.

Rob

D4?

robertjohndavis · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am **Posts:** 2499

Sorry.. the CPR "O. Winston Link" engine:

http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28347

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6482

robertjohndavis wrote:

Sorry.. the CPR "O. Winston Link" engine:

http://rypn.sunserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28347

Rob -

Okay. But didn't I see an $85K figure for this engine? Maybe I got it wrong and $30K is right. Sure makes a difference.

Les

edward · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 pm **Posts:** 23

1057 is out of service, in need of major lower firebox work amongst myriad other items.

The plan to build a new boiler for 136 has gone by the wayside; instead, the current (1914) boiler has received new tubes and flues. Superheaters were removed and it now operates as a saturated locomotive. During a test run in early October, the drypipe collapsed. The resulting water entering the delivery pipes forced one of the pistons back into the crosshead a signifcant amount, more than likely also effecting damage to the connecting rod, pin and quartering. Eric seems determined to overcome the problems with 136 in one way or another. He claims to have very close connections with people such as Al Broadfoot, Linn Moedinger, David Conrad, et al, so potentially he will be soliciting their professional help to surmount the issues that he faces with 136.

An interesting side note to the discussion about the D-4, SSR acquired a number of parts from this locomotive a few years back, including the superheater header and drypipe.

Ancient · **Joined:** Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:43 pm **Posts:** 3

I have just become aware of the problems with 136 and I am distraught. This locomotive should be considered a national treasure in Canada as its building predates the completion of the transcontinental railway and it operated right to the end of CPR steam in 1960. As well, I believe it to be one of only three Rogers locomotives operable, the others being L&N 152 at the Kentucky Railroad Museum and Sierra Railroad 3, currently under heavy repair to return it to service.

I first became aware of 136 when Trains magazine ran a 10-page spread on the triple-header she led in May, 1960. I was delighted more than a decade later when Ontario Rail Association restored 136 and operated her on a number of excellent excursions in southern Ontario and I was very happy when she emerged on the South Simcoe Railway in the early 90s.

But the current story gives me great cause for concern about the future of this fine engine. I don't know much about the technical aspects of steam locomotives and have been asking many questions about this incident. The answers confuse and frighten me. So this is a plea for more clarity.

I am told 136 does not have a "dry pipe" but rather a steam pipe that routes steam from the throttle to the cylinders. I have been advised that when this pipe failed, all throttle control was lost, causing both steam and water to rush uncontrolled to the cylinders. If this is correct, how potentially dangerous was it? Could the locomotive have run away?

It has also been suggested to me that the removal of the superheaters increased the possibility of damage from water entering the cylinders. If this is true, was the earlier removal of the superheater a prudent move?

This failure took place following an extensive boiler renovation. Does this type of work normally include testing/replacement of this pipe? Is there a body responsible for overseeing boiler safety? If so should it not have been aware that this pipe which was likely at least as old as the tubes which were replaced and was subject to the same steam pressure had not been tested?

How likely is it that there has been mechanical damage caused by the water entering the cylinder? Is there a governing body which has to approve this aspect?

oldiron · **Joined:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:30 pm **Posts:** 7

Ancient wrote:

So this is a plea for more clarity.

I am told 136 does not have a "dry pipe" but rather a steam pipe that routes steam from the throttle to the cylinders. I have been advised that when this pipe failed, all throttle control was lost, causing both steam and water to rush uncontrolled to the cylinders. If this is correct, how potentially dangerous was it? Could the locomotive have run away?

The portion of the steam pipe from the throttle to the tube sheet inside the boiler is often referred to as the "dry pipe". The portion from the tube sheet through the smoke box to the cylinders is often referred to as the external steam pipe.
If this pipe fails, water/steam can carry into the pipe and to the cylinders. This can cause hydraulic lock in the cylinders and attending mechanical damage. It can also cause continued operation of the locomotive if steps to correct aren't taken. Correction would be to place the reverse gear to neutral, open cylinder cocks, apply brakes and drop the fire

It has also been suggested to me that the removal of the super heaters increased the possibility of damage from water entering the cylinders. If this is true, was the earlier removal of the superheater a prudent move?

This locomotive was originally built as a saturated steam locomotive rather than a superheated steam locomotive. It ran for many years in this configuration, until 1913 actually, when it was rebuilt with a superheated steam boiler. Whether the boiler was saturated steam or superheated steam makes little difference in this case. What may have made a difference would have been a front end throttle. However, these weren't used on locomotives of this vintage. I doubt the smoke box would have even been big enough to take one.
The superheater improves fuel economy and maintenance, not safety.

This failure took place following an extensive boiler renovation. Does this type of work normally include testing/replacement of this pipe?

The dry pipe is not normally replaced out of hand. Since it inside the boiler and after the throttle valve it can be difficult to test since the throttle valves don't typically seal under a hydrostatic test. The way we have done it is to remove the external steam pip and blank the tube end of the dry pipe. This makes the internal pressure of the dry pipe the same as that of the boiler when hydrostatic test pressure is applied. therefore a reliable test isn't done.

Is there a body responsible for overseeing boiler safety?

The TSSA (Technical Safety and Standards Authority) is the regulating body for this equipment.

If so should it not have been aware that this pipe which was likely at least as old as the tubes which were replaced and was subject to the same steam pressure had not been tested?

See above

How likely is it that there has been mechanical damage caused by the water entering the cylinder?

Quite likely. Did you see the hydraulic carry over on slipping of Blue Peter in Britain about ten years ago. That'll explain everything.

Is there a governing body which has to approve this aspect?

The insurance company and the government railway safety inspection body.

John

Dave · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:09 am

Visual inspection for pitting or cracking, including boroscoping the ID, as well as ultrasonic testing for wall thickness is commonly done to the section of drypipe between the dome throttle and smokebox T on saturated locomotives south of the border, eh?

dave

joe6167 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:42 am

Does anyone know of any photos of the Blue Peter after the accident?

joe6167 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:50 am

I found a photo of one of the rods:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/standardta ... 387457270/

oldiron · **Joined:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:30 pm **Posts:** 7

Dave wrote:

Visual inspection for pitting or cracking, including boroscoping the ID, as well as ultrasonic testing for wall thickness is commonly done to the section of drypipe between the dome throttle and smokebox T on saturated locomotives south of the border, eh?

dave

There are3 photos on the net. There is also a Youtube video of the event happening ,taken from the train. You may also want to look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Peppe ... Blue_Peter

Other information is available on a search.
Shows how time flies. I stated it was about ten years ago. Gad! It was fifteen years ago. It only seems like yesterday.

John

oldiron · **Joined:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:30 pm **Posts:** 7

Dave wrote:

Visual inspection for pitting or cracking, including boroscoping the ID, as well as ultrasonic testing for wall thickness is commonly done to the section of drypipe between the dome throttle and smokebox T on saturated locomotives south of the border, eh?

dave

Yes that can be done where accessible. However, on 136 the boiler is so small its not possible to get inside unless remote equipment is used. Since the throttle is in the dome it would have to be removed at which point the dry pipe may as well be removed.

John

joe6167 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:02 am

John I did a search for photos but couldn't find any. Could you post some links. I did see the video and the listen to the audio.

oldiron · **Joined:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:30 pm **Posts:** 7

joe6167 wrote:

John I did a search for photos but couldn't find any. Could you post some links. I did see the video and the listen to the audio.

I have to agree, I've done some searching for photos of the event and they seem to be few and far between. The railfan press of the time covered the event and damage. You may be able to find something there. I guess it was so long ago most people have forgotten about it.

John