Today’s Altoona Mirror
http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2019/02/getting-up-to-steam/
http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local ... -to-steam/

I see a major issue with this news article, it makes it sound like all antique locomotive boilers are in some way inherently unsafe and subject to excessive liability in operation.
Those interviewed should have made it clear, the Pennsylvania Railroad specified boiler construction to the bare minimum steel thickness to meet the pressure safety factor when new. Now allowance for wear was incorporated. Even if #1361 had a brand new boiler meeting PRR specs, it would not pass FRA safety standards which have been in place for many years. Just about all other railroads and locomotive manufacturers built boilers with a higher factor of safety than the great, but frugal Standard Railroad of The World.

The article mentions the boiler of #1361 is not its original from 1918, but is a 1923 replacement. At least two other preserved PRR engines have replacement boilers, 0-6-0 #643 at Williams Grove and L-1s #520 at the RRMPA. The 520 received its replacement due to a boiler explosion. I’d wager other preserved PRR engines also have non-original boilers. A practice of one railroad based on economy of scale.

Also, the article makes it sound like volunteer labor is inherently, unskilled, undersirable and unsafe! Not true. The gentlemen involved in the renewed #1361 project should know to be more careful about spouting generalizations. The uneducated masses, including insurance underwriters and lawyers will take these comments as fact. One little mishap down the road and the legal vultures will use this article to cause major headaches for all operation antique locomotives.

May I ask, what, exactly, is a "plunging drive shaft"? Is this the rare K4 Shay locomotive?

Great to see this project moving forward under some experienced management.

Where does the $3.8M of government money spent figure come from? The Wikipedia article (not a great source) states that over 13 years, beginning around 1996, $1.7M had been spent. To support this number it cites articles in both the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the Altoona Mirror. This is a large discrepancy, so if anyone could shed some light I would appreciate it.



Interesting observation. However much money has been spent since '96, my limited understanding is that all work and the management of the work was by professionals and not "railfans". Can someone please elaborate on how "railfans" are responsible for the current challenges?

This article reads like a compilation of politicians' sound bites, not a comprehensive article.

The problem is that, like most serious problems, the inherent problems are too complex to explain simply and glibly with any accuracy, and by the time you coherently explain what the problem is, those of the "short attention span theatre" have wandered away, fallen asleep, or had their eyes glaze over--including media reporters.

Again, the delicate issue with regards to 1361 in Altoona is that the loco was restored in 1985-87 as the "Pride of Altoona" and an example of "the greatness of Juniata Shops brought back to life." I'm still not sure that, thirty years after that fact, pointing out that Juniata's workmanship was in fact, to be blunt, cheap, slipshod and not up to the fine print of modern boiler standards, is not going to cause some caustic blowback.

Most railfans will acknowledge and live with this reality, save for a few "slobbering Pennsy foamers" who think their blood is PRR red because of their PRR loyalty. The delicate problem is with the descendants of PRR employees or civic leaders, who had/have a serious financial stake in the restoration and feel deceived.

It galls me to this day that a couple noted names in steam preservation tied their tool cars to this project (in one case, literally) and have still managed to avoid serious corrosion to their reputations. Whereas, right now if this loco were handed off to the Strasburg shops it'd have to get in the queue behind 2-8-2T 37 and a LIRR G5.......

Given the overall tone of the article, I originally wasn't going to share it... But, the longer I've stewed over it today, the angrier I've gotten. So, here goes.

While on the surface this article may sound quite positive, in reality it sets a dangerous precedent for our industry. To so brazenly imply that all old boilers regardless of condition are inherently unsafe and must be replaced is foolish and ignorant. Statements like this, if seen by the wrong people, could have far-reaching consequences for anyone trying to raise funds for other projects.

Moreso than anything else, this is why controlling the message of your project is so important.

The other thing about this article that grinds my gears is how the crew of NS employees who have been the sole volunteers on the project since 2012, working from their own pockets, is so easily marginalized. Were it not for Michael Reindl, Andy Charlesworth and Tom McKelvey providing the life support keeping the project alive, Wick Moorman would never have gotten involved. I can't stress this enoigh, THERE WOULD BE NO PROJECT WITHOUT THESE GUYS, and the work they have been doing is top notch. To take the attitude that volunteer labor is unskilled and, dare I say, unwelcome, is the epitome of idiocy. Steam preservation, much less rail preservation overall, in this country wouldn't exist if not for volunteers.

Do with this what you will... As for me, I'll be writing a letter to the editor of the Altoona Mirror.

Uh.... Hmmmm.... Did we read the same article? I read it three times - without preconceived notions. I didn't come away with the same thoughts. Where does it imply that all old boilers are dangerous? The subject of the article is #1361 and doesn't broaden it's scope. It also states that the work done by the volunteers was of superior quality.

