Steam & Excursion > Hey, Jack (HotWater) ...

Do you know if any of the UP’s three operating “oil-conversions”  ( 844, 3985, 4014) were fitted crown sheet, “Drop Safety Plugs”?
If so, how many would you expect would have been fitted in each loco.

SP, and most other RRs,  had similar oil burning locos which were all fitted drop safety plugs ...typically 6 to 8 plugs per crown sheet.

Any FRA ( “New” Steam Loco rules), concerning conversions, that require adding drop safety plugs to such ‘conversions’...?
I wonder if 4014 is so fitted.

Wes
 

You know they don't do anything without getting them hot enough.

Out

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you know if any of the UP’s three operating
> “oil-conversions”  ( 844, 3985, 4014) were
> fitted crown sheet, “Drop Safety Plugs”?
> If so, how many would you expect would have been
> fitted in each loco.
>
> SP, and most other RRs,  had similar oil burning
> locos which were all fitted drop safety plugs
> ...typically 6 to 8 plugs per crown sheet.
>
> Any FRA ( “New” Steam Loco rules), concerning
> conversions, that require adding drop safety plugs
> to such ‘conversions’...?
> I wonder if 4014 is so fitted.
>
> Wes

Wes, 

Neither the 844 nor 3985 had "drop safety plugs", and to my knowledge none of the UP steam locomotives ever had them. If the 4014 had "drop safety plugs" added during the rebuild, I'm not aware of it. Also, I've never heard of any FRA rules REQUIRING the addition of "drop safety plugs" as part of ANY rebuild/restoration or conversion.

EDIT.

I stand corrected! I have just been informed that ALL the UP "big three" steam locomotives, i.e. the 800s, 3900s and 4000s, came equipped with "drop safety plugs" from the factory. Obviously both ALCO and UP knew what they were doing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/19 17:51 by HotWater.

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know they don't do anything without getting
> them hot enough.
>
> Out

When the water covering the crown sheet progresses low enough to uncover the top/tops of the "drop safety plugs", the direct heat from the firebox side drastically increases the heat of the plug, resulting in the melting of the solder retaining the plug/plugs. At that point the plug drops out of its retaining housing and begins to extinguish the fire. 

Ask the folks down in Louisiana, with that SP 2-8-2, that was operating on the KCS, about how well the "drop safety plugs" work, after they topped a grade with insufficient water covering the crown sheet. Even the FRA got involved it THAT.

That would be the procedure, well explained. 230.59 states a 31 day drop and inspection interval if so equipped,
dfidn't find anything relating to rebuids,

Out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/19 17:46 by callum_out.

How is it that “they become hot...”

They were used mostly to make it hard to produce steam,  as the blowin steam destroys the draft through the firebox..

ALSO,  there is NO WAY to stop the blowing...but a crew could stagger-over the rails to a terminal. 
Arriving at a terminal with blowing drop plugswas Prima Facie evidence that the whole crew was negligent   
to allow for a dangerously-low level.   Unionized RRs  could not arbitrarily suspend crew members without a documented,
formal ‘hearing’ , complete with witnesses.

Blowing drop plugs was plain evidence, to anybody, that the crew was clearly at fault.   
Often, rather than face the “hearing process” ,  the crew members would waive their right to the hearing and accept a reduced 
“laid-off” period,  in exchange for avoiding a formal discipline hearing.

So, the purpose was to ruin the draft, reduce firebox temps and establish a “non-resettable” warning device....
The drop plugs did NOT require a ‘dry crown sheet’ to be activated, so it was harder to cause crownsheet fsiures and boiker explosions....and , yes, REALLY abuse crews could produce a serious boiler/firebox failure...

So its not accurate to say ‘they don’t work’ —- they, drop safety plugs, work very well at crippling a dangerous fire and low water risks.. and they trip on true low water events, without overheating the crownsheet.

If applied to today’s environment and employment ‘arrangements’ , I’m not sure what “personnel action” could be taken against the crews..
I know what I’d recommend, if any loco arrived at a terminal with a drop safety plug blowing.....and it ain’t pretty!

Wes.


 

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unionized
> RRs  could not arbitrarily suspend crew members
> without a documented,
> formal ‘hearing’ , complete with witnesses.
>
>
> Wes.
>
>
More specifically, you CAN be suspended or "withheld from service pending formal investigation" depending on the seriousness of the alledged violation. But, under the Railway Labor Act you cannot be dismissed or "fired', if you will, without being afforded a hearing and the right to appeal the carrier's decision.

Usually,if the carrier isn't willing to accept a signed waiver in lieu of investigation it's because they intend to see removed from the property permanantly which means that you are seeking gainful employment elsewhere while your case is submitted to a Public Law Board or the NRAB for final adjudication.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/19 19:02 by Chico43.

How is it they become hot? You light a fire in the firebox and then either dry up the crown sheet or overfire the
fire box, what a question. The point is they are a temperature related fusible link, couldn't find a decent set of
standards as to melting point though, be interesting if anyone has that number.

Out

1.   I suspect, and may be wrong about, that the restoration crew members are NOT covered by labor agreements.

2.  Also, as near as I can tell, “drop plug violations” were most commonly resolved (/when the investigation recess was waived); with crews being ‘suspended’. for a couple week’s.
 Probably ,... not being fired..unless it was the third , or greater, incident by a single indidual....

​W.

For boiler pugs.. & specs....gives the fusible temperatures...

Visit site: boilerplugs.com

Very informative catalog..

W.

Thank you, "Boiler Plugs.com", now that makes sense.
Interesting on the penalties because presently the bulk of the penalties are for lack of inspection and incident
filing.

Out



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/19 19:43 by callum_out.

