Steam & Excursion > Putting the 844 to bed

Now that the engine has returned to Cheyenne and will not be running for a while what needs to be done to it?

Grande473 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now that the engine has returned to Cheyenne and
> will not be running for a while what needs to be
> done to it?

Proper complete boiler wash, first.

I must say having admired the 844 for a long time heres how I prefer it without the Mars light and in two-tone gray, Either way its a handsome locomotive.

Does it really need a wash after such few miles if proper blowdown procedures were followed (and they used tried and proven chemicals not experimenting)?  Okay, maybe it's a good idea anyway in case there's still debris from the work but otherwise?

Absolutely yes it needs a boiler wash.  If you're going to lay it up, then lay it up clean.  You would be surprised how much crap you would wash out after those 5 trips.  Its been fired up twice in the last month.  
I don't know what kind of blowdowns she got on the trips, but that doesn't matter.  You'll never screw up overwashing a boiler.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does it really need a wash after such few miles if
> proper blowdown procedures were followed (and they
> used tried and proven chemicals not
> experimenting)?  Okay, maybe it's a good idea
> anyway in case there's still debris from the work
> but otherwise?

ABSOLUTELY yes!!!!   There can't be too many boilerwashes, what with the crappy, mineral laden city water that steam locomotives have to use today.

WauhopM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must say having admired the 844 for a long time
> heres how I prefer it without the Mars light and
> in two-tone gray, Either way its a handsome
> locomotive.

BUT, "back in the day (early 50's)", it never ran in
two-tone gray without the Mars light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/16 14:47 by Realist.

Looks a bit orange-ish at about the 1:15 mark   https://youtu.be/M5uEEdR66Xs



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/16 15:02 by NWClassJ.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does it really need a wash after such few miles if
> proper blowdown procedures were followed (and they
> used tried and proven chemicals not
> experimenting)?  Okay, maybe it's a good idea
> anyway in case there's still debris from the work
> but otherwise?

Well, maybe you are answering your own question. Has anyone seen any blowdowns occur?

Heard they might use it to move 4014 today. Have to see if they did.

Bob Krieger
Cheyenne, WY

Boiler washes are far from thorough....

YES...with bad water and overzealous application of 'chemicals', you can't do too many flushes.

Boiler washes are simply rinse-outs of some areas of the boiler interiors.
In the firebox end of the boiler, the forest of hundreds of staybolts and the scarcity of access holes, the pressurized water used to flush the crown sheet ( the most important evaporative surface) simply is aimed at the area directly opposite the flushing nozzle...the rest is hit-or-miss because the washout holes are small, and few in number, and the angles of the flushing stream are glancing, and the 'bolt forest'  deflects/obstructs the impact of the pressure streams.

Sure, the some of the encrusted stuff on the crown gets broken up ( dicey at-best) and gets washed towards the vertical sheets, the flakes may or may not get to the mud ring....again, the staybolts interfere with effectiveness of the nozzle stream.   The mud ring is generally scraped with small hoe-like tools to drag the solids to the drain holes at the corners and other mudring locations.
So, the firebox flush is haphazard, at best...

The boiler barrel is even more of a challenge because of the hundreds of tubes, their length and the few flushing holes to operate through.  How many tubes are exposed the the impact of the flushing stream?  
What percent of the total exterior surface of the the 'outer row of tubes' ( of the entire tube bundle) are exposed to the impact of the flushing stream?  
How does the flushing water get to the 93% of tubes tat are hidden in the bundle?  Answer: It doesn't.

Because so few of the tubes are reached, and the limited tube area that can be impacted, the benefits of flushing the barrel are extremely small.
Hundreds of tubes and you can 'hit' only a fraction of the surface of that total number of flues in the boiler.

The Best washes are at the 1472-day  "work" when you actually enter the boiler and can more effectively direct the pressure stream at more of the boiler interior.   Removal and replacement,  of the flues is the BEST way to to ensure clean evaporative surfaces of the flues and tubes.

Back in the day, the flues and tubes were cleaned, at removal,  ( blasted or tumbled) and had 'safe-ends' applied to restore the original lengths.
The repaired tubes were put on the flue rack with new stock and used interchangeably.  A small percentage of the safe-ended flues were deemed 'scrap' if the number of safe-end 'weld-rings' exceeded too many --- typically six rings was the limit.
Each ring typically represented 5-years of use....ergo, the 6 rings times 5 years equaled 30,  cumulative.
When safending, you NEVER cut-off the earlier rings...

So, boiler washes are never very successful during the 1472 day "service period",  but failing to do them allows too much build-up of crud.  Draining and refilling are the BEST way to keep the boilers happy....you MOST effectively cut the concentration of "impurities percentage" by simply flushing and refilling.  Getting rid of the few solids ( mechanically raking the crud to the drain holes) that get to the mudring is another benefit of reducing the rea sing solids that invariably remain entrained in the boiler interior obstructions...