Granted, the article does not go into the excruciating details that we in preservation/operation love. But it's good enough for the general public that knows nothing about the nuts & bolts. Overall, it's a positive article on a project that can really use some good press. I see no overt negative undertones here.

But that's my humble opinion, yours may vary.

Third paragraph. "The biggest obstacle to renewal of combustion and thunder has been something seemingly innocuous: the potential that cautious lawyers and insurance underwriters would flag the old boiler as a liability risk, no matter how carefully it was restored."

How convenient it is that the NBIC isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I guess it is nothing more than a liability risk...who knew!

Modern journalism at its finest.

DC

I don’t think he is saying that all old boilers are unsafe, but he is not clear in where he draws the line. Indeed, he implies that this judgement is subjective to the whims and feelings of lawyers and insurance underwriters.

However, he certainly implies that there are safety questions about using the old PRR boiler in question. Regarding the old boiler, he said that the biggest obstacle is the potential that cautious lawyers and insurance underwriters would flag the old boiler as a liability risk, no matter how carefully it was restored.

He said that it seems unlikely that workers could “bring the old thing up to snuff to where you could get an insurance company to write you a policy under commercially acceptable terms.”

He also said it seemed unwise to spend yet more time, effort and money on something so vulnerable (the old boiler) to “coming undone.” Some of his concern expressed was directed to the historical records of the old boiler being ambiguous due to their documentation quality. He referred to “old metallurgy,” “fatigue,” and other “antique flaws” in the old boiler as being potential “liability concerns,” and said that he was concerned that no amount of further work would set those worries to rest.

Without explaining the details, he said he was told by a man who had checked the boiler thickness that he had found it too thin in places. He said that the current boiler had been restored to century-old safety standards and that those standards do not meet current safety guidelines.

Overall, I am surprised that he made the comments that he did, especially the criticism of the previous restoration effort.

I think the number one objective of any project management has to be bringing THEIR project to a successful conclusion. The current team needs to explain to the local opinion makers why, after dumping over a million dollars of taxpayer money into the old boiler, it can't be reused, I think they missed a bet by not just blaming it on the government. They started down that road, mentioning thin sheets and certification for lower than design pressure, but they didn't really bring the point home, which is, the FRA has changed the rules.

Back when the engine ran trips during the eighties, and when the next rebuild was started, just bringing the boiler back to it's in-service condition would be enough for a certification. That is no longer the case. With the changes that took effect at the turn of the century, they now have to re-calculate the stresses on the entire boiler, and that process has shown that the original boiler does not meet current standards. Explained like that, it's clear that the original restoration was a good faith effort, but the goalposts have moved, and now a different course must be taken.

I hope somewhere in their plans the original boiler ends up in the Altoona Railroader's Museum as a sectioned interpretative display.

We can handle more than one project at a time, However, there is this quote from the article (emphasis added)...


I guess that leaves us off the hook since we had been involved previously.

Over the years, we have found plenty of design errors on Form 4 calculation sheets that were signed off by PE's. For my money, that means nothing if the designer isn't thoroughly familiar with locomotive boilers.

I wonder who they are going to hire, there are some real charlatans out there who screw up project after project, yet keep getting hired. People need to check references more than they do many times.

After reading the above comments, I also wonder if we all read the same article. I see in this article a combination of local politicking and the typical vague reporting of local newspapers. I don't see any hard conclusions re: the boiler or the path ahead to operations. The yarn about lawyers and insurance is an old chestnut reporters have used for decades now, with seldom any facts to back it up.

The one fact the article does disclose - which hasn't been clear to date - is that ownership of the 1361 will remain with the AARM. I note again that the AARM's silence on this project continues to be suspect, given their penchant for publicity in the past re: the 1361.

I think the new group could make two details clear, which would clarify a great deal about the challenges faced today: 1. The goal posts did move out since 1985 re: standards for the boiler restoration, and 2. There is a large difference between a ground-up restoration, such as what UP is doing currently on the Big Boy, vs. the get-it-running restorations done in the 1970s and 80s on the 4449, 765, 2100, 1225, etc. The restorations of 40 years ago simply aren't possible any more, due to changing standards, plus the simple fact that these machines are 40 years older now. That doesn't mean what was done 40 years ago on these engines was wrong, just that times are different now.

I also wonder when Mr. Levin and team will disclose what exactly they propose to do with the 1361 - a new boiler, or fixes to the current boiler - and what exactly is left to be done to get the engine operational. And, where will the engine operate and by housed? I presume they know by now - why wait to announce this? This lack of a plan - combined with the total silence of the engine's owner - both are odd to me. If I was a local reporter in Altoona, these are the issues I would dig into.

Chris.

Well when you take into consideration how often this reporter was lied to by the Altoona " managers" who totally screwed up the taxpayer funded fiasco that spent well over $ 3M to end up with the machine in hundreds of pieces, the article is surprisingly upbeat.