We use them in the live steam scale world also

Posted from iPhone

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> EDIT.
>
> I stand corrected! I have just been informed that
> ALL the UP "big three" steam locomotives, i.e. the
> 800s, 3900s and 4000s, came equipped with "drop
> safety plugs" from the factory. Obviously both


Do I remember correctly that the 9000's didn't have them until the 9018 explosion in Upland Kansas, then all 9000's were converted?

> ALCO and UP knew what they were doing.

Posted from Android

Latest event involving the performance of a “Drop Safety Plug” happened to the “Leviathan” recently built 4-4-0 on the Saratoga & North Creek RR visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_4LX-IFYBo

It was their final movement and was within a mile of getting on the siding in Corinth, NY where they were to load up on a truck and move to New Freedom, PA.  They had the two-car train on a good roll and were near full firing and a plug blew requiring the immediate stop.  They believe it was a defective plug as the water level had been ok but it was a hot fire and they had been moving fast.
 
 Now the interesting involvement of the Safety Appliance Act was complied with because the Leviathan had a link and pin coupler on its front pilot. That was legal anywhere in the USA because the 1893 law never applied to locomotive or tender couplers as they do not carry commerce.  (Only “cars that carry interstate or foreign commerce” were covered by the SAA).
But this train, being in New York, was tied down for the night a mile and a half from reaching its destination because the S&NC had no crew rested that could bring an engine down from North Creek to push the train the final distance.  And they could not bring a locomotive up from Saratoga Springs to pull it because it had no coupler on the front pilot. Before the Federal Safety Appliance Act was created, New York State, previous to 1893, had enacted a law requiring only the use of Janey coupler on all railroad equipment, including logging, mine, and any tram.  Many of the national railroad system favored the Federal SAA which would standardize the “couple on impact without man going between cars” law and not have many States effect laws naming various different style coupler and get in competition. The Miller Hook and the Janney were legal couplers.
 
The Leviathan visit was an expensive mistake mostly at the expense of the owner as he was given a $10,000 NYS fine when trucking in his tender at Exit 24 for being one day off his permit date.  Also, the fans did not show up for his red engine for some reason. A few paid a high riding fare and because of events, a few got a good free ride.
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/19 06:25 by PlyWoody.

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wcamp1472 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unionized
> > RRs  could not arbitrarily suspend crew
> members
> > without a documented,
> > formal ‘hearing’ , complete with witnesses.
> >
> >
> > Wes.
> >
> >
> More specifically, you CAN be suspended or
> "withheld from service pending formal
> investigation" depending on the seriousness of the
> alledged violation. But, under the Railway Labor
> Act you cannot be dismissed or "fired', if you
> will, without being afforded a hearing and the
> right to appeal the carrier's decision.
>
> Usually,if the carrier isn't willing to accept a
> signed waiver in lieu of investigation it's
> because they intend to see removed from the
> property permanantly which means that you are
> seeking gainful employment elsewhere while your
> case is submitted to a Public Law Board or the
> NRAB for final adjudication.

That's where you get the ole 'off-pending' from. 

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know they don't do anything without getting
> them hot enough.
>
> Out

I took this comment to mean that the current oil system really cannot generate enough BTU's to get to where fusible plugs would open.

Kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> callum_out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You know they don't do anything without getting
> > them hot enough.
> >
> > Out
>
> I took this comment to mean that the current oil
> system really cannot generate enough BTU's to get
> to where fusible plugs would open.

Why not? The various types of re-processed waste oil, currently in use, burns very hot, if not hotter than the old Bunker C, without all the heavy smoke and necessity of heating that tar to over 160 degrees, just to get it move. If the temperature inside the firebox is, say 1800 degrees to over 2500 degrees, depending on how hard the locomotive is worked, then as soon as the water level over the crown sheet exposes the top/tops of the "drop safety plug", then they over heat, melt the retaining solder, and drop into the firebox.

The fuel oils currently available are more than sufficient for maintaining maximum working boiler pressure on locomotives such as SP4449, UP 844, UP 3985, and Santa Fe 3751, at full throttle and track speed, without horrendous clouds of thick black smoke, like the old days of Bunker fuels.

As I said before, they operate when someone screws up. They don't have an indicator indicating percentage of failure, they
operate at a specific temperature. You depend on the boiler crew to properly inspect them at the 31 day interval, you depend
on the fireman to watch both the water level and his fire. The plug doesn't really drop into the firebox but rather it's a threaded
with a tapered internal solder plug. The solder melts at somewhere around 450 deg F (which is the ASME standard, don't know
if any of the rails used a custom setting). The threaded body allows the plug to be removed for inspection and cleaning.

Out



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/19 15:13 by callum_out.

OK - Thanks Hot and Out.  There were 46 replies to the thread about 4014 having trouble pulling 20 cars, so I mistakenly got the impression that the oil sytem was undersized. 
I guess they just prefer not to run it too hard, instead of can't run it hard. 

Kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK - Thanks Hot and Out.  There were 46 replies
> to the thread about 4014 having trouble pulling 20
> cars, so I mistakenly got the impression that the
> oil sytem was undersized. 
> I guess they just prefer not to run it too hard,
> instead of can't run it hard. 

In my opinion, the book is still out on just EXACTLY how well 4014 is performing. What with the massive water usage on Saturdays trip (reportedly 32,000 gallons), and comments about "all the water that is coming out of, or off of, 4014 I suspect that foaming may be an issue. Remember that the current manager totally redesigned & removed the Wilson Blowdowm Separator System (Sludge remover), and added a water softening system to the tool car, foaming may have become an issue. Thus, working 4014 too hard may NOT be in the cards, for safety sake.