Thats the sad reality of so-called "boiler washes...."

Like voting in Chicago, it's best to vote early and often, ----- boiler washes are similar, do them often and whenever they're being stored. At tube replacement time is when the greatest cleanings should be done..... Use lots of volunteers, like 'church car washes',  
and shoot the stream down between the rows of staybolts, as best you can...

W.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/16 16:55 by wcamp1472.

I hear you guys on that, but can 844 pull that big beast into position though? That's a lot of engine to switch around!

The 844 can pull a dead Big Boy if the engine can be moved at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/16 17:34 by Grande473.

An 0-4-0 would be able to move a dead Big Boy around.

LOL of course 844 can easily move it assuming no mechanical hangups.  What a sorry state things would be if the net output of a Big Boy came only after subtracting a 4-8-4's worth of power just to move itself!  Yes, an 0-4-0 ought to do.  Well, not a Dear Leader 0-4-0, a normal one.

flash34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An 0-4-0 would be able to move a dead Big Boy
> around.

Chiggen!

Cheers, Dave

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boiler washes are far from thorough....
>
> YES...with bad water and overzealous application
> of 'chemicals', you can't do too many flushes.
>
> Boiler washes are simply rinse-outs of some areas
> of the boiler interiors.
> In the firebox end of the boiler, the forest of
> hundreds of staybolts and the scarcity of access
> holes, the pressurized water used to flush the
> crown sheet ( the most important evaporative
> surface) simply is aimed at the area directly
> opposite the flushing nozzle...the rest is
> hit-or-miss because the washout holes are small,
> and few in number, and the angles of the flushing
> stream are glancing, and the 'bolt forest'
>  deflects/obstructs the impact of the pressure
> streams.
>
> Sure, the some of the encrusted stuff on the crown
> gets broken up ( dicey at-best) and gets washed
> towards the vertical sheets, the flakes may or may
> not get to the mud ring....again, the staybolts
> interfere with effectiveness of the nozzle stream.
>   The mud ring is generally scraped with small
> hoe-like tools to drag the solids to the drain
> holes at the corners and other mudring locations.
> So, the firebox flush is haphazard, at best...
>
> The boiler barrel is even more of a challenge
> because of the hundreds of tubes, their length and
> the few flushing holes to operate through.  How
> many tubes are exposed the the impact of the
> flushing stream?  
> What percent of the total exterior surface of the
> the 'outer row of tubes' ( of the entire tube
> bundle) are exposed to the impact of the flushing
> stream?  
> How does the flushing water get to the 93% of
> tubes tat are hidden in the bundle?  Answer: It
> doesn't.
>
> Because so few of the tubes are reached, and the
> limited tube area that can be impacted, the
> benefits of flushing the barrel are extremely
> small.
> Hundreds of tubes and you can 'hit' only a
> fraction of the surface of that total number of
> flues in the boiler.
>
> The Best washes are at the 1472-day  "work" when
> you actually enter the boiler and can more
> effectively direct the pressure stream at more of
> the boiler interior.   Removal and replacement,
>  of the flues is the BEST way to to ensure clean
> evaporative surfaces of the flues and tubes.
>
> Back in the day, the flues and tubes were cleaned,
> at removal,  ( blasted or tumbled) and had
> 'safe-ends' applied to restore the original
> lengths.
> The repaired tubes were put on the flue rack with
> new stock and used interchangeably.  A small
> percentage of the safe-ended flues were deemed
> 'scrap' if the number of safe-end 'weld-rings'
> exceeded too many --- typically six rings was the
> limit.
> Each ring typically represented 5-years of
> use....ergo, the 6 rings times 5 years equaled 30,
>  cumulative.
> When safending, you NEVER cut-off the earlier
> rings...
>
> So, boiler washes are never very successful during
> the 1472 day "service period",  but failing to do
> them allows too much build-up of crud.  Draining
> and refilling are the BEST way to keep the boilers
> happy....you MOST effectively cut the
> concentration of "impurities percentage" by simply
> flushing and refilling.  Getting rid of the few
> solids ( mechanically raking the crud to the drain
> holes) that get to the mudring is another benefit
> of reducing the rea sing solids that invariably
> remain entrained in the boiler interior
> obstructions...
>
> Thats the sad reality of so-called "boiler
> washes...."
>
> Like voting in Chicago, it's best to vote early
> and often,
Probably not a good comparison given that "voting often in Chicago" is a myth.

----- boiler washes are similar, do
> them often and whenever they're being stored. At
> tube replacement time is when the greatest
> cleanings should be done..... Use lots of
> volunteers, like 'church car washes',  
> and shoot the stream down between the rows of
> staybolts, as best you can...
>
> W.