Western Maryland Scenic Acquires C&O 1309

Lincoln Penn · **Joined:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:40 pm **Posts:** 841

Guys, the requirement for flue removal, back then and now, had nothing to do with the flues themselves or any time limit on their use.

It was required so the complete interior of the boiler barrel could be inspected.

The removed flues were usually cleaned, inspected, re-ended (safe ended), and went
back into stock for use again. This would happen several times before a flue would be scrapped.

It ain't the flues.

YeOldeEnjine · **Joined:** Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:31 pm **Posts:** 329

Yes, there has been discussions about using Flue Sections as a Fund Raiser but nothing has been decided that I'm aware of.

There has been discussion as to whether the flues are original to the boiler... as none appear to have been safe-ended.....

Tim W.

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

filmteknik wrote:

Seems quite plausible but did tubes & flues normally run out their maximum legal time or did they sometimes get replaced sooner from hard usage?

Hard use can definitely take its toll on tubes. Under the old rules, tubes were due to be replaced after forty eight months service within a sixty month window (barring extensions being granted). Our #90's tubes would regularly begin to fail through cracking etc. on their rear ends prior to her reaching forty eight months when installed by traditional rolling and beading, and she never made it to the time limit before they had to be replaced. That problem was reduced considerably after we replaced beading with "heat sink" welds between the tubes and tube sheet, allowing better heat transfer between those parts (i.e. keeping the tube ends a little cooler).

As I have mentioned before, when an old PRR boiler maker was asked once about firebox life, his reply was, "We'd get two years out of them, sometimes." Under extreme use, tubes would be getting replaced more often than that.

YeOldeEnjine wrote:

Ye
There has been discussion as to whether the flues are original to the boiler... as none appear to have been safe-ended.....

It's possible that they can be second hand from an engine with longer tubes, no safe ending required.

YeOldeEnjine · **Joined:** Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:31 pm **Posts:** 329

Kelly Anderson wrote:

It's possible that they can be second hand from an engine with longer tubes, no safe ending required.

Good Point Mr. Anderson, I never gave that a thought.
Thank You!

Tim W.

Dave · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:24 pm

The tubes don't look too used up in the photos on my monitor - a bit of scaling which can be removed, and light surface rust. This opens the question of safe ending and reuse - is it permissible to assume that because we know the tubes were installed by the C&O that they are compliant with their standards even though we have no pedigree for them specifically and recycle them with safe ends or do they need to be scrapped or resold to be cut down for use in an insular situation? Seems a shame for them to go to waste.

dave

softwerkslex · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:05 pm

Time to change this thread title from "possibly acquiring" ?

Dave · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:05 pm

softwerkslex wrote:

Time to change this thread title from "possibly acquiring" ?

Ship sailed long ago, reached 3 ports since.

dave

dinwitty · **Joined:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm **Posts:** 2226

765 had its flues from the original restoration removed, cut ended, sent for safe ended (went to a truck exhaust tube site) had new ends welded put on, other flues replaced as needed.
So 765 ran with its most recent original flues in its 1st restoration fixed up.

765 was recently overhauled when retired so it was in good shape. Just the 13 years of sitting some rustyizing took place.

if 1309 has a similar situation you may be in luck for flues, it depends if the newer FRA rules say anything about this but if you can prove the flues are in good shape they may be re-useable to the end of its work life. 765's fixed flues were pressure tested before installation (water)

Just passing some ideas on to use to help.

I agree, those flues in the pics are looking pretty good.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:54 am

Jeff Lisowski wrote:

softwerkslex wrote:

Time to change this thread title from "possibly acquiring" ?

Changed.

Nice and interesting to see!

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:00 am

dinwitty wrote:

I agree, those flues in the pics are looking pretty good.

If they are, whether relatively recently changed out before the engine was retired or if they are the original set by Baldwin (which, judging from some of the comments above, may be unlikely), then much credit may also be applied to C&O's water treatment program, which was apparently pretty extensive and thorough. Needless to say, it would be good practice to study what was done and the results, all of which would give us today the same advantages it railroads with steam in regular service--more reliability, better operation, and less maintenance expense.

If anything, these factors are even more critical now than in the days of regular operation.

hullmat991 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:12 pm **Posts:** 232

Sorry about this bump; I'm curious has there been any news or updates on 1309? I know some places such as IRM put out monthly newsletters on the going ons in their shops so having such a secretive project like this one tends to make me antsy.

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:14 pm

hullmat991 wrote:

Sorry about this bump; I'm curious has there been any news or updates on 1309? I know some places such as IRM put out monthly newsletters on the going ons in their shops so having such a secretive project like this one tends to make me antsy.

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:58 pm

Is the big Consol being rebuilt at the same time?

J3a-614 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:08 pm

Richard Glueck wrote:

Is the big Consol being rebuilt at the same time?

I'm afraid that's not to be at this time. I've been told the railroad had to spend quite a bit of money to acquire 1309 and put her into shape; the road doesn't have the resources to overhaul 734 for now. That means this year is the last season for the 734, until more money can be had.

Would be neat to have two operational locomotives, though--always good to have some sort of backup power that is also coal burning!

In the meantime, be glad we have one tourist road that actually has enough business to require a more powerful steam locomotive!

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:56 pm

J3a-614 wrote:

I've been told the railroad had to spend quite a bit of money to acquire 1309 and put her into shape; the road doesn't have the resources to overhaul 734 for now.

Have you been told whether WMSR bought the loco, leased it, or paid a lot for shipping, overhaul, etc.?