There are still some locos the are being brought out of retirement, as defined by CFR49 Part 230. And everyone knows that the initial restoration is typically very costly, in excess of$1.5M. There is now a significant number of operating locomotives that are reaching their second or even third 1472. What is the difference in costs between that initial restoration and subsequent inspections? Can the second or third 1472 be accomplished for $500,000? $750,000?

What is the experience telling us?

Assuming your first overhaul -- the initial 1472-day inspection and Part 230 work (running gear, boiler, firebox, tender, appliances, etc) -- went above and beyond, then the answer is likely yes. We spent far less than this on the 765's most recent inspection a few years ago.

The extent of the engine's rebuild from 2000-2005, guidance from Nickel Plate and the Advisory Mechanical practices, proper care, and feeding, efforts of crew and contractors, and relatively low miles (compared to traditional mileage between railroad Class repairs) all factored into the low cost. There was very little variation in ultrasound readings from 2005 to 2018.

As the miles wear on and usage racks up, the cost will vary accordingly. Some operations may opt for larger capital projects to coincide with the next inspection/maintenance cycles (i.e. firebox work now, running gear work overhaul in five years, etc).

Question - Is one method of cost reduction during the 1472 is to reuse undamaged flues, seems like most organizations have good water management that would extend the life of the flues.
I understand the former steam shops would clean and cut bad sections out and re weld sections. Reading Company had a tumbler in the shops to "clean" old flues.
just a thought

.

I haven't been familiar with the "new" rules for quite a few years. Did they outlaw safe ending?
If I recall don't you need to remove only enough tubes/flues to do a thorough inspection of the barrel? I'm referring to a 1472 on an engine that has been running, like 765.
A thorough restoration like 1522 definitely would require all to come out. We did.
I think the superheater flues went on to live in the K4 at that time.
I'm old and my remembering machine needs a 1472. CRS Can't remember squat.

How do the differences between NBIC compliance and 49CFR230 compliance play into the general question? Or the question about flues?

Regards,
Bob Milhaupt

Safe-ending is still an approved course of action and one that ASR is looking at closely with the 2100 as the current tubes and flues have a mere 37 days of service days on them.

Rob Gardner
ASR President and 2100 Project Manager

Under FRA, safe ending is acceptable as "standard practice". In previous years, it was cheaper or break even to buy new tubes than to pay a certified welder to weld on the safe ends.
NBIC requires only new traceable materials to be used in repairs. However, NBIC does not require tube removal for internal shell inspections. NBIC allows plugged tubes at the Inspector's discretion. Several boiler supply companies still stock boiler tube plugs for package boilers.
So everybody is right on this one.

It's actually quite simple. If it is an engine that you have operated as it ran out its 1472 day clock and thus know pretty much everything you'll need to do to her, then do a conservative estimate of the cost of those tasks and when you get the total add 50% to cover any surprises that surface.

If it's an engine that's been out of service for an extended period and boiler and running gear issues are unknown then budget $ 1 million to get it totally torn down, ultra sounded etc. at which point you'll know what's needed. Then budget another $ 3 million to complete the job and odds are you'll finish up under budget.

As to time,.....if you're wanting to get it done asap in a professional shop with full time workers ( that is the basis for the above numbers) then figure on 18-24 months.

If you're going to do it based upon depending on a mix of volunteers and paid pros as needed then you're into years and years.

If you're Steamtown NHS then it's decades not years.

Thanks for asking, Ross Rowland

1522 was fully restored in 2-1/2 years by volunteers with contract help here and there.

These types of posts always vex me. On one hand it's always good to share information for the betterment of the community, but at the same time seeing numbers like $1.5m or $4m might scare a group away when the numbers aren't accurate. I'm sure the 1472 for UP 4014 didn't cost the same as CNJ 113 or the Gramling's engines.

My very non-professional opinion is it depends on the condition and size of the locomotive in question. If it's in great condition then it's not going to cost as much as a locomotive road hard and put away wet. For instance I'd wager because Strasburg keeps their locomotives in great condition they can do a 1472 for significantly less than the numbers quoted here, although they may choose to do additional non-required work also. Which is another point - the cost of a 1472 isn't the same as the cost of a restoration.

I would say there is no way you can put a price tag on something like a form 4. Like has been posted before it completely depends on the condition of the locomotive before the inspection is started. The two worst things for a steam engine is running it, and letting it sit. Also note, stuff like running gear and valve work are not required, but many times groups will do this work in coordination with a 1472 day inspection as to take advantage of down time. It also depends on the care of the work being done. If you have a new person disassembling the machine, he can create a lot more work by doing things like gouging parts of the boiler or destroying the lagging and jacket.

I’ve heard tales of locomotives like the Strasburg #90 that are basically unicorns. Things I’ve heard have been that the barrel of that machine does not seem to wear at all. Not sure if it’s the water treatment they use, or just the type of material that was used. But if those tales of that locomotive is true, than that just goes to show that you truly never know what you will find when opening one up, until you do it.

Now you would be foolish to start a 1472 day inspection with limited funds. You will always find something. And if you have more money than necessary than you can tackle other projects such as wheel and truck work, or tender work. Etc.

In regards to safe ending. I thought you could safe end super heater flues, but not regular tubes?

Anyways, great discussion here. This is more of what this forum needs!

There are two very different things happening during the 1472 day inspection. The inspection part and the repair part. Both can be done with paid or volunteer labor and the amount of paid labor will drive a big part of that cost.

Next, the nature of the items to be repaired will be another major cost factor. The cost will vary if you find the boiler does not need any major repairs compared to the huge cost associated with finding you need to replace portions of the boiler. You won't fully understand the scope of the boiler work until the UT survey is complete.

Next, there may be major repairs needed to items to items not related to the boiler. Items such as needing wheel work, piston rings, frame repairs, etc... There should be no real surprises here if you are inspecting your engine regularly when it is in operation.

If you have a small engine in great shape and all volunteer labor you might be able to pull off the 1472 for under $50K while a large engine could run into millions.

When we did 4960's last 1472 in 2011, the budgeted cost was about $150,000 and we did the job in 4 months, using paid labor - mostly company employees, with a small amount of help from an outside contractor. This was just for the 1472 inspection. No additional repairs were conducted.

I wrote an article for TRAINS on this topic, which I believe was printed in May 2012.

It helps that the locomotive is well maintained between 1472's. I saw more damage to the boiler on the outside from winter storage in the snow than I saw on the inside from operation. Running gear repairs and other major work are done during the off season, and are separate from the 1472.

Because Grand Canyon Railway did such an extensive job on 4960 back when it was restored in the early 1990's, and has kept up with the general maintenance each year, 4960 has operated in each calendar year from 1996 until the present. That's 26 years of continual service, and I fully expect to get to 30 years.

Eric Hadder

Costs would also be affected depending on whether the restoration team chooses to "make it better than new" or to allow the remaining wear allowances to be used up before replacing parts.

What I mean is that for some components, such as bearings etc. have a life span, and a calculation is done as to what the remaining life is and whether that would be used up within the next 1472 period or not. If not, those components would not need to be replaced at that time. Then there are others who wish to replace everything to establish a baseline of being practically a new locomotive, even if it means scrapping parts that still have many thousands of miles of life left.

And then of course there is the question of locomotive size. A 1472 on a Prairie is going to be much less expensive than one on a Northern, all other things being equal.