Steam & Excursion > PRR 1361 - The reason the restoration was suspended is... ?

An update was requested about a month ago with very good information - to append to that, I was
wondering if the following can be answered in a short summary in regards to the actual suspended 
restoration:

What happened?  And let me preface this by stating the obvious: No one wants another round of 1361
bashing and blithering nor unsubstanciated /unecessary opinions that do not ADD constructively to the
record..

Specifically - research suggests that the main issue for the "suspension" of the restoration was a new
set of FRA regulations that perhaps? were overlooked? requiring a thicker firebox sheet as well as different
spacing or perhaps more staybolts to meet current FRA requirements to safely maintain the desired
pressures and crashworthyness with a specifc safety factor..

So the question is - why wasn't a new firebox and /or boiler built, as has been done with several other
locomotives restored over the years? 

If it was in fact those new regulartions that were overlooked - was the restoration suspended due to funds
being mispent solely on the restoration of an out of spec firebox?   Or was it that a new firebox was simply
way over what could ever be expected to be funded?  Assuming the boiler was in acceptable condition, than
a new firebox should not have been any more problematic that entire assemblies built for other locomotives
such as SOU 401 and now CNW 1385, and others that escape my recollection.  After all, Wes stated in the
previous thread that that may have been Penny's plan all along - replace rather than patch and /or rebuild
the Belpaire fireboxes.

Second question:
How much was spent over the entirity of the project?  Read unsubstanciated estimates between 1.7 million to
3.3 million.

Last question:
What other (real) issues were there, otherwise? 

Thanks - trying to fill in some puzzle peices for myself, and others.

/Mitch

Incidentally - I've added a few images over on RP.net filling some gaps.  My Canon (and even an older point and
shoot Nikon digital camera did NOT like the lighting in the DL&W shops at Steamtown, lol.  Regardless - searching
PRR 1361 brings up an interesting collection of images that can be searched by "date taken" chronology.

Photo below taken June 23rd, 2007   - some 11 years after arrival if my facts are correct.  Corrrections welcome on
any of my captions should you browse through my collection on RP.



 



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/17 14:37 by Mgoldman.

---

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Photo below taken June 23rd, 2007   - some 11
> years after arrival if my facts are correct. 
> Corrrections welcome on
> any of my captions should you browse through my
> collection on RP.

For what it's worth, she looks NOTHING like your photo now, since your photo is almost 10 years old, and meaningless to current discussions. Currently, the boiler isn't even on the frame, and the roof sheet has been cut out.

Let the facts continue.

It's real simple. The ONLY solution if it is to run on the mainline is a NEW BOILER !! PERIOD !!   For the UMPTEENTH time!! Enough already.

   IMHO-Ross Rowland

Just looking for some insight and answers to questions asked which I assume would be of
interest to others as well.

As for the image - I only posted to compliment the discussion of restoration of PRR 1361.  I
suggested a trek over to RP for those interested in the timeline which I found quite fascinating.
I do not beleive an aquaintance of mine over on that site would mind me posting with credit,
a more up to date image - not that, like my image, it is germane to the questions posted.

Ross - I agree, obviously.  But that does not answer any of the questions posed.

/Mitch
 

---

Mitch, there were some newer pics on a thread 18 days ago, but I am not sure that they are very recent.   http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,4238753,page=1

nycman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mitch, there were some newer pics on a thread 18
> days ago, but I am not sure that they are very
> recent.
>   http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php
> ?10,4238753,page=1

Thanks - how on Earth did I miss that!  I was over at
RYPN and the Narrow Gauge Forums, FB and Wiki.

Reviewing it now - great info and pics - checking to see
if my questions had been answered.  Ross, may owe
you an apology, unless my question eludes answer on
that thread. 

At the very least, enjoy Jeff Snell's RP shot.

