.

Kelly, thank you for the pictures. If the tubes would have been ripped out, would the boiler have experienced a complete explosion? Was the boiler barrel damaged in any way?

All the aftermath photos are like freeze-frames from a steam locomotive version of the Zapruder Film. I saw and handled a small piece of that crownsheet a number of years ago; it was a lovely shade of deep blue.

Howard P.

Not Kelly, but I suspect the tube sheet stopped deforming at the point where there was still water behind it. More likely, to my mind, is that perforation in the area that used to be the knuckle would have split completely open, and the volume of steam venting from the resulting opening would certainly been enough to flip the boiler forward off the frame; the classic crown sheet explosion. luckily, the amount of steam and water venting through the holes as the sheet pulled off the staybolts was enough to dowse the fire and cool the sheet so it didn't split.

"Make a request of Age of Steam, and if they agree, travel to Sugarcreek and take your own photos. With this section cut out, you will be able to photograph both sides of the crown sheet while standing on the grates."

Release date: 2020/06/24

The Age of Steam Roundhouse Museum in Sugarcreek, Ohio, owns and proudly displays former Canadian Pacific 4-6-2 #1278, the steam locomotive that 25 years ago was involved in a boiler incident on the former Gettysburg tourist railroad. None of that firebox and crown sheet damage has ever been repaired, and probably will never be.

It has been suggested that interested parties contact Age of Steam Roundhouse Museum (AoSRM) to seek permission to go to Sugarcreek and photograph #1278’s internal damage.

All investigation, testing and conclusions about #1278’s boiler incident have been reached and published years ago by the Federal Railroad Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board. Any new visitation for further inspection and photography by curious railfans would be redundant, and serve no positive purpose for AoSRM’s mission. Such visitation would also take up valuable AoSRM employee time that is needed for other historic restoration projects at the Roundhouse.

For these reasons, the Age of Steam Roundhouse Museum must politely decline any such requests for special visitation privileges to inspect and photograph ex-CP 4-6-2 #1278. No exceptions, so please don’t ask.

Thank you for understanding our position on this matter. Be safe.

Noel Poirier
Executive Director
Age of Steam Roundhouse Museum
Sugarcreek, Ohio

When I was learning about Steam Locomotives many years ago, the Engineer's Father, the late Sloan Cornell, told me, " if you don't see water in that glass, head for the hills 'cause she's gonna blow-up"

This was at the former Penn View Mountain Railroad in Blairsville, pa. probably in the mid '60's.

The mystery that will never be solved is why Sloan Cornell, his son nor any of the others involved in filing the federal paperwork on their locomotives & cars filled with untrue statements as to maintenance performed etc. never went to prison.

I was hired to take a serious look at the operation immediately after the locomotive failure and what I found was beyond shocking. The files were loaded with falsified submissions, the equipment was in terrible shape and the evidence showed it had been that way a good while. I advised my client to run away not walk away from this mess.

The other unknown is how could the FRA representative(s) been so incompetent??

Gratefully it caused the new FRA code to come into existence which has been a blessing for all.

Ross Rowland

.

It's very sad the outlook on 1278 is that it likely will never be rebuilt for service. She was reported to be a wonderful steamer, easy to run, and an engineer's dream. Ross, jump in here if you wish, as you actually ran her.
I rode her first High Iron excursion, and became enamored of the light Pacific. I'm certain Steamtown took good care of her, I know High Iron did. I wonder what the condition of the CNR Mikado was, when Steamtown swapped the 1278 for it?

I've often wondered that too, Mr. Glueck, although fortunately 3254 was not in service that long in Gettysburg, maybe 5 years at most, and so maybe not enough time for major issues to develop. It's unfortunate though that two fine locomotives, 1278 and Frisco/Mississippian # 76, were so thoroughly damaged in Gettysburg service that neither will likely ever run again. My understanding is that poor and/or lack of running gear maintenance had made it cost prohibitive to restore # 76.

John

"It's very sad the outlook on 1278 is that it likely will never be rebuilt for service."

The Age of Steam Roundhouse Museum has an identical ex-CP 4-6-2 #1293 (except with a different Elesco feed water heater) that has been operated successfully for many years. Right now, #1293 needs a 1,472-day inspection, but everything else on that locomotive is in perfect operating order.

Other than seeing a "different" locomotive under steam, there is no logical or economic reason for AoSRM to invest a lot of money into rebuilding the #1278's firebox, and then still having to repair from scratch EVERYTHING else on the locomotive. This is especially true when the almost-perfectly good #1293 sits in the next roundhouse stall, and can be made operational again at a fraction of the cost for a total rebuild of the moribund #1278.

With so many unforeseen variables in life, nobody knows which locomotives AoSRM might--or might not--rebuild back to operation in the future. The Covid-19 virus has to dissipate in McKees Rocks so AoSRM can be permitted to finish transporting B&LE 2-10-4 #643 to the Sugarcreek roundhouse.

It's always something! Be safe.

John B. Corns

From the 1995 NTSB report on the GRR accident: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-stud ... IR9605.pdf

"Progressive Crown-Stay Failure-- Although not a warning or preventative device, the design of the accident locomotive boiler appeared to mitigate the effects of the crown sheet failure. As previously discussed, the locomotive had alternating rows of straight-thread and button-head crown stays to help ensure that any crown sheet failure due to low water would occur relatively gradually and in stages, rather than instantaneously and catastrophically.

The design was suggested in the 1922 Master Boiler Association manual report. It appears to have been unique to the Canadian Locomotive Company, Ltd. and may well have prevented a more sudden catastrophic failure of the crown sheet, which could have sent the boiler rocketing off the frame,killing or injuring the crew and passengers. The Safety Board believes such a design may be worthy of further study for incorporation in steam locomotives when they are repaired or rebuilt. The Safety Board also believes that the FRA, in cooperation with the NBBPVI and the tourist-railroad industry steam-locomotive operators should explore the feasibility of requiring progressive crown-stay failure features in steam locomotives."

I'm out of my depth here: have "alternating rows of straight-thread and button-head crown stays" been incorporated into any new build boilers in the 25 years since the Gettysburg accident? What are the disadvantages of such a design? The obvious answer is that it is better to avoid a boiler explosion in the first place, but why not have this fail-safe option?

I think (if memory serves) she also has a crown sheet that slopes back towards the door - which means that the front of the crown would be dry first as well as the progressive design of the crown stays which might help limit the impact. Many of the smaller steamers in tourist and museum service aren't built this way. Begs the question of whether the progression of unsloped crowns which do arch from the sides up to the center might be designed with progressive rows longitudinally?

Have any new boilers been built in the last 25 years that make use of straight threaded stays? Current practice seems to favor full penetration welded stays, which are even less likely to pull through than the button head stays. I think the recommendation is for a mode of construction that's time has passed.

John B. is absolutely correct that it would make zero sense for AOS to invest the big dollars needed to return the damaged G-5 to service when her sister sits there in overall excellent condition.

Also, as I've frequently answered folks who ask me when are we going to return the 614 to service the answer is very straight forward.....when a project comes along the will justify the $ 1M-$ 1:5 M dollar investment to put her through the 1472 day FRA drill we'll do it.

I'm sure that to some degree the same reasoning exists at AOS with the 1293 ??

Ross Rowland