This suggestion was made in the context of steam traction engines. While I've not heard of this before, I can see where it comes from; the typical Case traction engine does not have a lagged boiler. All the machinery mounts to the outside of the boiler shell, which is exposed. So, if your traction engine has a worn out boiler and you want it to make steam while still maintaining its original appearance, you need to install a new boiler inside the old. Kind of makes me wonder how one does a external visual inspection in the future, but this is getting off the topic we are discussing.As I mentioned before, the equivalent railroad locomotive repair is installing a new welded boiler under the lagging and jacket. So long as the new boiler is the same shape as the old, and doesn't have any strange appurtenances, such as lift eyes, sticking out through the jacket, the appearance of the locomotive is maintained. It is true that the original technology of the lap seam boiler is now gone, but to paraphrase the old VO5 commercials, only your boilermaker knows for sure. There is nothing that shows on the outside of the locomotive, and the operation and function changes not one bit.However, that's not to say that the original boiler should be scrapped. Small boilers to make into sectional displays are hard to come by these days, and this one has the advantage that one doesn't have to destroy a locomotive to get it. In addition, this one has the added advantage of being a lap seam boiler, which opens up a whole additional avenue of exhibits on early boiler disasters and how the technology evolved in response to them.

Another thought comes to mind in this debate. Your friendly boilermaker states that the repair bill will be $1 million this time and replaces a quarter of the platework. Next time he quotes you $2 million and replaces another quarter (so you've only got half of the original boiler and you've spent $3 million). A quote for a new boiler was $1.5 million first time round and the next 4 rebuilds would probably only cost $250 000 each.....A new boiler can, in the long run, save you money as well.G

Dennis and all, No one has mentioned the program that is going to be carried out by the WW&F museum. They too have an 1890 lap seam boiler, which can not be steamed under Maine regulation.They will do the boiler (they raised most of the money) soon and I hope do a cereful job during the switch.They're talking about the oldest of the five Maine two foot engines and one of only two Portland Company engines or boilers.And here is another interesting thought. There are a couple of two foot Paper Mill engines at Boothbay that were Dieselized for park operation a number of years ago. Only the outside shell of the boilers remain. Not likely to operate, but if you did find a pot of gold, you will need everything new to make steam.Would you do this much change to the historic fabric in order to do have a steamable locomotive? A third museum that is going to do a new boiler is the Colorado Railroad Museum. They are going to do a new boiler for the D&RGW 218 which has been in pieces for many years. The wheels and frame are now in their Roundhouse Shop. Ted MilesTed Miles

Another museum that is activly considering a boiler replacement is Wisconsin's Mid-Continent. They state that they plan to replace the boiler for the C&NW R-1 1385. Then they plan to place the old boiler on display. I have looked inside the R-1 boiler and the firebox is mostly been torched out. The mud ring is gone, and inner sheets, throat sheet, etc... A new boiler will be built in Milwaukee. I have not been to the museum lately, so I can't speak from a personal view. SteveP.S. Speaking of boiler displays... The Illinois Railway Museum steam department, has the remains of one of the ex GTW 0-8-0 switchers that they were given to the museum by Northwestern Steel & Wire. (Someone correct me if I am wrong), It is one of 7 or 8 of the 0-8-0's that the museum sent to a scrap yard in exchange for the ex CB&Q 2-8-2 4963 that had been owned by Richard Jenson and somehow ended up in the scrap yard. The scrap yard cut one of the 0-8-0's off about 18" in front of the cab, and the cab and about 18" of boiler were sent back to the museum. The idea was it would make a great display on not only the cab, as all the controls are still there, but also of how the firebox and boiler were constructed. It is sitting outside behind the steam shop as they have a full plate of work there for years to come. It's too bad but I do think that it would make a valuable interperative display someday. It is like anything, it just needs someone to do it.

Some thoughts on the Colorado narrow gauge 2-8-0 in question in the original post. If the locomotive is indeed overhauled and outfitted with a new boiler for ten years of service on the Georgetown Loop RR and then returned to Boulder for static display, it seems to be a bit of a waste of a new boiler. Ten years of service is somewhat minimal use of a brand new boiler (with proper maintenance and operation), especially considering the cost to engineer and fabricate the boiler.One possibility would be to spend the dollars now and build the new boiler, overhaul the rest of the locomotive (as much as it takes to get 10yrs of reliable use out of it), and get the planned ten years of service out of it. Then during those next ten years secure funding and engineer and fabricate a new (replica) chassis ready to be put under that "barely-broken-in" boiler at the end of the ten year period. IMO, a replica "Colorado Consolidation" would be the ideal "every day" motive power for the GL tourist line, what with its "vintage-equipment-punishing" grades and curves. I would wager that the time and dollars to design and build a new locomotive chassis may be greater than for the boiler. Folks often talk about "building new steam" vs. "continuing to wear out the historic stuff", here is a possibility to do just that and be able to spread the total cost over many years--while still having an operating locomotive in the meantime. After ten years, the city gets its historic locomotive back with most of its "historic fabric" intact.Yes, there are other issues, such as the tender. I would guess the original one needs a great deal of TLC to be functional. Perhaps a new / replica tender would be in order anyway. If we're talking basically a new tank on the old frame and trucks, perhaps new tender running gear (I would imagine new trucks would be the big $$ item) could be built later along with the engine chassis and swapped out after (or during) the ten years.As I mentioned above, this would be the perfect operation for a replica steam locomotive. The current operators (Railstar) have (so far) done a fantastic job at keeping this railroad alive and in steam. IMO the railroad does need a larger locomotive (even larger than the celebrated 2-6-0 9) to handle the loads and to continue the level of fine service that the past operator had provided.Regards,Jim Robinson

