Re- reading the threads about the fantastic work happening to TVRM 4501 got me to thinking about what railroads did to increase the ability of their charges to make money. I am not a mechanic by trade, but I know what goes where and why. Hypothetically, I'm thinking about some changes to a Mike which would give her more horsepower at speed and a little more tractive effort starting out. For the sake of arguments' sake, she is about the size of 4501 ( only using her as a good reference point so that in no way it seems as though I am insulting their great efforts)....this is for fun only just to pick the mechanical genius out there...::

1. Go from Type A to Type E superheaters, with a corresponding change in flue sheets and flue arrangement;

2. Thermic syphons in the firebox;

3. Multiple valve throttle;

4. Ten percent increase in steam pressure ( 200 PSI to 220PSI );

5. Feedwater heater if not already equipped;

6. Roller bearings where possible ( This is not a new build, so most likely none on the driving axles )

7. Weighting the frame to provide more weight on drivers;

8. An increase size in the exhaust passages;( assume 14 inch valves )

9. Perhaps make her limited cutoff?

Have I Frankensteined what was once a good locomotive or am I on to something?

I should also add that this engine would be something that could be used in freight service during the week and excursions on the weekends..

All those modifications would be definite improvements. Whether you could justify making them to an excursion engine on a cost/benefit comparison is a whole 'nother question.

A couple of suggestions:

If it was me, I'd use circulators (T-type or N&W transverse arch tubes) rather than syphons as they'd be MUCH easier to fabricate and maintain, and by all indications they work just as well as syphons.

I'd also say you left off the single most important thing you could do to improve the performance of a steam locomotive- improve the exhaust system. Check out the Lempor exhausts installed on the Grand Canyon Railway's locomotives for good examples of installations on locomotives similar to 4501. I believe Nigel Day (the designer) has said optimally, the 4960 could use twin stacks; the single stack arrangement was what could be worked out in the limited time available.

The simplest is to weight the loco down some more. However, would your siderod mechanics put up with the needed working horsepower it has to muster?

Your daily working freight runs might not be in the same high demand as the mainlines, but your giving your engine more workout per week, if daily use you'd have it hot 24/7. Better efficiencies anywhere on the engine will help.Inspect where the interior steam input is, if its at the steam dome, move it close to the firebox, thats where the NKP berk's is. That where the steam is hottest.

I think it's a apples & oranges problem.

It all depends on the usage of the locomotive, does the No-Where and Western tourist line need super heaters and roller bearings for their 0-6-0 on their 4 mile line?

For a Mainline Locomotive one of the 1st things I would do is a centralized mechanical lube system. I think reliability is one of the most important issues.

-Hudson

Why " Frankenstein " a historic artifact ?

For the money and effort, and it is simply best maintenance practice,
whether you're in the excursion / tourist railroad business, or any other
industry or business using a steam boiler;

Use an appropriate and effective water treatment program to
protect the metal of the boiler.

Pretreatment by ion exchange softening is often more cost effective than
feeding mineral - laden water to the boiler and then attempting to accomplish
the scale prevention and metal protection tasks with all internal treatment.

It has been well known for a century, that iron and steel have a minimum
corrosion rate at a pH of around 10. This is especially true in a steaming boiler,
running between 360 and 450 F. Using pH neutral water in a steaming boiler is
having acid against the steel.

Water treatment programs that are appropriate for pre-conditioned and
De-Aerated feedwater in an industrial or utility enviornment are often
inappropriate for cold feedwater fed from an open-to-the-air tender tank.
This water is not de-aerated, nor does it become so prior to entering a boiler.
An injector or feedwater heater as fitted to a locomotive has no de-aerating step.
Dissolved air with 21 % oxygen enters the boiler with the feedwater, but passes
out with the steam quickly. This does no harm in a properly treated and conditioned
boiler with a well established protective film of magnetite hydroxide.
( Black iron oxide formed under moderately basic water pH )

Most corrosion damage occurs when boilers are laid-up cold, even in as short a time as a week, certainly in two weeks.
Yes, steaming a boiler drives the oxygen out of the water, but it returns when the boiler cools and air from the outside gets in.
Chemical oxygen scavengers often cause more harm than benefit.
Sulfite and it's decomposition product, Sulfate, are highly conductive and contribute to Galvanic, mixed metals corrosion.
Additionally, they increase the tendency for foaming, wet steam and carryover. Hydrazine and Morpholine are known carcinogens.
The most simplest and most practical approach is to use a treatment that automatically forms a micro-thin protective organic film.
This isolates the metal from oxygen and salt pitting and " opens the circuit " on galvanic corrosion.
For longer range protection against oxygen pitting in wet layup,
the standard industrial and utilities practice is Nitrogen Blanketing.

Now for the economics;

The fuel to steam efficiency of a clean boiler vs. a boiler with as little as 1/8" of scale will be 20% higher.

The endurance based steam production and potential drawbar horsepower will be correspondingly higher.

If routine management of Total Dissolves Solids ( TDS ) is performed and managed with a condition based blowdown program,
steam quality will be maintained at peak dryness.
This directly effects engine performance in terms of cylinder power, lubrication, longevity and reduced maintenance costs.

When a dirty boiler is producing even slight carryover, abrasive rust flakes and bits of sand and scale are travelling with the steam.
These cause scaling, corrosion and overheating of superheater tubes and excessive mechanical wear of valve and cylinder parts.

You don't have to be a water chemist.
With modern, automatic water treatment and a consistent routine including TDS testing and blowdown management,
operators will achieve top notch results with minimal expense and effort.

