Steam & Excursion > 4014 steamed up 4/9

no one is talking about it?

Lots of discussion, about 4014, under the title "Fire In The Hole".

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,4770212

Cheers!

Bob

Of course some say it's more fake news or another hoax. 

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course some say it's more fake news or another
> hoax. 

I remember similar threads back when the negative Nancy's on this forum said 844 would never ever run again. Then all of a sudden 844 was out of the shop and running around the yard and the Nancy's were silent. I predict a similar outcome in the next few weeks.

       I thought the situation was that someone lit a fire in the 4014 but no one said it was to the point of having water in it and producing steam. WHich is it and how far along is this process ?

       Without water in the boiler, I see no point in lighting a fire in the box even if it is a small one to roast weiners on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/19 10:22 by dcfbalcoS1.

Lighting a fire with no water in the boiler is VERY unlikely...that would be a terrible idea.

That said, there was wasn't any info on whether or not they actually got off the peg. I'm sure we will have more info regarding this or future fire ups.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/19 05:38 by capnskullnbones.

I don't know what they did and have seen no film of it, but my guess would be getting the burner aligned and checking its operation.  I wasn't there and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but that's my two cents worth.

capnskullnbones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, there was wasn't any info on whether or
> not they actually got off the peg. I'm sure we
> will have more info regarding this or future fire
> ups.

And the excitement here on TO has been more subdued of 4014's recent progress, and rightfully so.

I'm not too concerned about 4014's "running" schedule or May 10th event. What's more important is that 4014 is rebuilt correctly, and not rushed. If they miss ED's self-proclaimed promise of the Golden Spike celebration deadline, who cares? Send the 844 and 6936, and be happy with that. Let the 4014 have its own day when it runs.

capnskullnbones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lighting a fire with no water in the boiler is
> VERY unlikely...that would be a terrible idea.

Why?  Do you have lots of experience in this area?


> That said, there was wasn't any info on whether or
> not they actually got off the peg.

The "fire" was NOT to raise steam pressure, i.e. "got off the peg", as the shop has a pretty large boiler for firing up, and raising steam pressure. The small fire was simply to cure all the new firebrick and mortar. Not really all that necessary but, at least it puts on a good show.

I'm sure we
> will have more info regarding this or future fire
> ups.

Yes. At least you got something right.

After lurking for so long it's an honor to have a post torn up by you...albeit not in red text like on other forums ;) Care to elaborate upon your rhetorical questions? For example, would you care to share your expertise regarding the safety of lighting such a fire for enabling the cure of said mortar and firebrick in a boiler not containing water? Or perhaps details regarding this process?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/19 15:17 by capnskullnbones.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> capnskullnbones Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lighting a fire with no water in the boiler is
> > VERY unlikely...that would be a terrible idea.
>
> Why?  Do you have lots of experience in this
> area?

The way this question is answered suggests that lighting a firebox fire with no water in the boiler must not be a terrible idea at certain times. 

So I'll bite. . .when is it a good idea to light up the firebox with no water in the boiler, realizing that the temperature of the nice bright flames licking the boiler steel will be. . . . 2000 degrees F or so?? 
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/19 16:44 by Narniaman.

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > capnskullnbones Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lighting a fire with no water in the boiler
> is
> > > VERY unlikely...that would be a terrible
> idea.
> >
> > Why?  Do you have lots of experience in this
> > area?
>
> The way this question is answered suggests that
> lighting a firebox fire with no water in the
> boiler must not be a terrible idea at certain
> times. 
>
> So I'll bite. . .when is it a good idea to light
> up the firebox with no water in the boiler,
> realizing that the temperature of the nice bright
> flames licking the boiler steel will be. . . .
> 2000 degrees F or so?? 
>  
     Well, If anybody cares I seem to have run out of popcorn..... Can someone please share theirs ;-)!!!

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > capnskullnbones Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lighting a fire with no water in the boiler
> is
> > > VERY unlikely...that would be a terrible
> idea.
> >
> > Why?  Do you have lots of experience in this
> > area?
>
> The way this question is answered suggests that
> lighting a firebox fire with no water in the
> boiler must not be a terrible idea at certain
> times. 
>
> So I'll bite. . .when is it a good idea to light
> up the firebox with no water in the boiler,
> realizing that the temperature of the nice bright
> flames licking the boiler steel will be. . . .
> 2000 degrees F or so?? 

