Steam & Excursion > Speaking of unfinished projects-PRR 1361

While Im beating a dead horse thought I would see if there is any information on that pile of parts PRR K4s 1361. I even made a not too nice post on altoona memorial facebook page suggesting there more interested in holding concerts or "wingday wednesdays" that completing this locomotives restoration. The only locomotive projects showing less progress than this one is the ones out in Cheyenne.

Are there any photos of the pile of parts to look at?

Posted from iPhone

Not that I know of-maybe someone else can enlighten us?

I saw the pile of parts recently. Everything is accounted for and stored inside.  It is being worked on and they are trying to devise a plan to get the chassis from the old building into the roundhouse.   Progress is slow going with limited manpower and money available, but its not at a standstill.

Rick Rowlands
Hubbard, OH
Youngstown Steel Heritage

Are the boiler and all parts at Altoona?

Sent out for a case of popcorn for this topic.....

Hypothetically speaking, if The Railroaders Museum of Pennsylvania said tomorrow that they were sending the engine to Strasburg to restore it to full operating condition, would you send money to make it happen?

Posted from iPhone

Yes I would-because I know the Strasburg RR is a COMPETENT OUTFIT that gets results-and they know steam.

Yes, if they announced that Strasburg had ordered a new boiler.

The museum crew really does mean well. As I've said elsewhere, it's a question of the non-steam preservationists not getting the idea of the FRA regulations, and the steam folks not always understanding why the preservationists think they should be able to fire her up and "just go around the yards a little." They need a big sit-down with one person at a time talking and nobody walking out of the room.

Rebecca Morgan
Jacobsburg, OH

mikeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sent out for a case of popcorn for this topic..... A case of beer would help too!

We have lemons, time for lemonade. This is an excellent example for what NOT to do
and should be referenced by any well meaning group looking to do a locomotive.

Out

I'd like an honest answer here, would you pay up to have it done properly? By a team of proven professionals, with a plan, a track record of success?
or at this point would you not throw good money after bad, declare all efforts to this point for naught?

I believe the most efficient solution is that a new firebox be made.  I don't think it requires an all-new boiler.  Is it possible that it only needs a new crown sheet & wrapper or does the stay spacing issue affect the side sheets as well?

How is the rest of her?

In theory, the thicker a given piece of steel, the more rigid it will be over the same fixed distance as a thinner piece of the same material. I do not know if the Strasburg RR is decreasing the spacing of the stay bolts on the LIRR 39 but they have formed the new crown sheet and have the holes drilled and chamfered for the new staybolts. Perhaps someone from the Strasburg could comment on this as all PRR Belpaire firebox es apparently suffer from the same deficiency.

TrackGuy

Posted from Android

But wouldn't both sheets need to be thicker?  If you can solve the problem with just one great but seems like you'd need both the inner and outer replaced and in that case there's no gain by preserving the staybolt spacing that I can see.  And that's if it even solves the issue since the same staybolt spacing with the same bolts ought to result in the same pull-apart strength...so maybe you need thicker bolts too.   Maybe it's just simpler to make a complete firebox with the same thickness sheets and same staybolts, just more closely spaced.  I'm sure a qualified person will be along any moment.  (It sure isn't me!)

Why must this be so difficult for folks to understand? There is no need to make new sheets or fireboxes. There is no need to re-design anything. There is only the need to stay the crown sheet to the roof sheet with the original PRR design crown stays per the original blueprints for the boiler (and other PRR Belpaire boilers originally constructed with this design).

Since the bolts haven't been installed yet (as I recall), this should not be a significant obstacle. These can be made on CNC machines at not a tremendous effort, although there will be some expense. Start a "buy a bolt" campaign to get the correct parts made once the firebox sheets are installed (if they aren't already) and bolt lengths confirmed. I don't remember how far they got. I've slept since then.

Now that's something worth donating to... I'll volunteer $50-75 for a bolt and nut over a blanket donation any day. Once there is some credibility to the project again, perhaps others will donate. Maybe NS Foundation could be asked for some assistance once competence is shown or any other number of fund raising opportunities tapped, including getting the state grants back on track. 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/15 21:42 by newriver400.