/Mitch

OK - As NYCman pointed out, there is a great thread posted about a month back
asking for a status update with great information from Wcamp1472 but my question
stands searching for an answer:

Wcamp1472 stated:
"The PRR approached the problem by designing the entire firebox be replaced as a
prefabricated structure.  Cutting off the back end and applying a new firebox was how
the PRR conceived of spending a lot of time patching up worn-out furnace sheets,
across a whole class of boilers."

My question is - why did the restoration fail, or atleast get suspended?  Or, why was so
much money spent without the result being a fully operational locomotive?

Was the "new" FRA regulation overlooked causing a huge waste of money in restoring
the firebox to out of date specs?  Or was it that the new FRA firebox regulations were
too expensive to ever truely be adequately funded?  And last - if know, and even if not
known until after the fact - how much an issue is it to construct a new firebox as the PRR
suggested as a practice?  Considering the funds involved - it would seem attainable unless
money was mispent or used extensively on other parts of the locomotive.

/Mitch

 

Mgoldman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK - As NYCman pointed out, there is a great
> thread posted about a month back
> asking for a status update with great information
> from Wcamp1472 but my question
> stands searching for an answer:
>
> Wcamp1472 stated:
> "The PRR approached the problem by designing the
> entire firebox be replaced as a
> prefabricated structure.  Cutting off the back
> end and applying a new firebox was how
> the PRR conceived of spending a lot of time
> patching up worn-out furnace sheets,
> across a whole class of boilers."
>
> My question is - why did the restoration fail, or
> atleast get suspended? 

Incompetent contractors/management, and funds ran out.

Or, why was so
> much money spent without the result being a fully
> operational locomotive?

Same answer, i.e. incompetent contractors/management.

> Was the "new" FRA regulation overlooked causing a
> huge waste of money in restoring
> the firebox to out of date specs?

Not in my opinion. See answers above.

  Or was it that
> the new FRA firebox regulations were
> too expensive to ever truely be adequately
> funded? 

No.

And last - if know, and even if not
> known until after the fact - how much an issue is
> it to construct a new firebox as the PRR
> suggested as a practice? 

I would NOT think that would be any problem at all for the German steam locomotive facility.

Considering the funds
> involved - it would seem attainable unless
> money was mispent or used extensively on other
> parts of the locomotive.

"money misspent"?  You can't be serious!  Thus, considering the entire history of the "1361 project", I can NOT see any large amounts of money being raised for a totally new boiler/firebox assembly, built in Germany.

> /Mitch
>
>  

Mitch, it's been answered.  The so-called "new" regs were ignored
in one of the earlier restoration attempts, as the contractors either
didn't understand them, did not know how to do the calculations
properly, a little of both, they were instructed not to make it compliant
by political hacks, or possibly they thought they could slip one by
the FRA.  When the truth came out, they scatterd into the tall weeds.

THEN, there were people in the management of the group who,
rather than devise ways to bring the firebox up to standard (replacing
the roof sheet), instead convinced themselves (if nobody else that
mattered) that they could simply lower the boiler pressure down
until the mandated design factor of 4 was met, then they could
operate it as they pleased.

Not only would that not solve anything, it would have the locomotive
operating at around 180 psi or even less, which is barely enough to
operate the stoker and air pumps, much less to operate well.  Then,
15 years later when the numbers would be even worse than now, they
would just derate it again until they reached a point where it couldn't
make air for little things like BRAKES!

Those people were/are completely divorced from reality.  They only
listened to people who told them only what they wanted to hear.
 

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mitch, it's been answered.  The so-called "new"
> regs were ignored
> in one of the earlier restoration attempts, as the
> contractors either
> didn't understand them, did not know how to do the
> calculations
> properly, a little of both, they were instructed
> not to make it compliant
> by political hacks, or possibly they thought they
> could slip one by
> the FRA.  When the truth came out, they scatted
> into the tall weeds.

Will anyone ever know? 

