That was fascinating to read. Thank you for posting that.

I often feel as sometimes we forget that we might be trying to reinvent the wheel. A friend of mine who I learned quite a lot from on steam once stated once, "There are a lot of graveyards full of dead people who already figured this stuff out.".

While having a new bit of information to put in the bank, it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has done anything further with this practice. Mr. Rimmasch stated in detail a recent example. Most modern steam ops don't "have" to have an engine out the next morning with some exceptions. However, the maintenance and time we all have to put into keeping them operating is part of the story that we need to tell to our guests and passengers.

I've seen an engine blown down three or four times from operating pressure to nothing, however if those who performed this knew of the cool-down procedure I doubt it would have been done in the manner of just opening the blowdown valve. A part of the report I read stated that one of the railroads found less temperature difference in firing up than in cooling down. With that being said, by adding hot water prior to lighting up the firebox could you equally save time and yet still preserve the integrity of the boiler and other components?

It seems the purpose is to quicken a fireup to full power. The Hot engine would have to be continually fired and water filled as you do the cold engine filling. I believe pre-filling the cold engine with water helps even the heat, once you got the hot filling started you might be circulating water around with the return feed as the hot engine commands re-heating the cold water.

Most of museums may not need to do this but there may be times its needed.

Yes, and also as noted a larger boiler would likely have more temperature differential. Most of the engines out there right now are either former switching or short line engines, or narrow gauge. It would be fun to see some pyrometers mounted on some of this stuff.