---

Here are some thoughts from those involved, New River...
"Please allow me to answer a few of the questions poised on this board. I have worked 4 years on this project and the last 6 months as the somewhat reluctant on site project leader. I do not know the amount of funds spent on this project. The crown sheet is not the issue at this time, rather it is the outer Belpaire roof sheet and its supporting staybolts that are in question. An ultra sound test does not find flawed enginnering, which is the underlying problem with the sheets and stays. The staybolt spacing (5 1/8 X 4 1/2) is too great for the thickness of the sheet even if it were new(the entire wrappper was only specified to be 3/8" when new). Even if the sheet thickness were increased the stresses on the crownstays would be in excess of those permitted by the FRA. The extent of the flawed engineering is not known completely (thus the cost of repairs is still unknown), thus the shutdown was necessary to allow for the engineering to catch up. The factor of safety of 4 requiredment has not changed since this boiler was built, the new 1999 regs have no bearing on this issue.

I would be curious to know if other organizations have discovered flawed engineering in their boilers when calculating their new form 4s? I would hope that by my making this public other groups would learn a valuable lesson from this project, do not assume it has to be okay because it ran that way for 50 years! We tried to come up with answers as to why this flawed engineering came about, but have not discovered a total answer. Lesson: Complete your boiler survey before even writing up a work scope. There are some other issues that are contributing reasons for the work to come to a halt.

The funding issue has been on going issue since late winter/ early spring and to the best of my knowledge was a seperate issue from the flawed enginnering issue.

I do not know on how this issue affects the other PRR locomotive restorations, but I suspect they may have similar issues, after all it was "The Standard Rairoad of the World".

Mike Tillger"

"To answer the questions on the roof sheet, there are several things to consider.

As far as the K-4 is concerned, we feel pretty confidant we figured out what the Pennsy did. When the earlier Belpare boilers were built, they were designed to have the crown/roof sheet bolts thread through the roof sheet and stick out enough to be able to thread a nut on the ends as well. When you use nuts that bear against the sheet you can use a thinner plate than you can without them. This is because you have not only the threads through the sheet as an attachment, but you also have a nut holding the sheet as well. This type of construction allows for a higher “constant” to be used in the flat stayed surface formulas in the ASME Locomotive Codes. The higher the constant, the thinner the minimum required thickness.

The Pennsy at some point (1940 +/-) eliminated the nuts and went with the bolts threaded into the sheets only method, presumably to save on costs. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that they kept the same bolt pitches and didn’t make the sheet thicker to make-up for the lower constant. How they got away with it regulatory wise I don’t know, but in actual practice it worked. We went back as far as the 1920s era Locomotive Codes and couldn’t make it work. This particular calculation changed very little up to and including the last Loco Code of 1952.

The K-4 and most other Pennsy engines before the 1940s were built with 3/8” thick roof sheets. With the 5.0625” transverse bolt pitch, and 3/8” thickness, this gives a working pressure of only 175 psi for a 205 psi boiler. This isn’t even considering normal wastage which has made it even thinner. When you use the constant for nutted construction, you get a working pressure of 210 psi. This is one of the “design flaws” that Mike Tillger talked about.

This is where you get to the debate of “it worked before so why mess with it”. The problem is that you have to be able to hang your hat on numbers that support using a given part. If you can’t do that, then it’s all over and you replace the part.

I hope this helps,

R L Musser"

Posted from iPhone

Thanks for these two replies. I don't think I had seen these two explanations before but it makes sense. Is it possible then, to return to the older PRR practice of using a nut on the outside of the roof sheet as well as threading the staybolt through the roof sheet?

TrackGuy

Posted from Android

Although Mike's explanation gives accurate information and I don't think it was intended to be misleading, there is an important item that should be clarified. As Rick pointed out, the original engineering is not flawed or deficient. Subsequent construction or repairs weren't done in accordance with the original engineering, thus the deficiency.  Mike raises the question as to whether others have encountered deficiencies in engineering during restoration. Possible, but much more common is deficient repairs subsequent to original construction. Or, maybe modifications performed based on shop practice or by those thinking they're smarter (certainly lazier) than the engineers who designed them.  Thus, the reason it makes sense for the requirement to recalculate form 4's with what is actually there and not go along with theoretical originals that have seen much service, possible modification, and repair work to the boilers since they were constructed. 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/15 09:31 by newriver400.

The issue of outer wrapper strength can be solved with the nuts, but the issue of excessive staybolt stress cannot, unless staybolt diameter is increased which introduces flexibility problems.  Perhaps that is not as great of a problem, but it would take soem calculations to determine what the acceptable staybolt diameter should be and then determine if the stiffness of the larger bolt will cause other problems.  So it may or may not be possible to solve this problem with staybolts. 

Rick Rowlands
Hubbard, OH
Youngstown Steel Heritage