Trust me, men of the caliber of Bennett Levin & Wick Moorman would not have publicly attached their names to this renewed effort unless they intended to take it to completion.

Levin & Moorman have been around block enough times to know who to hire and who not to.

I'm also confident that when they want us to know something they'll tell us.

Best advice I can share is be grateful the 1361 is now in competent, professional hands and eventually will return to active service properly rebuilt for many years of reliable, safe operations.

IMHO- Ross Rowland

And this, folks, is the dilemma that faces this entire field.

I would hazard a guess that virtually ANY person or entity that would be "thoroughly familiar with locomotive boilers" would also, at least in theory, have a vested interest in:

1) competing to win the work of rebuilding this loco/boiler, and as a result:
2) dismissing, condemning, or "talking smack" about their competitors, deserved or not.

I swear that every last "steam restoration" name with which we on this board are familiar can be traced back to both successes and failures, or coming in at twice the estimates, or whatever. I've been privy to both public trashings of noted names (see TrainOrders' Steam forum, colloquially called the "Trash Ed Dickens Show") and private musings about steam guys who swoop in with promises, get it (barely) running, and then skip town with full wallets, with the loco owners left holding the bag after the repairs go bad (and, of course, the steam guys can always blame the engine's age, the actions or neglect of the owners/users, etc.). This has even gone on internationally--the brand new boiler from the British new-build A1 Pacific Tornado had to be sent back to its maker, DB Meiningen in Germany, supposedly "the best in the world," in 2011 for rebuild/repair.

So, yeah.

Just how in [bleep] do you suggest we "check references more than they do"?

With a car mechanic, for example, it's easier. There are enough cars out there and enough competition that we should have an idea that, say, a transmission replacement should cost more than $200 and less than $10,000. And even then there's the vast difference between a new Chevy, a well-worn and abused Nissan pick-up, and a vintage Corvette or VW, but even then there are other owners all over the nation to talk with, aftermarket suppliers (and now Amazon, RockAuto, etc.) for parts, and more. And online forums, from one for particular makers to Yelp. And states often/usually license garages as well.
Home improvement contractors have to be licensed in many/most states. If you get a handyman who isn't, you may save money as long as they don't screw up.

We don't get that luxury with locomotives, old or new. Diesels are at least standardized enough that Baldwin or Alco "cultists" all know one another and their suppliers, and EMDs and GEs are common enough for the moral equivalent of the "shade tree mechanic" rolling up in his battered pickup. Not so much for steam................

The work is not more complicated, more specialized, or larger than certain industrial process equipment such as reciprocating process compressors. The problem is, steam locomotives do not provide the owner the $20K to $200K revenue per day of operation that justifies spending 5 to 10 times the amount on maintenance and maintenance management currently spent which is the level at which talented individuals and organizations who are not just doing it for the love or interest of it are going to get involved. If you are paying shady tree mechanic prices, you should expect commensurate results.

A lot of really talented people who became involved in the maintenance and repair of the first generation of recreational steam locomotive operation had the benefit of income sources from other jobs as well as a lot of comps from the railroad industry. There was a general enthusiasm for this equipment as well. Many people of the next generation made steam their sole career and this is challenging. The public has less interest in industrial equipment, rr's are more interested in their operating ratios and risk avoidance, and people are generally just not mechanically inclined enough to understand the proportionally larger scale of resources that this scale of equipment should have as compared to someone who fixes old Volkswagen or changes -out power assemblies.

The best contractors, in construction for example, - the ones building institutional-grade buildings don't even bid jobs at a fixed price - they are using a time and materials function that gives them the profit margin they want. These outfits stay sufficiently busy because they are the best and there is a demand for that. So when you see jobs go to other places than those few in this industry that are already known to do the best work, and who are uncompromising on the quality of their work, then it is obvious that concessions to these aspects have been made either for ignorance or calculated risk. If people hiring steam locomotive contractors were less price sensitive more mechanically educated and involved, there would be less problems.

Meiningen was not the high bidder on the A1 boiler in the same way that the Italian shipyards that crank out Carnival ships are not. That does not mean they necessarily bad - they achieve their designed purpose and lifespan. They are contemporary products and should be judged as so not as the same as some 100 year old boiler. But having been to Mieningen and rode the QEII there are cost/quality compromises of contemporary products that are apparent. Take the new Ford Superduty for example....completely re-engineered for a five year lifespan, but what a truck compared to a 1960 one!

From an economic standpoint, we have a larger supply of old industrial equipment than the public demands and therefore the price is too low for this many suppliers to thrive. That is the overwhelming problem of railroad preservation and museums in general and will only worsen as virtual reality becomes sufficient to satisfy contemporary interest in these large physical artifacts. I expect interactive virtual reality where you can touch/operate artifacts as simulations will be the end of most of this stuff.