First Fire Up - WMSR #1309

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 5357

SteamEnthusiast4000 wrote:

aswright wrote:

1309 will be coming into service lettered for "Western Maryland", not "Chesepeake & Ohio". Eventually, 1309 will be lettered/numbered as Western Maryland #960.

Has this been announced by the WMSR? I'm just curious. If it has been, then, apparently, I didn't see that. If they do plan do to this, are they also planning to redesign #1309 (as best as they can) to resemble a Western Maryland M-1a class 2-6-6-2?

The number 960 makes sense, as it is the next number after the last 2-6-6-2 (number 959) on the WM roster. A redesign as a M-1a engine would not be necessary as number 960 could just be explained as an M-1b class 2-6-6-2 engine, added to the WM roster to provide coal train service, as the 1949 built C&O 1301-1309 class were so added to the C&O.

Les

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:56 pm

Les Beckman wrote:

The number 960 makes sense, as it is the next number after the last 2-6-6-2 (number 959) on the WM roster. A redesign as a M-1a engine would not be necessary as number 960 could just be explained as an M-1b class 2-6-6-2 engine, added to the WM roster to provide coal train service, as the 1949 built C&O 1301-1309 class were so added to the C&O.

Les

An interesting bit about the design. . .the WM's M-1s were designed and built by Baldwin, and had a "Baldwin look." The 1309, though built by Baldwin many years later, is based on an Alco design for C&O and looks it, especially if you took the compressors off the front and mounted them on the left side, which was much more typical. Based on both appearances and dimensions, a number of roads apparently copied it, including Norfolk & Western, Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh (later part of B&O), Western Pacific, and La Verde Tunnel & Smelter (their two examples wound up on Southern Pacific).

Among the interesting features of the design--the large combustion chamber ahead of the firebox, revealed by the staybolt patterns on the unlagged boiler. This was something built into the first such engines delivered to the C&O in 1911, and would be one of the earliest examples of a design to incorporate it.

PMC · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 616

Kelly Anderson wrote:

Sure, it is uneeded for a well equipped operation that keeps their boilers indoors and drained when not in service, just as a boiler wash every 31 days is uneeded for an operation that uses top shelf water treatment. But it isn't that much of a hardship either, and sixteen years without having eyes on the inside of the barrel is as long as I would be comfortable with anyway. Nobody wants a barrel failure these days.

That makes perfect sense, thanks for the clarification Kelly. (Never understood why those old timers had those smirky looks when standing next to a boiler explosion, someone probably died there).

Boiler Water · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:35 am **Posts:** 14

PMC wrote:

Donald Cormack wrote:

In the case of a new locomotive or a locomotive being brought out of retirement, the initial 15 year period shall begin on the day that the locomotive is placed in service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed in the locomotive, whichever comes first.

I don't quite understand the logic in this requirement, it seems like it would encourage restorations to do the boiler work last rather than get to the most problematic job before everything else. Is it an issue with corrosion on a sitting locomotive? Opinions?

As the law is written, it seems to assume that corrosion and degradation of boiler metal will begin within the limits stated. Boiler steel corrodes least when the metal surface is conditioned ( passivated ) to a water pH of 10 to 11. In assuming that the typical storage conditions ( layup ) prior to entering service or during non-steaming days, I understand and agree with the regulation as written. On the other hand, as one who has training in boiler preservation during both layup and operation, I believe that some extension or consideration should be allowed for those operators who diligently conform to maintaining the proper pH range, along with protection from dissolved oxygen and corrosive salts.

MD Ramsey · **Joined:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:52 pm **Posts:** 42

Kelly Anderson wrote:

PMC wrote:

I'm not criticizing the WMSR, I am actually criticizing the FRA rule, it doesn't make sense to me, what is it about sitting for 15 years that make the flues suspect? The 1472 days of service rule would seem to be enough to prevent tube failure. I guess it could be to guard against fudging the in service numbers, I can think of operations in the past that would have tried that trick, but not really any now.

As Dave said, the issue is with inspecting the barrel.

When they wrote the new Part 230, They wrestled with boiler inspection issues a lot. They had to avoid making it into a "cook book", trying to cater to every possible situation, because before they knew it, the rule would be a thousand pages long.

The one-year clock between installation and operation was to do with the worst-case situation they could think of, a shoe string volunteer operation, and not that technically savvy, doing the job outdoors (so the outside of the boiler is subject to corrosion). Suppose that while they leisurely install the tubes, rain and snow come in the open steam dome, maintaining a puddle in the bottom of the barrel. Or suppose that they install all of the tubes, hydro the boiler, and then leave it half full of water for several years while they finish the rest of their restoration. The one-year rule is to guard against that.

Sure, it is uneeded for a well equipped operation that keeps their boilers indoors and drained when not in service, just as a boiler wash every 31 days is uneeded for an operation that uses top shelf water treatment. But it isn't that much of a hardship either, and sixteen years without having eyes on the inside of the barrel is as long as I would be comfortable with anyway. Nobody wants a barrel failure these days.

Well explained Kelly...Thank You!

Attachment:

boilerexplosion.jpg

Attachment:

039651e7ad60a5a4679085ffb3f00f13.jpg

Both from Goggle.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:47 am

News release on the test firing from Diversified Rail Services.

https://westernmarylandscenicrailroad.b ... aches.html

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:50 am

Link to general restoration thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40205

First Fire Up - WMSR #1309

Who is online