Gents - this project has been executed through a vast array of management changes, regulatory evolution, shifting specifications and standards and practices, a revolving door of different craftsmen who each brought their own sense of priorities and preferences. It was done under a bureaucratic microscope with people with authority and no understanding and varying agendas exercising some extent of remote control. I wonder that as much as has gotten done was done at all.

There seems to be a general sense that this sort of work is much more complex than it needs to be - without the perspective that it was all commonly done everyday a century ago, with much less technological capability than we have today.

It can certainly be finished and run - the cost will vary depending on the irrelevant complexities which are forced into the process, whether or not they actually help push towards achieving the goal.

There's a bunch of right ways to do every job - I hope they can choose one that suits them and finish it before it gets more convoluted again.

Thanks to Scott and his crew, and best wishes to whoever is in charge for the moment, and whoever follows. We're pulling for you.

dave

One can rationalize this project however one wishes. As I see it the facts are plainly in view for everyone to see.
This project consumed in excess of $2 million taxpayer dollars,more than a decade of time and at the end produced a disassembled basket case stranded 300 miles from home without current recources to either get cosmetically reassembled nor the pieces home.
Professionally managed it would have taken 3 years at the absolute outside and cost somewhere around $1.3 million to produce a fully road worthy reliable runner.
So you call it whatever you want. I call it a shame!!
Ross Rowland

Lets all be careful on our facts we seem to be quoting wildly on this one.
We seem to be mired in possible facts and speculation on what is possible.

It has been shown that there are issues of design, going back to the loco's construction. Modern rules (good rules) are not making this project easy.

Lots of people have been involved. It appears most with good intentions.

Throwing accusations of poor past management in the absence of facts don't help.

Your favorite moderator

The latest from Altoona:

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/conte ... ml?nav=742

The article implies that 1361 has already been moved back to Altoona - I assume that is in error?

I noticed that too. MUST be true, we all know that reporters only print the truthful acts................

Note the article says of the new management: "He said he plans to be at the museum often, maybe every other day." Wow, that is a re-assuring change of management.

I can guarantee you that the K4 is still in Scranton. Although some parts have been moved around, I know of no shipments to Altoona yet.

Well hey, give the guy a break...he does run a pizza shop, I mean resturaunt and a resturaunt supply/manufacturing company....surely, since they deal with ovens, they have the experience to deal with 200psi boilers (+/-) and overall steam locomotive restorations and operations...on a thrice weekly basis..and manage two distinct museum locations that are all together different.....right?

"Now dont ya'll give up hope for the 1631 now...oops, did I say 1136?...I meant to say the 6131....oh damn, must be all those pizza's gettin to me."

Maybe my memory is failing me, but didn't you say Ross, that you once upon a time, put in a bid for the restoration of 1361.

I could be wrong, just trying to figure out everyone's perspectives on the issue.

Not correct. I am not in nor have I ever been in the loco. restoration "business" per se. Those locomotives I've been instrumental in returning to life (NKP759,RDG2101,CO614) have been restored by forces working for me "in house", restoring an engine for our use.
In 2003, as a "freind of the court" I offerred to assemble a small team of PROVEN mainline steam restoration professionals (men with a national reputation and extensive SUCCESSFUL restorations on their resumes) to go to Scranton,do a complete mechanical assessment of the 1361 and issue a report showing the work list of tasks needed to be done to return the engine to service with time lines and budgets. The project would have been done basically for out of pocket costs and would have been completed in about 6 weeks. After first agreeing to the plan the then management in Altoona went and hired an outfit called Starfire Engineering out of Kansas (or somewhere in the midwest) to do a study. When I asked the critically important question of how many mainline steam restorations Starfire had to its credit the answer of course was NONE. When I asked why would you hire an outfit with ZERO mainline steam experience when you had the chance of getting 3 of the top PROVEN mainline steam pros in the nation to tell you exactly where you were-- I got a bunch of double talk.
It was at that point that I knew that eventually it would end as it did.
The value here for the industry is to learn from this that there's a powerful lot of truth in the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
If you're going to attempt to restore to service a mainline steam engine-hire a PROVEN professional and DO what he says!!!
IMHO-Ross Rowland

Thanks Ross for the clarification, I remember you stating once that you proposed something, but I wasn't sure as to exactly what, and could not find the original post.

It's important to know everyone's motivation in such issues, and what the facts are so one can read between the lines.

Ross, and anyone else in the know. I googled Starfire Engineering. According to a reputable source of mine a big issue in the locomotive boils down to those who are making the argument that the top sheet in the boiler is "too thin." Looking at their website it appears that they do a lot of finite element analysis work.

From what I understand a lot of the issue boils down to how one calculates the stress on the plate, and what formulas one uses. From what I gather, (I still have the rest of this year left studying mechanical engineering, and have yet to work with the boiler codes, so please if I get my facts wrong, go easy on me) the ASME codes pertaining to riveted pressure vessels contain a lot of imperial formulas that one is to use when calculating stresses. One reputable source that I have (I'll keep the name quite) said that one original report noted that by the given imperial formulas the sheet is indeed too thin to meet the required safety factor, but then produced alternative calculations and data to support the fact that there was indeed as built suitable material thickness. The report went a bit further to even mention that perhaps with finite element modeling perhaps one would find that the structure was even stronger then previously believed.

I am trying to be a bit vague here, so not to spread rumors or bring another person into the mess. None the less, my take on it is that the ASME codes in their calculations of stress is in many ways "Cookbook" formulas that one can plug into. Yet from what I gather many of the steam experts in the country will only go by old imperial formulas when performing boiler calcualtions.

As an engineering student in the new generation of engineers, (last summer I had an internship at a company who owns a bunch of power plants, and next year I am hoping to get a job at one of the firms that consults on industry related engineering projects around pressure vessels and power generation) I can say that my generation will be expected more and more to rely on very expensive computer modeling programs, and less on imperial formulas. Having had some experience with such programs like Ansys, www.ansys.com/ if adopted to steam locomotive restoration in the hands of properly skilled individuals, these programs really have the chance to bring a lot of good to modern steam restoration. The productivity improvements that finite modeling has brought to modern industry is quite significant. In the hands of a skilled operator who knows what is going on, Ansys should be able to calculate the true local stresses far better then any imperical formula, and generate a whole report too! I don't know how the rest of the pressure vessel codes have been changed to accommodate these advances, but having just interviewed a week and a half ago with one of the nation's largest designers of Nuke and Fossil steam plants, it was clear to me, that they are relying first and foremost on computers and finite modeling to do their key calculations. The down side is like a calculator won't show all the steps involved in doing long division when you punch in the keys, with finite modeling, you won't see step by step formulas.

Thus I have to ask what is the FRA's current take on adopting new tools such as finite element analysis, are they accepting of some of these newer tools? Other tools I have also wondered about, the FRA's opinion on too having been exposed to a bit of the power industry are modern NDE tools (non destructive examination) for our boiler work. It seems a whole new generation of advanced tools and improvements has been made, to ultrasound, eddy current testing, acoustics and a whole variety more are being used today.

Starfire was not involved in any engineering on the K4 project. They came in as project management consultants, setting up a database of work to be completed, time to perform said work, and costs to perform said work. The funding source at that time requested an independent audit of the work yet to be done before additional funds were to be released.

What are "imperial formulas"?