Suppose you found a steam locomotive that had been sitting in a shed for 40 years. The last time it was steamed up it was in service. Its got surface rust all over it but black paint in other areas, maybe some lub showing in some places, dry in others.
So you clean out the firebox, tap around and you dont see any damage. The tender doesnt leak.
So then you do a hydro test on it and find no leaks..Now heres the big question: Do you now build a small fire and put a little steam to her?

adofmsu@aol.com

Alan
My first response would be: “Do I have a death wish?”
If the loco in question is owned by you and you will never ever run it for the public, and away from the public, then one could do a bit more of an inspection of the boiler tube itself, and again, if you have a death wish, the fire away.
If, on the other hand you want to share the joy of a steamed locomotive with others, a complete tear-down of the boiler, removal of the jacket, flues and a UT test would be in order, before I WOULD PUT A FIRE IN her belly.
Ron

http://members.home.net/svry/
ronbrin@eoni.com

Now heres the big question: Do you
> now build a small fire and put a little
> steam to her?

NO!!
That engine is not even close to being steamable. A complete Form 4 should be done on the engine including boiler mapping and tube replacement. The jacketing will have to be removed and the asbestos taken care of as well. All of the journals and bearing surfaces will have to be inspected as well as the cylinder and valve surfaces. All of the appliances, including but not limited to the injectors, air pump, lubricators, air control valves, the throttle and the reverse gear, should be completely inspected and tested.

Even if everything is OK, you are talking about a $200,000 project. I hope you have an oil well in your back yard.

Tom

ironbartom@aol.com

> Suppose you found a steam locomotive that
> had been sitting in a shed for 40 years. The
> last time it was steamed up it was in
> service. Its got surface rust all over it
> but black paint in other areas, maybe some
> lub showing in some places, dry in others.
> So you clean out the firebox, tap around and
> you dont see any damage. The tender doesnt
> leak.
> So then you do a hydro test on it and find
> no leaks..Now heres the big question: Do you
> now build a small fire and put a little
> steam to her?
Well I don't think it would be a good idea. But I have seen an engine go from static (outdoor) display to steam in less than two years. This engine had not run in at least 40 years. Though I think some additional testing and work was done beyond what you suggested, it would have been crazy to steam it otherwise. Having seen the engine sitting static, it was quite a shock to see it running so soon. Yet it was in good enough shape to push two steam engines and several coaches a few miles one day. The engine has since sat two years out of service awaiting more extensive repair. Anyone care to guess which engine I'm talking about?

Based on what you've written, I'm inclined to thing you're talking about East Branch & Lincoln 2-4-2T No. 5 that was steamed up and operated at the White Mountain Central a few years back. Correct?

Jeff Terry

> Well I don't think it would be a good idea.
> But I have seen an engine go from static
> (outdoor) display to steam in less than two
> years. This engine had not run in at least
> 40 years. Though I think some additional
> testing and work was done beyond what you
> suggested, it would have been crazy to steam
> it otherwise. Having seen the engine sitting
> static, it was quite a shock to see it
> running so soon. Yet it was in good enough
> shape to push two steam engines and several
> coaches a few miles one day. The engine has
> since sat two years out of service awaiting
> more extensive repair. Anyone care to guess
> which engine I'm talking about?


jterry618@msn.com

Anyone care to guess
> which engine I'm talking about?

It wouldn't have a Belpaire firebox, would it?

glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

The temptation sure would be there, but I do think it's inviting almost certain disaster. As i recall, wasn't the deadly tractor explosion in Ohio a case where an unfit, unsafe, steam tractor was fired up by people who had cosmetically renewed it, and had no operational knowledge of the dangers of steam under pressure?
One display locomotive with which I am personally acquainted, was hydrostaticly inspected and pronounced to be "ready for firing", despite the fact she had been sitting for 25 years at the time. The people who currently have the locomotive are totally rebuilding her from the inside out before touching a fire to her grates. A modern steam locomotive under 205 psi would be an unbelieveable source of power and devastation. I would love to own a small locomotive of my own, but not without certification from a competant, licensed, state inspector.

glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

What is this, a pop quiz? Suicide Week on RyPN?

One other factor not described by the others: Does anyone really know for sure precisely how well it was maintained before it was stored? If we were talking anything but, for example, the Walt Disney or Strasburg forces maintaining the loco, forget about steaming it until you have a full ripdown as per what the others suggested.

NO loco that was properly maintained and perfectly cared for and was in immaculate condition would be just shoved in a shed for 40 years, save for bizarre exceptions like the "emergency reserve" locos stashed in Scandinavia, Russia, etc. And even with those locos, one would be well advised to demand full documentation on the prep work done prior to mothballing.

Don't even believe legends of locos that were "given a full overhaul and then never steamed again". I would strongly suspect any such loco had ordinary pipes substituted for the flues. About the closest I have heard to the "overhauled but not fired since" legend was PRR "7002", and even Strasburg took their merry old time restoring that loco in the early 1980s.

lner4472@bcpl.net

What follows is a report on when that was done. By no means is it a recommendation. When the W. T. Carter & Brother and Moscow, Camden & St. Augustine locomotives were loaded out on flatcars at Camden, Texas in the early 70's the crew placed most of the locomotives with a small tractor. When they were down to the MC&SA 201, a 2-6-0 used in the construction of the Panama Canal, and the heaviest loco, a 2-8-2, the crew decided to steam the 201 which had been sitting for several years in the boneyard. There was still oil in the tender tank. It was the last steam locomotive in service. I was told by some of the participants that the locomotive moved around successfully on 40 pounds of steam pressure. The following day they attempted to use the 201 as a switch engine to move the 2-8-2. They brought the 201 up to a higher pressure and then a couple of flues at the bottom of the boiler collapsed. No one was scalded (God looks after fools and little children) but steam shot out the stack higher than the nearby saw mill stacks I was told.

