On Trainorders.com, you will see photos of Grapevine's ex-SP 2248 back in steam after a major cylinder repair.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,2138805

I am wondering what some of you "experts" think about this repair job as I know many thought a new cylinder casting would be required. I am in no way criticizing what works even if it's somewhat temporary.

I visit the DFW area often and am excited I might see "Puffy" back in steam soon.

Another in a long tradition of shortline and industrial operators geting more revenue out of an asset by creating an affordable repair. I wish there were some close-ups. Welding, sleeving and banding for reinforcement combined could last in light service for a long time, depending on a lot of factors.

dave

Unless they're going to have the diesel on all trips pushing, I wouldn't consider hauling 3-5 steel coaches with passenger loads "light duty."

I wonder (actually, I'd hope), if this is a temporary fix to get the engine back in service to produce revenue, while a new casting is made to be installed later?

They most likely will do no more than what they have done. Hope the repair holds up.

Why casting? We have known how to fabricate cylinders and saddles since WWII.

dave

What's the difference between a casting and a fabrication?

To cast, you make a hole in sand shaped like the part and fill it with molten metal. To fabricate, you cut bits of metal and weld them together until they fill up a hole in the atmosphere that is shaped like the part. Patterns and cores are custom made - IE fabricated, from usually wood - to create the hole in the sand, so you fabricate something either way. To make many copies, it can be worth the cost of making the pattern that can be used over and over to make a lot of holes in sand. To make just one copy, it can drive the project cost much higher than simply fabricating the metal part.

We now have technology capable of carving styrofoam patterns to pack in sand using robots controlled by computers for making castings - but you lose the pattern as it melts out when the molten metal hits it. Costs for writing the program to control the robots add up in this approach, but you can make multiple copies of the styrofoam by simply running the programs over and over and over...........

So, patternmaking costs can be a drag if you can't cope with them in casting, and many people find that for a one-time job a fabrication works as well at lower cost.

Long day at work....think I'll riser up and fiddle with my flask of sprues beer......

dave

Taking a left turn in this threads previous posts, does it bother anyone that the locomotive is refered to as "Puffy"... it sound a lot like a fat cat in a cartoon, not much like a preserved industrial object...

It bothers me greatly, as I cringe when I hear that. For me as someone who has run and fired her,she will either be TSRR 200 or GVRR 2248.

Agreed, but are the preservationists paying the bills, or the family parking their butts in the seats to ride behind "Puffy" ?

It's seriously interesting to note that the peak riderships of a lot of the now long lived tourist railroads was during the 1970's- late 1980's when things were brightly colored and not historically accurate in terms of actual age of equipment used, but more of a themed park mentality that created a stigma of what was THOUGHT of as accurate to the average Joe, as much as a disdane it was to the purist.

What is preceived by the paying customer is what is most important. Most of them don't really care that they're riding in an ex DL&W commuter coach built in 1920 thats thousands of miles from its original home ...its just an 'old train car' to them pulled by Puffy the big steam engine and they had FUN!

I personally lothe the sighte of that bright red 2-8-0 operating in the Lone Star State...but if its the RED that draws the attention of the family driving by, so be it. Their $$$'s keeps the thing running.

Same can be said for Thomas. That right there has saved many a tourist railroad from going under, whether they actually operate it or not.

It would be interesting to survey customers to see if they really care how a locomotive or its train are painted. My guess is that with the exception of "Thomas", where there is a pre-existing expectation, they probably don't care all that much. Painting the locomotives and trains in historically accurate....or at least more traditional schemes gives tourist railways a better shot at railfan excursion/photo charter business and probably guarantees that there will be more photographs and videos out there to give them free publicity.

With respect to the 2248, the scheme isn't really gaudy enough to particularly attract kids, but is just a little too over the edge to have me putting Fort Worth at the top of my trip list. I'm perfectly OK with calling her "Puffy". I guess I don't need to see it plastered all over the tender.

Aside from the paint scheme, how much of this engine's current "look" is historically accurate?

None of its current cosmetic incarnation is historically accurate...

I want to compliment Dave for his continuous "thinking out of the box". I have not a clue if the fabrication of the saddle would be the best or even practical {do not see why not} as I am not a professional steam locomotive mechanic. But having a background in heavy fabrication/welding I always wondered "why not" for many types of repairs. In a perfect world it would be grand to make up new castings to replace some of these "irreplaceable" castings. The purists of the world may spin when they here such "fabrication" talk, but not all technology is evil and if steam was still running every day as in old, the RR would be implementing many repairs that don't resemble 1900-1920s technology. I know nothing of the repair and I obviously wish all concerned the best.

So many failed attempts to restore things to operation {as opposed to restoration to display} go unrecognised as self induced. I do not want to start picking on the many obvious examples, that is not my intent. But there are a lot of different ways to approach repair, even if it makes a "purest" cringe. The cost of repairs can be astronomical, but using ones head and have a good man on the ground can save thousands of wasted dollars. Again in this particular repair I know absolutely nothing about it, and maybe it will fail. But I give who ever credit for trying. The RR in the past made so many "running" repairs that lasted till the locomotive was retired that you do need to at least acknowledge that not all was "restored to new". "Red Green" said it all in, " this is just temporary.....unless it works". For those who question my understanding, yes I have heard of the FRA and rules that we have to abide by in the here and now. I do not favor bubble gum repair work.

Is there anywhere on the web where this repair is talked about or described in detail? I would like to know more about it. I think a cyl/saddle casting being destroyed is a hangman's noose for most locomotives, in many cases rightfully so from a monetary perspective. But I sure makes me think that Dave is right about the alternatives that exist. For those who want as close to original as can be there are plenty of "park engines" to look at. Not long ago there were pictures of cyl repair being done at Strasburg {PA}. We can replace just about anything on a loco if the money is there. Steam cyl/saddles is one of achilles heels and I like the idea of finding away from this that can both work and be affordable. Cheers, John.

FYI the New South Wales 3800 class express passenger locomotives were built with fabricated saddles / cylinders. 3801 and 3830 remain and both have been in service recently. They are the Australian version of the N&W J class to put them into perspective. I'm certainly not creating something new, just encouraging the theft of a good, practical and proven idea.

BTW, I'm told I should apologise for all the bad foundry puns stuck into the end of the previous post. Expect more anyhow if I get the chance.

dave

Hi All,

Just out of curiosity have any of you been following the progress on T&NO 786 and its new cylinders?


Robby Peartree

http://www.pointech.com/786/