Don't underestimate what 155 will do. I've handled 6 heavyweight coaches with a 50ton 0-6-0 running at 85psi without a problem....on level track.

However, at that boiler pressure and 90psi brake pipe pressure, you get two brake applications and releases....the third brake application works too, but the release not so well....

.......did I mention water in the fuel oil?.......

Mark

You know, Rick and Kelly, that's such a wonderful succinct explanation of the problem that it is possible that even politicians, managers and (horrors) reporters could understand it.

I rode behind Gettysburg's 2-8-0 76 once where it was absolutely struggling to get two cars uphill to Biglerville - a gondola and a combine, probably about 1982 - before the 4-6-2 ever arrived. It was all the way down in the corner with full cutoff the whole way, to the point where I talked to the crew later about what the heck was wrong. "Oh, nothing is 'wrong', we're only running it at just under 100PSI because of the condition of the boiler"..... And the resulting draft was also so bad that combustion resulted in one of the worst cinderfalls I've ever witnessed.

Well, that would explain why I also heard the air compressor laboring, and a bunch of other things I wouldn't normally expect, up to and including a relatively dim headlight. A very good lesson on why you really do need to work at the design pressure of the entire system.

I have had some experience with REALLY BAD imitation coal (ash fusion temperature was less than the burn temperature), yet still managed to keep enough steam to get over the road at considerably less than MAWP. That whole Westinghouse 150 compressor laboring thing was a bit of a concern, though, and we run brake pipe at 110psi. 50 psi on the needle with just enough air to stop the engine is more than enough to hostle the engine around the yard if need be.

Water in the oil - that probably did about as well as my imitation coal (3-S coal is what I've heard steam era guys call it).

Best,
Mike

Yes. Per ICC reports:

1. Southern Railway in Mississippi #3028. Greenville, MS. July 4, 1912. "Portion of dome cap blew off; defective dome cap, 1 injured."

2. Texas Mexican Railway#228. Laredo, TX. February 19, 1913. "Dome cap blew off, due to old defect in casting, 1 injured."

There may be more.
-Stu

Newriver Mike,

Now that I’m off of that darn dirty steam engine, I’ll attempt to answer your questions.

You are correct that failure was not an issue. The problem was that without severely down rating the boiler, we couldn’t get the required factor of safety. Interestingly enough, as I had posted some time ago, the PRR Q-2 was built with a ½” roof sheet and we calculated it to be good to only 275 or so psi. If the nuts were applied, the pressure went to roughly 310. We just couldn’t find anything in the Pennsy L Rule or anywhere else that supported the designed operating pressures without nuts.

The Belpaire “hips” are fine on the G-5 and I don’t know about the K-4. If you don’t know, the rear course on Pennsy engines consist of two halves. The top half includes the hips. In other words, the hips are one with the course. It is a remarkable piece of engineering and forming. We “only” had to remove the old roof sheet itself and leave the hips alone. Quite a few years ago, we did form a “hip sheet” out of 7/8” thick material. We made a form and formed it hot. We did it over two days because it consisted of two separate operations. (Those operations didn’t include any hernia surgeries) If my feeble memory serves me correctly, it took 11 hours to do the job and we used 6 guys. We wished we had the dies and press Altoona used!

The only evidence of stress we found was on parts of the crown sheet and two broken back head braces.

Rick

Well……I stand corrected. Sort of.

One of the guys pointed out to me that the PRR H-10 has a hip that is separate of the rear course. We went over and sure enough. We did note that both the K-4 and the L-1 had the two halves I spoke of before. Then we looked at the M-1……….. Its hip is integral with the rear course, BUT it only has one longitudinal seam. Unless it is welded, I will be scratching my head until I am bald with that one. If it is welded, why didn’t they weld the other seam as well?

So there you go, The Standard Railroad of the World.

Rick

Evidence that we should carefully inspect our dome lids to see they are not defective - but having little to do with the method of attachment based on the brief descriptions above. Perhaps if we simply replace any bent studs with new code material the existing lids - if not defective in and of themselves - are perfectly safe?

dave

Rick,

I can come work on that dirty steam engine so you stay in the shop if Linn will hire me. :-)

Thanks for the note about the hip pieces. Actually, it makes perfect sense after thinking about it. Pennsy wouldn't want to be spending shop labor forming those things that often, so they made them thicker. Making them integral with the rear course is an interesting feature and I'd like to see how they did it. One stamping or roll the top half of the course then press the hips?

I'm with you on the mystery of the M-1's lone seam, especially since it was built between the K-4 and the second boiler on the L-1. Welding a seam in 1930 seems a bit of a stretch. The L-1 and K-4 have the same boiler design IIRC, but is the first course M-1 significantly different with regard to diameter? A difference there might offer some insight. With regard to the H-10, is the top half of the hip piece split in two with the throat sheet on the bottom being separate?

I'll have to dig out some of the many photos I took of the 1361 a number of years ago at Foamtown, er Steamtown, and review them, that is if I can find them (we've moved twice since then). That certainly makes the job a lot easier, relatively speaking. What is the required thickness needed for the new sheet?

As for making that corner, that really must have been a hell of heat-and-beat job! Which engine was it for - the American, the Atlantic, or something else? Making that rear flue sheet for 610 was a lot of heat and beat where the corners are, and that included using Jerry Joe's McCabe for most of the work.

Rick, again thanks for the replies as the discussion has been/is very interesting.

I thought it was the Standard Railroad of the World because it was the minimum standard - at least that's what I've heard from one former PRR Super... His other reference was "Standard Railroad of the World - No Two Nuts and Bolts Alike!" Please, Kelly, don't take it personally!

Best,
Michael Brown
Suwanee, GA

BTW, Kelly didn't reply to my compliment re: Him vs. Silver Tongue Gibbs... :-)

As I understand it, the PRR used dies and a press to form the pieces. Perhaps a student of the PRR can comment on that. Upon further mind melding, it turns out that they did indeed hot form hip sheets by hand if the quantities were low enough.

I have read that the Pennsy was reboilering M-1s into the early 50s, so welding is certainly not out of the question. The 1st course on the M looks quite a bit bigger than the K and the L.

The thickness for the roof sheet on the G-5 is 1/2'’. The K-4 will likely be the same.

On the H-10, the hip piece is riveted to both the rear course and the roof sheet. In addition, the throat sheet is riveted to the rear course as well per conventional practice. On the other PRR engines that I looked at including the G-5, the bottom half of the rear course and the throat sheet are one piece. Again, quite a form job!

The hip sheet that we formed was for ex-CP #972. That project was halted because the need for the engine went away. Hopefully it will get going again in the future.

Don’t worry about offending Kelly. He isn’t a big fan of keystones.

Rick

That's surprising about forming by hand - with dies already made and the facilities to do so, that just seems like being a gluton for punishment...

The throat sheet/lower couse combo piece was indeed quite a job. I'm curious if they rolled the sheet for the course, then placed part of it in for forming the rest or if it was done with one huge die.

Thanks for the follow-up, Rick!

Best,
Mike