!) What makes you think that such a small/light oil fueled fire is 2000 degrees F?

2) Many times a small/light fire may be used in order to prevent freezing of superheaters filled with anti-corrosion fluid during over-winter storage. In the event that the building heat fails (or isn't heated at all) such a small/light fire in the firebox can prevent freeze damage, even though the boiler itself has no water in it.  

"Hot Water" asked. . . 

> !) What makes you think that such a small/light
> oil fueled fire is 2000 degrees F?
>
> 2) Many times a small/light fire may be used in
> order to prevent freezing of superheaters filled
> with anti-corrosion fluid during over-winter
> storage. In the event that the building heat fails
> (or isn't heated at all) such a small/light fire
> in the firebox can prevent freeze damage, even
> though the boiler itself has no water in it.  
===========================================

1) Well, since we were talking about the fire that was allegedly burning in the 4014 firebox, and since there is allegedly a picture of said fire, which appears to be a bright yellow color. . . I would guess the temperature of the fire to be over 2000 F.

And there are some, at least, that agree with me. . . .https://sciencing.com/colors-fire-hot-8631323.html

2) I can certainly understand the need to protect the superheaters from corrosion, and certainly a small fire in the firebox should keep any anti-corrosion fluid from freezing. 

I don't understand why aren't the umpteen hundred (or however many) staybolts in the boiler are not afforded the same protection. . . . . 


 

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Hot Water" asked. . . 
>
> > !) What makes you think that such a small/light
> > oil fueled fire is 2000 degrees F?
> >
> > 2) Many times a small/light fire may be used in
> > order to prevent freezing of superheaters
> filled
> > with anti-corrosion fluid during over-winter
> > storage. In the event that the building heat
> fails
> > (or isn't heated at all) such a small/light
> fire
> > in the firebox can prevent freeze damage, even
> > though the boiler itself has no water in
> it.  
> ===========================================
>
> 1) Well, since we were talking about the fire that
> was allegedly burning in the 4014 firebox, and
> since there is allegedly a picture of said fire,
> which appears to be a bright yellow color. . . I
> would guess the temperature of the fire to be over
> 2000 F.
>
> And there are some, at least, that agree with me.
> . .
> .https://sciencing.com/colors-fire-hot-8631323.htm

Such temps would be at the flame. With a firebox the size of 4014, they were NOT trying to reach overall temps of 2000 degrees F.


> 2) I can certainly understand the need to protect
> the superheaters from corrosion, and certainly a
> small fire in the firebox should keep any
> anti-corrosion fluid from freezing. 
>
> I don't understand why aren't the umpteen hundred
> (or however many) staybolts in the boiler are not
> afforded the same protection. . . . . 

If there is no water in the boiler itself, there is nothing to freeze and expand, causing subsequent damage. Just because all those staybolts get cold, there is no danger of them breaking.

HotWater Wrote:

> Such temps would be at the flame. With a firebox
> the size of 4014, they were NOT trying to reach
> overall temps of 2000 degrees F.

I agree if you have a flame the size of something produced by a cigarette lighter I would certainly not expect the temperature to reach 2000 degrees F. . .  or even several hundred degrees F. 

But a fire producing the amount of light shown in the Big Boy Firebox picture?? I would expect it to heat up the Firebox steel well above normal operating temperature


> If there is no water in the boiler itself, there
> is nothing to freeze and expand, causing
> subsequent damage. Just because all those
> staybolts get cold, there is no danger of them
> breaking.

I understand why staybolts would not be at risk for freezing and expanding in an unfilled boiler. 

My question is why weren't they afforded the same corrosion protection that the Superheater was? 

 

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
>
> > Such temps would be at the flame. With a
> firebox
> > the size of 4014, they were NOT trying to reach
> > overall temps of 2000 degrees F.
>
> I agree if you have a flame the size of something
> produced by a cigarette lighter I would certainly
> not expect the temperature to reach 2000 degrees
> F. . .  or even several hundred degrees F. 
>
> But a fire producing the amount of light shown in
> the Big Boy Firebox picture?? I would expect it to
> heat up the Firebox steel well above normal
> operating temperature

You can't be serious. The "normal operating temperature" in the firebox of an operating steam locomotive, under considerable load is well over 3000 degrees F!