Many CMO's don't hesitate to use top notch, 21'st century lubricants and materials where appropriate,
but get all emotional or revert to 1890's style boiler protection,
or worse yet, do nothing at all, then complain about bad boilers.

IMHO, rather than Hot Rodding a locomotive, simply operate and maintain it as-built at reasonable cost and high effectiveness.

Hi Guys, I know everyone has heard this before form me. I think when you factor the cost of "Souping Up" an older steam locomotive, with it's age, current service life, previous wear & tear in operational use, while keeping some of it's historic fabric intact, I think it may be cheaper to build a whole new locomotive based on it's original designed - but updated for maximum efficiently using the technology currently available. Lets face the hard truth here folks, 75 – 110 year old locomotives only have so much of a running life, without completely rebuilding and replacing 90% of it’s parts. Is that preservation or replacement? If you are looking for a steam engine to run 50 – 60 miles a day for 4-6 days a week during the summer, and most of the year on holidays and weekends, you might want to consider a nice new build “souped up” 4-6-0 (Lets say based on an branchline mix service NYC ex U&D 4-6-0, MP/IGN 4-6-0, or an PRR H6sa 2-8-0). You’ll get more service for your $$$.

Have fun - David Notarius, London UK, ex New Hope PA

A couple thoughts, why run it at all? To preserve the artifact it's better to just park it or only operate it just a few times a year at a grossly reduced pressure like the William Mason. Or, build a replica so as to preserve the historic fabric. ;-)
Water treatment, if you have more than a dusting of build up in sheets and tubes something is being done incorrectly. Even with utterly clean metal surfaces, feed water systems reduce strain by some 20%.
It is absolutely not cheaper to build new over modernization, excluding crack pot schemes like the go fast Pacific in Kansas. In terms of what's mechanically possible, modernization is absolutely cheaper. It was nominally $6 mil US to build the tornado. One would be hard pressed to spend over a million in doing all of the mentioned improvements excluding roller bearings...... that would add perhaps another 750k on a medium size mike.

Cheers, Jason

I bought this book the railroad encyclopedia, its is/was a yearly released book, in it I found some kind of paint mentioned you paint the interior of the boiler with it, it bonds with the metal to prevent corrosion, I'll pull the book later to get the name , off to work, unless someone here recalls it.

Probably Apexior.

TX, you are describing pretty closely what IC and other roads did in the 20's and 30's.

One caveat: Stay away from Type E superheaters. Whatever fuel savings they might bring are far offset by the higher cost of fabrication and the higher maintenance cost vs. Type A.

This is all hypothetical; no engine is being Frankensteined. Nothing wrong with it, though, for an engine that is being used to do real work. Sure, any steam locomotive running today does so in the interest of preserving history but for an engine seeing regular commercial use, what's wrong with a little experimentation with various elements? Everything being discussed is out of existing practice so a little mixing and matching is itself keeping with history practice. It's what they did back then and would do now if recip steam was still running.

I would think whether syphons or circulators, the more heating surface added right in the middle of the fire has got to be a good thing, provided you can maintain them without a lot of added work.

One more thing: Loco Valve Pilot. If you don't want to have a cam made to fit your engine then how about simulating one with digital sensors feeding an iPad or similar display? It's not cheating if it just does what a real Valve Pilot would do. But of course additional inputs could be incorporated.

Steve

The draughting has to be the number one item. In practice it can increase the available power by reducing the back pressure, improve the air flow to improve the combustion of the fuel and improve the boiler heat transfer. It is not possible to give a precise improvement figure but it is usually between 10 to 50 percent of the fuel for this one modification depending up what was on the loco before. It's true 4960 should have had a double and a lot of my resent work has been in researching how to make single chimneys for large locos.

We have just marked twenty years of Lempors on the Welshpool and Llanfair Cearilion Railway.

My second item would be good water treatment.
The third improved piston rings
The fourth is some more chime whistles.

Apexior it is. For boiler interiors.

Locomotive Cyclopedia 1938, thick book stock full of data, pictures you name it, it is a must read.

Apexior also had a grade of their paint for the inside of the water compartments on tenders.
When we restored 1522's boiler we painted the inside of the boiler and all the flues/tubes before installing. We painted the tender inside and when we got the ex-IC water car and fixed it up inside, we used it in there. Smelly stuff but it worked fine.

Circulators, interior boiler shell paint, Lempor exhaust, valve pilot, sticking with Type A superheater....but can you install a multiple throttle with it? Compared with a Type E, what less percentage of superheat on average would I have with a Type A? What would be the optimal flue/tube arrangement?

It's about balance and proportioning everything optimally together. What I'm reading now has to do with doing the best you can to optimize the most restrictive item, and then matching everything else to it in good proportion. One I recently read based the design for the firepan, oil burning system and front end on the tube inlet opening areas from the combustion chamber, since that seems to be the most restrictive impediment to free circulation of air and products of combustion in the combustion flow........no point having more air coming in to the firepan to cool things off than the tubes can carry the hot gasses etc away from at maximum. No point constricting the nozzle to force higher front end vacuum to the point that it impedes power due to increased back pressure to see if you can make more flow happen than is possible.........and balances this with stoichiometric calculated values based on necessary heat input at a given boiler efficiency to produce the power (steam) output over time that is required for the proposed work......and the conclusion is that most boilers are too damn small and poorly designed and we muddle through, but here's some sort of rules you can go by, and a few formulas follow.

It's as much art as science, some of this stuff....and empirical knowledge is as valuable as theory. So, in answer I'd suggest the tube area at its maximum and a balance between superheat gained in the steam VS the loss in tube opening volume caused by blocking flues off with superheater elements.

Of course of the throttle can't open to full flow.......why bother?

dave