Canadian G5 Pacific Boilers

jim templin · **Posted:** Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:15 pm

whodom wrote:

G. P. Bensman wrote:

One of the reports I read pinned most of the blame for the later cracking problems on poor bullriveting practice/ poor fit up when the boiler was riveted together. I believe the problems that the Santa Fe had with the 2900 Class boilers were determined to be caused by poor fit up and bull riveting practice at the Baldwin Works. Most of these locos received replacement welded courses or entire new boilers under a warranty settlement with Baldwin in 1952 or 53. And the cost of that put most of the nails into the BLW coffin.

Gary- that's very interesting info. That had to be another one of those issues that not only hurt BLW, but steam in general.

I had read somewhere that the root of the problem was the use of hydraulic punches to make the rivet holes in the alloy steel used for the boilers. While this was acceptable practice for conventional steels, it apparently resulted in the formation of microscopic cracks around the perimeter of the rivet holes in the high tensile steel boilers. After the boilers were assembled and put into service, the microscopic cracks grew under normal stresses until they enlarged into full-blown cracks which had to be dealt with. Apparently the water treatment used exacerbated the problem. The implication was that if drilling had been used to make the rivet holes there would likely have not been a problem.

FYI it doesn't matter if a boiler is made of carbon or nickel steel, if the rivit holes are punched without reaming to final size, hardening takes place and cracks can form. I can't imagine that BLW or anyone else was plain punching at that late date, as it seems to have been a prohibited practice well before turn of the last century. I dunno if they thought they could get away with plain punching on nickel alloy steel or not, but you couldn't get by with it on the plain jane stuff, either. Any crack is prone to caustic embrittlement, but were these more so. I also find the notation on the spec card Austin provided seems to indicate the ASME was ok with longitudanal lap joints on shells under 36", though Baldwin wasn't.

How aprocryphal are the stories that BLW was forcing the domes to fit the ATSF boilers mentioned during the riviting process rather than building them to fit right in the first place??(thereby introducing all manner of uncompensated stressed in the flanges, attachments, and seams, ect.) I assume that is what GPB is alluding to in the bull riviting observation.

M Austin · **Joined:** Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am **Posts:** 488

jim templin wrote:

How aprocryphal are the stories that BLW was forcing the domes to fit the ATSF boilers mentioned during the riviting process rather than building them to fit right in the first place??

The only mis-fitted dome story I have heard belongs to the PRR 1361 K-4. Is the Santa Fe connection a rumor or can it be documented?

G. P. Bensman · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2011 9:43 pm

Sorry Matt - the dome info was an oral history related to me by a Santa Fe road engineer. We were discussing the troubles with the new 2900's. He told a new 2900-class that had persistant reports of leaking dome rivets. They were calked and the loco sent back out only to return with leaking dome rivets within a couple days. After several cycles of calking the leaking rivets, the loco finally was sent to the Topeka Shops where; as the dome rivets were removed; the dome sprang up out of place and it was seen how much it was misfit.

Txhighballer · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:49 am **Posts:** 773

I think the information on the 2900's is in error. FRom everything I know about the 2900's they were only built because ATSF could not get more FT's during the war, and the only steel available to them was old style carbon steel for the boilers. The heavier material made them the heaviest Northerns every built, along with the 3776 Class.

The nickel steel problem was more apparent in the 5011 and 5001 classes and I believe several of them received new boilers due to the cracking at the rivet holes previously mentioned. Somewhere I have the information that can confirm this, if anyone is interested.

Paul Boschan · **Joined:** Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:45 pm **Posts:** 89

Txhighballer wrote:

The nickel steel problem ...

Does anybody know what the alloy of this firebox plate was? Specifically, is there a current or former ASTM or ASME material designation for the plate?

It sounds to me like the plate that developed cracks around the rivet holes may have been a low chrome alloy, something akin to SA-387-11 or SA-387-22, commonly referred to as 1-1/4 and 2-1/4 chrome. The chrome alloys have a silly habit of developing cracks months after going into service if the heat before, during and after welding is not carefully controlled.

Thoughts?

mjanssen · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:17 pm

I think Baldwin (BLH) was actually in the lead intellectually. The TE-1 (N&W 2300) was a magnificent step forward that demonstrated a clear challenge to EMD by variable cost per HP, and gave RR's the ability to continue the use a regional (decentralized) fuel infrastructure and many established railroad competencies. The steam generator, a 600 psig low steam drum marine-type watertube boiler designed and built by Babcock & Wilcox was a success. Unfortunately, the boiler feedwater system and Westinghouse electrical gear, which should have been reliable, wasn't. I believe if issues with these systems had not persisted, the story of BLH and steam may have been different. There was already a Stage II condensing version on paper, and the second version probably would have achieved near diesel-electric maintenance costs. But like Mr. Laeplle said, EMD had some clear advantages in resources. They also had youth and increasing momentum and were free of many of the old steam habits that don't work with more delicate machinery.

It's a shame they were being bitten by product support on a mature design which should have been a source of funding for innovation.

kevin kohls · **Joined:** Tue May 03, 2005 8:35 pm **Posts:** 298

It wasn't just Baldwin that had problems with hairline cracking of boilers towards the end of steam. Mid 1930's through the early 1940's. The later NYC Hudsons built by ALCO had many boiler courses replaced because of a condition called Caustic Embrittlement. (go to ASK.com for the entire explanation) This occurred in boilers that contained manganese steel. The purpose was to build boilers that were lighter and stronger to handle the increased pressures of modern steam. Some of the earlier C&O 4-8-4's built by Lima Locomotive Works also suffered from this same problem.
Apparently good old carbon steel was the best material of the day for locomotive boilers.

Kevin K

M Austin · **Joined:** Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am **Posts:** 488

It was S-43 in 1940 converted to
SA-203 GR. A by 1949 and was in 1992 Section I. Weld P-Number is P9A.
Is not allowed as a Section I material in 2010 Code.

Attachment:

SA-203.jpg [ 95.25 KiB | Viewed 4366 times ]

Paul Boschan · **Joined:** Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:45 pm **Posts:** 89

Thanks Matt, I appreciate the information.

-Paul