> > If there is no water in the boiler itself,
> there
> > is nothing to freeze and expand, causing
> > subsequent damage. Just because all those
> > staybolts get cold, there is no danger of them
> > breaking.
>
> I understand why staybolts would not be at risk
> for freezing and expanding in an unfilled
> boiler. 
>
> My question is why weren't they afforded the same
> corrosion protection that the Superheater was? 

Because the boiler can be drained and pretty well dried, while the superheater units will always tend to retain some moisture, and being tubes, the hungry oxygen will eat right through the tube material. Staybolts are solid, very low carbon steel, and not subjected to the same effects of hungry oxygen.  

BKLJ611 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andersonb109 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Of course some say it's more fake news or
> another
> > hoax. 
>
> I remember similar threads back when the negative
> Nancy's on this forum said 844 would never ever
> run again. Then all of a sudden 844 was out of the
> shop and running around the yard and the Nancy's
> were silent. I predict a similar outcome in the
> next few weeks.

You can thank UP Brass for getting 844 back up and running, if that didn't happen she'd still be in the shop slowly coming back to how Ed envisions her to be, not how she was origianlly designed, look at the past posts on that!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/19 20:42 by ProAmtrak.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Narniaman Wrote:

> > But a fire producing the amount of light shown
> in
> > the Big Boy Firebox picture?? I would expect it
> to
> > heat up the Firebox steel well above normal
> > operating temperature
>
> You can't be serious. The "normal operating
> temperature" in the firebox of an operating steam
> locomotive, under considerable load is well over
> 3000 degrees F!

=============================
You might note that I said the flame shown in the "Big Boy Picture" would heat up the "Firebox steel" well above the normal operating temperature -- absent water in the boiler. 

The "normal operating temperature" of the boiler steel is nowhere close to 3000 degrees F; if it was, the steel would melt quickly and with much gusto, since the melting temperature of steel is. . . .somewhere around 2500-2750 degree F. 

Now I am quite aware that the temperature of the combustion products in the firebox can reach 3000 degrees F -- but the firebox steel itself doesn't get anywhere close to that temperature -- IF there is water on the other side of that steel at a moderate temperature, such as maybe 417 degrees F, which is the temperature of saturated steam at 300 psi. 

The water "protects" the steel in much the same manner that it is possible to boil water in a paper cup over an open flame -- as long as there is water on the inside of the cup, the flames kissing the side of the cup will not set the cup on fire. 

There are, of course, numerous explosive examples from history of the folly of operating even a minimal fire in a boiler without the boiler crown sheet being completely covered with water. . . . 
 

We all know who Jack Wheelihan is and what his credentials are. Who are you and how many decades of experience do you have?
Steve

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Narniaman Wrote:
>
> > > But a fire producing the amount of light
> shown
> > in
> > > the Big Boy Firebox picture?? I would expect
> it
> > to
> > > heat up the Firebox steel well above normal
> > > operating temperature
> >
> > You can't be serious. The "normal operating
> > temperature" in the firebox of an operating
> steam
> > locomotive, under considerable load is well
> over
> > 3000 degrees F!
>
> =============================
> You might note that I said the flame shown in the
> "Big Boy Picture" would heat up the "Firebox
> steel" well above the normal operating temperature
> -- absent water in the boiler. 
>
> The "normal operating temperature" of the boiler
> steel is nowhere close to 3000 degrees F; if it
> was, the steel would melt quickly and with much
> gusto, since the melting temperature of steel is.
> . . .somewhere around 2500-2750 degree F. 
>
> Now I am quite aware that the temperature of the
> combustion products in the firebox can reach 3000
> degrees F -- but the firebox steel itself doesn't
> get anywhere close to that temperature -- IF there
> is water on the other side of that steel at a
> moderate temperature, such as maybe 417 degrees F,
> which is the temperature of saturated steam at 300
> psi. 
>
> The water "protects" the steel in much the same
> manner that it is possible to boil water in a
> paper cup over an open flame -- as long as there
> is water on the inside of the cup, the flames
> kissing the side of the cup will not set the cup
> on fire. 
>
> There are, of course, numerous explosive examples
> from history of the folly of operating even a
> minimal fire in a boiler without the boiler crown
> sheet being completely covered with water. . .
> . 
>