On a somewhat related note, if (and that's a BIG if), Gettysburg/Pioneer Lines ever decides to start up tourist operations again - how should a potential operator combat the "didn't a locomotive blow up here" stigma that could be faced from the non-railfan public and railfanning public?

Use diesels?

I think lot of it is the number of people who have actually done this type of work or at least been around it is getting fewer and fewer. If you have not put in stays or rivets one probably just assumes since the contractor is making lots of noise and sparks all is going well. Same goes with maintenance. I get a call there is a part needing fixed they can't get is off so they torch off the whole assembly. They are thinking they just made it easier and no idea how much more complicated the repair is now. They don't realize what options there are for repairing in place or better tools for getting things apart. Even worse having seen contractors do that and just add it to the bill. Another case is going to take ultrasound readings and the smoke box has damp debris. Not a big deal till they get bad news. Some times coming out of the shop looking like a homeless person is part of the job but who wants to do that.

Chris

Other than diesels as already suggested, I don't think among the people really into steam, you'd ever be able to get out from under that.
The mere mention of the word, "Gettysburg" causes cringes in any discussions on tourist operations, steam or diesel, anywhere in the US. The name alone has become a synonym for "Bubba operations" for tourist railroads.
I volunteer on a tourist RR in the Pacific NW and I hear it from someone (more than half the time, from passengers) probably every weekend I'm there.

Time, and more time really. Take for example the S160 locomotives while several blew up in WW2 in Britain, it hasn't stopped heritage railroads from using S160's now all over the world. Yes the operators of the S160's know "we have to take precaution X and modify Y to be safe," but I don't think the general public when they are visiting say Great Smoky Mountain Railroad or Churnet Valley Railway are really thinking about the explosive properties of the engines back in war service. Time heals all wounds.

If a modern Gettysburg tourist operation started up, yes right now using diesel power would be the safest move. But in another 20-30 years the Gettysburg failure in 1995 will be viewed as "history" and a bygone memory of the past. Maybe it won't even take that long, look at how the Georgetown Loop is viewed now with its current operators vs how it was viewed with its prior operators after they trashed C&S 9. True C&S 9's issues were more behind the scenes problems than a public boiler explosion, but a competent management team has helped make that past history look like water under the bridge. Its clear that Georgetown Loop's refocused on maintenance and safety has help washed away the bad memories from prior mistakes only 14 years ago.

I was on of those that came in after the C&S 9 and the 12 axle break incident to help
put things back together...... 9 should not have been put into service in the first place. The "restoration" was largely composed of new wooden parts, Chinese fittings and paint. The oil conversion was....... let's just call it impractical. Both locomotives had been disassembled and left on shop trucks with no tracks to follow in terms of documentation, etc. Starting work on site was postponed for a very long time while hemming and hawing in Denver resulted in an outside contractor doing the - not restoration, but reassembly - jobs by remote control under very short fuse scheduling.

I'm thrilled to see what's happened there since those conditions were experienced. That's a fantastic bit of railroad to experience.

I think what it'd really take would be something more face-palm-inducing that the Gettysburg incident.
And let's face facts, many (of not all) of us know of some pretty shifty operations with steam that have happened since then or are still going on today. It's just something we only mention around members of the group or in hushed tones where nobody else is supposed to make it public.
No, it'll take someone doing something even dumber with steam to make us all forget Gettysburg. But for that to happen, it has to be really bad, and it'll have to have an effect on everyone else (as in making the current FRA standards much more strict or banning steam on FRA-rule-governed railroads altogether)
Those explosions are hardly everyday discussions among steam and RR people. I know a couple of 'heavy hitters' in steam who have no clue about them as I discussed this topic with one, who had no idea that'd happened (and appeared to have little interest due to how removed he truly is from that subject).
Boiler incidents hardly happened every day on railroads back in the days of steam, but most crews knew of someone who'd had one happen or dealt with the aftermath of one. But you rarely hear about them now, from back in the day.
But as for the S160s, there was nothing mechanically wrong with them. The (single) sight glasses on them gave their British crews in incorrect idea of the water level as some didn't get under what context to pay attention to the levels (and when not to).
Keep in the mind, the Army railroaders knew how to run them, all three of the crown sheet failures happened with British crews, who really didn't like them for various reasons. They thought their braking didn't compare well to other British locomotives and the axle-box grease-lubricators often caused some hot running.
But like with any machines, if you know how to use them, and keep track of stuff, you're fine.