As for the thought of putting a new boiler inside the shell of the original one...I know of / heard of only one steam tractor that had that done. Ironically it is a rather rare 10HP Westinghouse traction engine located in western PA. These Westinghouse tractors were unusual in that they had a vertical fire tube (VFT) boiler mounted at the rear of the machine. The tractor in question has a smaller-diameter VFT boiler "dropped" into the gutted shell of the original boiler and piped to the engine. I assume the original boiler was beyond all hope and this was the only reasonable means of keeping the machine operational. I don't know if the new "inside" boiler is of new construction or--more likely--is just an old (smaller) boiler that was in better shape than the machine's original one.I can see how this particalur example would be ok with the inspectors since the operational boiler can be lifted out of the old one for an external inspection of the shell. What's left of the old boiler (basically just the shell) is little more than a jacket for the new one. I can't see how one would do something like this with a conventional (horizontal) locomotive-type boiler and be readly able to remove the "inside" boiler for repairs and inspections. I never heard of an example of this being done to a "conventional" (ie: Case, Frick, Peerless, etc.) traction engine and certainly never to a locomotive.Regards,Jim Robinson

I belive the boiler in a boiler was done to some jacketed traction engines in Australia.

Have never heard of anyone installing a new boiler inside the shell of an old boiler. I dont think there is an inspector in the US that would allow that due to the need to be able to inspect the surfaces of the new boiler either visually or with ultrasound.

As I read the thread about reboilering a locomotive I had to laugh out loud at the thought process you all are using to justify not replacing a boiler. The railroads did it on a regular basis because they wear out. Likewise if we are going to use these locomotives we will need to either make extensive repairs or replace the boilers when they no longer can be repaired or used in a safe maner. Just a note lap seam boilers are not any more dangerous than a butt strap boiler. The danger comes from the human element that is operating the boiler and their inattention safe operation practices. I am an owner of a 1917 Case Steam Traction Engine. My boiler has been ultrasounded and hydro tested and is safe to operate at 140 psi. I have a good boiler but have already started planning what to do when this boiler can not be repaired and that is to replace it with a new ASME boiler to meet or exceed all necessary rules and regulations in the states I operate in. The point here is if you dont replace older boilers as they wear out you either have locomotives that are junk sitting on a siding somewhere or you have a ticking time bomb waiting to go off when you have a low water problem with the boiler and the crown sheet buckles and the boiler fails.

It is a no brainer to re-boiler the loco for daily service.The fact that the original boiler is being preserved is both unique and show a great interest in historical preservation. Note: I am partially paying for this restoration as a Colorado taxpayer.

Jason - when the decision was made to operate rather than conserve the locomotive preservation went out the window. Bringing it into the picture at this point isn't realistic. Having laid hands on the poor old hulk, it will require a lot of repair work to the running gear as well as a new boiler to be reliable and safe in an intensive operating environment, which will effectively eliminate the historic patterns of mechanical wear and deferred repairs which so perfectly demonstrate the operating strategy of the railroad during is last period of service. If preservation is your primary concern, don't touch it, just enclose it in a nice building - but then, haven't you already allowed it to be moved out, and stripped, and the boiler cut off? Bit late to worry about it now........A new boiler should be built, but not as an exact duplicate of the original. Modern engineering and combustion design can make a better boiler that will fit into the same space as the original - why pretend nothing developed over a century of design improvements and simply reproduce 100 year old state of the art but welded? Better still would be entire replication from the railhead up - and even more cost effective in the long run. Hopefully, once the new operators and CHS get some operation under their belt they can better come up with strategies to equip the line to suit their real operating needs, rather than make do with whatever they can find that could sort of work for a while. They have certainly done a fine job of getting the railroad up and running with bits and pieces so far, but the tail is wagging the dog insofar as rolling stock is concerned, and the right stuff for the job would go a long way towards making the line more economically successful.dave