Regardless - I'll ask, does anyone recall the date at which point
the restoration was discovered to be "illegitimate"  / out of compliance
and why at that point, a new fire box was simply not added as the
next step to continue the restoration.

And what work (and costs) could be considered misspent.  In other
words - a lot of work HAD been successfully completed.  What work
was performed (and costs, if known?) that had no purpose other
than to deplete funds raised?

HotWater - to reiterate, incompetent in what way - specifically?

/Mitch

Mitch,

Please,,,,,,,,,,,enough is enough!!!!!!  GIVE IT A REST, especially if you do not really understand the technical issues of boiler work in order to comply with any, and all FRA regulations.

Bottom line is, poor 1361 isn't going anywhere, at least in my lifetime.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mitch,
>
> Please,,,,,,,,,,,enough is enough!!!!!!  GIVE IT
> A REST.

That does not answer the question - I'll rest when
it's answered.

Why were the regulations overlooked?  Realist
suggests it may never be officially declared.

How much and what work was performed with no
benefit towards restoration to opreation?

How much of that money was mispent?  Assume it
was so much, that the restoration was suspended
rather than continued.  Otherwise, the group doing 
the restoration would have simply had to add a new
firebox to the list of things required to bring 1361
back to operation.

Was it that the cost of a new firebox (and it's
engineering) simply out of the scope of feasible
funding?  Or was it the aggrevation in regards
to the mispent investment that put an end to the
official restoration?  As it stands I beleive the
plan is now cosmetic or possibly restoration for
operation at reduced pressues /speed.

/Mitch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/17 15:25 by Mgoldman.

Mitch,

You are asking too many rhetorical questions. Any "correct" answers, that would apparently satisfy you, might just be bordering in libel.

There was a lengthy and informative post either here or over on RYPN that laid every part of the failed second restoration out in a regulatory/budgetary/time line-type of format that would  answer all of your questions (except for an update)...problem is finding it in the myriad of posts with 1361 in the title on both sites. I do know the post was made just about when the whole works ground to a halt at Scranton if that helps any, and I do believe it was on RYPN. Best of luck on your quest, I may browse around a little myself and see if I can recognize it.

Cheers

Another thought just came to me.  

Mitch, just why do you want to know all this? It's all water over the dam now, and the various "incompetents" involved are NEVER going to go to prison.

This is very appropriate for this subject

---

Please, just stop.

As Ross said: Enough Already!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/17 16:03 by nhiwwrr.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mitch,
>
> You are asking too many rhetorical questions. Any
> "correct" answers, that would apparently satisfy
> you, might just be bordering in libel.

Here's the deal.... I'm looking at a bunch of photos
through the years of the restoration of PRR 1361.

I'm thinking someone asks:
"What ever happened to that restoration?".  

The answer - legitimately, is: :
"It needs a new firebox".

The question follows - "And?"

So my question is the same.   There have been many
restorations that have taken over a decade to fund
and complete.  Why did this one end vs continue with
a call for additional funding to build a new firebox.

AKA - why did the restoration officially stop?

I was wondering - was it aggrevation over mispent
funds and labor or was it the unanticipated discovery
of the need for something as expensive as a new
firebox that shut the restoration down?  Or perhaps
both?  Lot's of opinions - was wondering about the
"offical" record.

And yes - there are of course the curiosities of the details:

What work was performed and how much did that work
cost that yielded no benefit.  The group restoring the
B&M locomotive ran into a problem where work had to
be redone . they admitted it and continue forward.

How much money was spent in total?

What might a new firebox from scratch cost?

/Mitch

 

Spoony81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is very appropriate for this subject

Love it!

An interesting observation - if it's a dead horse, why are you
looking???

Why am I asking?  I'm simply curious to fill in the details that
elude my discovery.  Assume others have some interest as
well - including those that added but did not contribute.  No
one is being forced to read nor respond to this thread, but I
thank those that have done so in a constructive manner.

/Mitch