Steam & Excursion > So, where is FEC 148 headed?

There is a thread over on the Narrow Gauge Discussion Forum that shows 148 loaded on a depressed center flat in Monte Vista, CO, apparently headed to a new home...

Yeah, they did a lot of work to it in (my home town of) Traverse City, and had high hopes, but most of the work involved disassembly and not reassembly because money and interest ran out. And the engine always seemed a bit small and high-drivered for Colorado. Yes, where IS it headed? === === = === JLH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/16 21:55 by highgreengraphics.

.070???  Good Lord, what kept it from rupturing?  That scares the hell out of me just reading it.  I'm thinking you don't even worry about fixing something like that.  You either dress it up and display it or reboiler it.  Wow!
 

Hey, .070 is enough for 10 psi and an almost whistle blow! The real issue is that it was running and put away with
the .070 sheet, it didn't get that way from airborne deterioration!

Out

That's just the sort of thing that in a worst case scenario could end steam operations in the US.  Unbelievable!

How could it even get that thin since the last teardown / inspection?  Is that even possible?  Or was the last inspection improperly done?  That's a lot of wastage.

I meant the inspection prior to its last running.  If it's that terrible now it must have been almost as bad then.  Excursion engines don't get that much use.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I meant the inspection prior to its last
> running.  If it's that terrible now it must have
> been almost as bad then.  Excursion engines don't
> get that much use.

I suspect "the inspection prior to it's last running" was done
long before many industry folks were even aware of UT
testing.  It's almost 100% certain it was not UT'd at that time.

I should point out that some steam operators, including
some who adamantly opposed the new FRA rules from the
beginning, learned stuff from their first UT tests that scared
the $**t out of them. 

Until then, they had no idea what they had been gleefully
riding around on.  And exposing the public to.

The same thing happened when Amtrak required private
car operators to do intensive truck teardowns and inspections.
Much jawing and gnashing of teeth.  Then a few owners
actually did the teardowns and inspections and what some
of them found scared them to death, too.  As with boilers,
it was things nobody could see just by a quick look-over.

Dare I say it - but if the new owner (if indeed that is the case, that there is a new owner of the engine) wanted to, and they could afford it, just have a new boiler built for the engine, and the issue of thickness would be for naught, yes?

Jim Lipnitz
Morrisville, PA
Big Jim Video Productions

So, lots of very informative specialists on here whose opinions I admire and respect. Per the original question, where is FEC 148 headed? === === = === JLH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/16 21:39 by highgreengraphics.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BigJim...
>
> I suspect that the hypothetical owner would find
> that a new boiler would be the START  of all the
> necessary work that would be needed.  

Have to agree with Wes on this one.  Some now-deceased folks who were around when 148 ran on BR&W said the locomotive was a shop queen.  The thing couldn't go a day without breaking something.

There is supposedly some issue with the metal in the frame too.  So what good is it to build a new boiler, if you are going to put it on a bad frame?

Was this the same loco that had a telivised excursion with the late Tom Snyder officiating on his late night show? (Tom was a railfan.) If so, that could have been a very interesting episode if something had happend... As a very young man, (about 1970?) I remember watching that.

Victor A. Baird
​http://www.erstwhilepublications.com.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/16 12:58 by wabash2800.

bigjim4life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dare I say it - but if the new owner (if indeed
> that is the case, that there is a new owner of the
> engine) wanted to, and they could afford it, just
> have a new boiler built for the engine, and the
> issue of thickness would be for naught, yes?

Yes.

The question was about a new boiler and whether it would address the thickness issue.

My assumption is a new boiler designed and built to current codes, using all-new material at full design thickness, with no patches or other "repairs" and designed to meet or (hopefully) far exceed the minimum design factor of 4.

The existing boiler would be irrelevant, as it would never steam again, but would be nice to have to vividly illustrate what happens to these things over decades of service with minimal or no inspection a and shade-tree repairs. Drill a few holes in the thin spots to show just what a piece of crap it is now.

Maybe even run the numbers to show just how far away it is, in it's current condition, from meeting minimal FRA (and common sense) requirements.

Frame, running gear, and appliances are separate issues from the boiler. However, as usually is the case with a junk boiler, the rest of the locomotive should be considered suspect, too.

IMPO.

Is all this the same thing that happenned to #1744?  Last I saw it, it was a pile of parts in a field.

Ed

Auburn_Ed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is all this the same thing that happenned to
> #1744?  Last I saw it, it was a pile of parts in
> a field.
>
> Ed

1744's issues were/are in the firebox.  There were issues with leaking staybolts.  Investigation showed the side sheets had star cracks emanating from the staybolt holes.  the only logical way to repair this is to put in new side sheets.  Then it was discovered the mudring was cracked in 3 of the 4 corners.  That is when it was decided to remove the boiler from the frame and send it off to the contractor's shop in Alabama.  There it was worked on intermittently as funding was available.  Eventually the contractor closed his business, and the unfinished boiler was moved to the Texas State Railroad in Rusk Tx.  The rest of the 1744 remains in Alamosa.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/earlknoob_/100_2123.jpg


148's problems are mostly in the boiler barrel, a much more costly area to repair.  To my knowledge, 1744's boiler barrel is fine.