I don't think the general public would ever care about the Gettysburg Railroad's past. A few steam fanatics might be aware of the previous operator and the errors/accident/etc. But John Q. Public really wouldn't have a clue about all that baggage.

As evidence, I submit NH's Mt. Washington Cog Railway. In 1967, 8 passengers died riding that train. Today, if the visiting public even knows about that tragedy, they assume today's operation is now safe. (Which, by all accounts, it is.) Contrast that with the public's knowledge of what a "crown sheet failure" is - and the fact that no passengers were hurt - and I think that a steam operation could begin in Gettysburg PA tomorrow. (The economics and practicalities of doing so not withstanding.)

As a follow up, here's an old local news clip with a nice shot of the firebox interior and crownsheet bulge at the 45 second mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUQ0KyIRYx8

The loss of 1278 in this accident is what bothers me the most. I rode behind her and chased her numerous times. She was a beautiful example of her class and by all accounts, while maintained properly, a great steamer. I've been told by people in the know, the cost of rebuilding her overshadows ever doing so, and she'll likely wind up as a parts supplier for sister 1293. The stupidity in the manner of how Gettysburg operated her speaks volumes in a clear, loud, voice.

Late to this topic and going back to the very first post...

Would someone be able to summarize how this incident changed inspections and inspection cycles? Apologizes for the rookie question, I'm not directly involved in preservation so I'm always interested in learning more!

From my understanding, ultrasounds have been around since the late 80s, were they required before this incident or was this incident the reason why an ultrasound has to be done at a 1472 inspection? Were 1472 inspections even a thing before this incident?

It bothers me also that they basically ruined another locomotive, Mississippian # 76, through their lax/non-existent maintenance. They let the running gear get so worn and damaged that it was cost prohibitive for the Steam Railroading Institute to restore, so the engine is now and probably will always be a static display.

John

Concerning the S-160 2-8-0 locomotives. It was my understanding that some of the staybolt threads didn't extend completely into the crown sheet causing a failure.
There was a book published in England about the S-160's and I remember the author spent considerable time discussing that issue. I don't remember the title.

Kevin K

Yeah the damage to the machine is what bothers me the most when people are seriously injured and permanently impaired in an industrial accident.

Honestly, some times I want to be able to play the Owen Grady line from Jurassic World:

Do you hear yourself, when you talk?

It's inevitable that some steam engine will pop again. There is probably not a day that goes by that someone who is either insufficiently trained and/or purposefully ignoring rules they well know, isn't tossing a match into an engine that shouldn't be in service that day. I've seen it with my own eyes, and so have many others. Someone reading this probably knows of an operation that should be shut down immediately, but is too timid to call it out.

Many things we do are safe, as designed, and a generous safety margin will usually protect you if you have a failure or a lapse in judgment. The key is to immediately rectify the shortcoming, and never repeat it again. But many people take it as 'proof' that the safety margin is safe to intrude upon, and proceed to do that, sometimes for years on end.

Look up 'normalization of deviance'

A good example is the recent B-17 crash. The basic B-17 is plenty safe, and the same existing aviation safety rules that make air travel ridiculously safe, would of kept that aircraft safe, too. But they allowed at least 2 of the engines to get into a very bad state of repair. The B-17 can fly around on 3 engines, and should of been able to make it home on 2. They knowingly dug into the safety margins, over and over and over, till they finally found the line in the sand.

There was nothing to learn from Gettysburg. It did exactly what it was expected to do, unfortunately. The government did the only thing they could do... clamp down hard and attempt to add more intense oversight of steam locomotive operation. That's what they will do, next time, too........