I was present when the 201 was later steamed in Arkansas after boiler repairs and was involved with it at Eureka Springs, Ark where it is used today in excursion service.

BTW, the tractor did a satisfactory job of loading the last two locomotives.

dsrc512@sd.value.net

From stuffed to steam is what happened when the U. P. 618 was moved from display at the Utah State Fairgrounds to the Rio Grande’s Heber branch to start the old Heber Creeper in ’69 or ’70. The engine was moved under her own power using compressed air in the boiler, on panel track through the streets of Salt Lake City to the nearest rail head (U. P.). The U. P. then towed the engine 45 miles to Provo with the main rods connected (not a very good idea), and turned her over to the Rio Grande. The ‘Grande towed her another five or seven miles up the Heber branch to the mouth of Provo Canyon leaving her spotted next to a ramp used for loading hoppers. A dump truck on the ramp filled the tender with coal, the boiler and tender were filled with water, and the fire was lit. The engine ran the rest of the way to Heber, about 21 miles, under her own power.

There is photographic evidence to back all this up. It was typical of the rough and ready way things were done on that railroad during the first few years, but that is not how the current operators do things these days.

Remember, that the 618 was retired by the U. P. in excellent condition, and was only in the park for about 12 years, in a very dry climate. Deeds like this are no longer possible due to the passage of time, the more stringent regulations of today, and (hopefully) a little more responsible attitude on the part of the participants involved.

One piece of preservation trivia, L&RP magazine claimed the 618 was the first steam engine to be returned to service from a park. A precedent we should all be happy to note.

The story of how Union Pacific 618 returned to steam is indeed an interesting one. Right now I'm working on a book about the Heber Valley Railroad and its predecessor, the Wasatch Mountain Railway, and along the way I've talked to many of those who were involved with the 618 project back in 1970. While the engine was indeed in good repair, after sitting for 11+ years outdoors some of the appliances were rusted out and useless and were replaced with parts acquired from Kennecott, which had large stockpile of steam parts (for their mallets) that had never been used. Even so, the engine was in excellent condition and required very little work to be operated under steam. It had been overhauled at Provo in the late 1950s, then used only a handful of times before it was placed on display. This is one reason why the firebox and boiler were never once touched by the Heber Creeper folks, and the 2-8-0 didn't receive any substantial work until 1993-94 when it was completely rebuilt by the Heber Valley Railroad.

There are similar stories about other engines that worked on the Heber Creeper. Yosemite Lumber Shay No. 4 sat in a scrapyard in Stockton, California from the mid-1940s until it was moved to Utah in 1971, and the only thing that was done to get it roadworthy in 1973 was lubricate everything, replace the boiler lagging and jacketing, and install new gauges. It ran until 1977 before the boiler flues started to give trouble.

A sister engine from the scrapyard, former Sacramento Valley & Eastern 2-6-2T No. 2, was fired in 1980 after sitting idle since 1947, and proceeded to run from Heber to Charleston, a distance of four miles. (Even though the No. 2 was in excellent shape, it never operated again because it was too small to pull 'Creeper passenger trains.)

SP 2-6-0 No. 1744, which came to Heber via the Corinne Railroad Museum at Corinne, Utah, was in excellent condition and needed a minimum of work to steam again. Some piping was replaced, the cylinders reinstalled (they had been removed by the SP prior to the engine moving to Utah in 1959). It returned to service four months after arriving on the property, after twenty years on static display.

Jeff Terry

jterry618@msn.com

> Based on what you've written, I'm inclined
> to thing you're talking about East Branch
> & Lincoln 2-4-2T No. 5 that was steamed
> up and operated at the White Mountain
> Central a few years back. Correct?

> Jeff Terry
I was wondering if anyone would figure that out.

TVRM found such a locomotive many years ago: a CofG 4-4-0 numbered 349. This locomotive had been purchased right out of a roundhouse by an individual who then placed it under a shed. It was a play toy for his children. This locomotive was in remarkable shape (and still is) but we will not consider steaming it until the boiler and running gear have been overhauled.

Another case involves the 5288. This IS a locomotive that was rebuilt and never used. Not on purpose, it just never got called for service and remained "Stored out of Service" from 11/57 until 2/60 when it was retired and sold to Nelson Blount. I have copies of all the monthly reports to prove this. So, 40 years of storage on a brand new locomotive. Let me tell you, there is no way I'd fire the old girl up in her present condition. I'd like to live longer!

aw90h@cs.com

For some reason, I've never heard how the ex Rio Grande line that the Heeber Valley runs on ever got severred from the rest of the railroad world. Was there a big political or business battle for some hot real estate? Just curious. Always hate to see a RR line become disconnected from the outside world.

Rob Gardner

train@nls.net

The Heber Branch left the main line by way of several miles of street running though the heart of Provo City's business district. The Heber Creeper didn't use that end of the line, and propably couldn't have afforded to maintain it if they did. Add that to the city's desire to free up one of its main streets, and it's not much of a mystery.