The Latest from the Strasburg Rail Road Shops

dwoodbury · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:36 am

As ever, the news from Strasburg is the most interesting stuff on this forum. Apologies in advance to those who disagree. The physical details provided beg the question: how do you justify spending this kind of money on RGS 20 which up to now has been a static display? I have to infer that there are plans to operate her (in tandem with DRG 346?) in Colorado. Can someone fill me in? I'm all in favor of the effort, but a little baffled.

whodom · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:06 am

dwoodbury wrote:

As ever, the news from Strasburg is the most interesting stuff on this forum.

+1 to that. I always love seeing what's going on in the shop. Thanks for posting it!

Frisco1522 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:03 pm

I never cease to be amazed at the scope and quality of the work these guys do. Excellent quality and thorough research and production.

Dave · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:31 pm

CRRM is heavily investing in their hardware. I don't know how it is justified apart from a business decision resulting from their mission. Very good things have happened there in the past decade, and it is a fine thing to see the progress.

Always very interesting things happening at Strasburg. Thanks for keeping us updated, and fine work.

dave

Chris Salmonson · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:54 pm

Stephenson must've never had to oil his link block nor eccentric lobes as locomotives grew in size...

gbrewer · **Joined:** Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:30 am **Posts:** 150

For a little more on the CRRM and changes there see my story, "Is this any way to run a railroad museum?", at
http://homestaydenver.com/CRRM

Dave Sutter · **Posted:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:15 pm

Stephenson valve gear isn't THAT bad. Not when it is on a small locomotive like the Edison. But then again ask me my feelings after setting the valves and timing the Detroit and Lima Northern #7.

John Bohon · **Joined:** Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:04 pm **Posts:** 625

That is certainly a diverse group of projects. New wooden passenger car truck frames, stevenson valve gear, a new heater, and a new drawbar all in the same shop. Those roller bearings still in service since 1915 sure make a statement about all the plain bearing engines and cars built after 1930 or so. Perhaps the thing that catches my eye most is the conversion of the trailing truck axle to roller bearings. I do not think I remember such a conversion done with SKF bearings. What was the logic for picking the SKF bearings instead of Timken? I suspect it is either financial or involves engineering the bearings into whatever type of trailing truck the axle may be going into. Since all roller bearings should provide far longer service life than plain bearings I suppose the choice could just be a personal preference. Can you give us any insite into this decision?

Thanks in advance.

John Bohon

Kelly Anderson · **Joined:** Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:52 am **Posts:** 2477

John Bohon · **Joined:** Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:04 pm **Posts:** 625

Thanks Kelly. I did not understand the wheels were the only thing being replaced. It sounds like replacing the whole wheel, axle, and bearing set would have been easier.

John Bohon

bbunge · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:09 am

What type of finish do the wooden truck frames get prior to service? I would assume some sort of oil or tar would be better than paint?

Bob Bunge

Finderskeepers · **Posted:** Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:44 am

Can you advise as to what your calculations found with regards to Belpaire boilers, is it really as simple as a thicker outer wrapper sheet, or is it far more involved than that?

R L Musser · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:30 pm **Posts:** 0

"Can you advise as to what your calculations found with regards to Belpaire boilers, is it really as simple as a thicker outer wrapper sheet, or is it far more involved than that"?

I will speak on behalf of #39's roof sheet only, as I have learned that to do otherwise will guarantee that the next one will be different.
In this case, going from a 3/8" thick sheet to a 1/2" sheet was all that was needed along with a doubler right below the "hip". Nuts will not be used as that is an added unnecessary expense with the 1/2" sheet. As I had posted a while ago, when the nuts were removed, the factor of safety of 4 went out the window. The calculations said that a 3/8" sheet without any thinning and using nuts was good for 211 psi. Remove the nuts AND go to an average thickness of around .340" and you get about 155 psi.

Brendan Zeigler · **Joined:** Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:32 pm **Posts:** 51

Just to expand a little bit upon Rick's explanation, the defects found on the K4 and G5 boilers have very little to do with them being Belpaire design other than the relatively flat roof sheet being conducive to the application of nuts to the ends of the crown stays. The need for increasing the thickness of the roofsheets on these engines is not because they are Belpaire boilers, but because the PRR constructed them to be 'throw away' boilers.