New Mainline Steam in the South?

New not-for-profit seeks to rebuild unique steam locomotive, CSR's Ward assists in the process

View fullsize

The Nashville Steam Preservation Society announced today its intentions to seek a lease agreement with Metro Nashville to move, inspect, and rebuild to operation Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis 4-8-4 type steam locomotive number 576. The newly-formed group is comprised of some of the most respected and experienced steam preservationists in the industry.

CSR President Davidson Ward has assisted the group from its nascence. In addition to designing the logos and graphic standards of NSPS, Ward has been involved in negotiations with Metro Parks regarding 576, has served as a strategic advisor to matters ranging from fundraising strategy to facilities designs, and is involved in many of the strategic planning matters undertaken by NSPS.

The "Stripe" with a few of the NSPS folks in front of its 70" driving wheels. From left to right: Jim Wrinn [Editor of Trains Magazine & NSPS Board Member], Shane Meador [NSPS President], Jason Sobzynski [Steam Mechanic and NSPS Advisor] and Davidson Ward [CSR President and NSPS Advisor]. Photo: S. Ward

Built in 1942, locomotive No. 576 was designed and built utilizing the most modern technology of the day. Before its preservation, it roamed the southeast pulling freight and passenger trains, most notably during the busy years of World War II.

The restoration of No. 576 will enhance the locomotive’s value to Nashville and the region as a living historical artifact instead of a static park display. Passengers and spectators will be able to ride behind it and experience the sights, sounds, and impressions of a major steam locomotive in operation.

To reach this goal, the organization must reach a lease agreement with Metro Nashville, move the engine to a shop at the Tennessee Central Railway Museum, and raise a significant amount of money before embarking on the work.

NSPS President Shane Meador also serves as a technical advisor to CSR. Photo: D. Ward

“We are excited about this proposal to help secure locomotive No. 576’s future, and are looking forward to working with Metro Parks, the Tennessee Central Railway Museum, and the Nashville and Eastern Railroad to bring this Nashville Icon back to life to educate and operate it for the good Citizens of Nashville,” said President Shane Meador of the preservation society. “As a native of Nashville, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to pursue returning this one-of-a-kind locomotive to operation.”

Once operational, No. 576 will pull the Tennessee Central Railway Museum’s restored passenger cars on the Nashville & Eastern Railroad, also used by Nashville’s “Music City Star” Commuter operation. Excursions would originate downtown.

View fullsize

A 14 car-long matching stainless steel TCRM railway excursion, behind its fleet of first generation diesels, rounds the curve near Mt. Juliet in March 2016. It would look nice with a 4-8-4 on the point. Photo: D. Ward

“The locomotive 576 has been an important part of Centennial Park since 1953. The Park Board will be thoughtful in their assessment to ensure that any lease honors the intent of the original donors, retains public access, and provides for responsible stewardship going forward. The opportunity to ride a steam train out of Riverfront Park could be a much richer experience than the current static observation available in Centennial Park and is worthy of consideration,” said Parks Director Tommy Lynch. If approved by the Park Board, the agreement would next go to Metro Council for approval.

“Having worked on more than 20 steam locomotive restoration projects, I am excited about this proposal to return such a unique technological marvel to operation for the Citizens of Metro Nashville,” said steam locomotive expert Gary Bensman, a member of the organization’s board of directors. “Given the condition and disrepair of the locomotive following more than 60 years of being exposed to the elements, this proposal comes at a critical time to ensure the locomotive can be preserved for future generations.”

NSPS plans to raise $3 million to restore the locomotive, which will take place just a couple of miles from downtown Nashville. The organization is also seeking an additional $2 million to construct a permanent, visitor- friendly home and facility for the locomotive that will allow for its continued maintenance as well as to provide an interactive educational environment.

The organization has already received pledges of more than $200,000 to launch this campaign, and will continue seeking private and corporate supporters. After an agreement is reached with Metro, the locomotive will not be moved out of Centennial Park until an initial capital goal of $500,000 is reached to ensure funding throughout the first phase of this six phase project. In addition, the Nashville & Eastern Railroad has sent a letter of commitment stating that it will allow the locomotive to run on its tracks, and the Tennessee Central Railway Museum has pledged the use of its fleet of vintage, restored passenger cars. This proposal also provides a set number of free tickets, annually, to children and seniors of Metro Parks sponsored Community Centers for excursion trains once the 576 is operational.

In Memoriam - Phil Girdlestone

“Lastly, of course there are the locomotives themselves, magnificent machines that were the true inspiration”

— Phil Girdlestone, 2012

View fullsize

Girdlestone shows off a newly-manufactured lightweight multi-ring piston valve from an ACR NGG16. Photo: ACR

Within the past decade, the last revenue-earning steam locomotives have almost entirely vanished from the Earth. While there are thousands parked in municipal parks and museums, the few that remain in operation today are primarily for the tourist-hauling public – a reminder of the trains of yesteryear.

However, a small group of dedicated mechanical engineers and steam technicians have spent years working to make the steam locomotive as mechanically and thermodynamically efficient and reliable as possible. Three of the leading experts, David Wardale, Shaun McMahon, and Phil Girdlstone, are disciples of Argentinean modern steam locomotive expert Livio Dante Porta. Each of them worked directly with Porta on a number of projects on five continents, and following Porta’s death in 2003, they were left to carry on his legacy. One of the most accomplished and senior members of that group, Phil Girdlestone, has died this week at the age of 61. 

Phil Girdlestone (1954-2016) was born in London and, like many children, he became fascinated with the steam locomotive. He spent many hours as a child watching the mainline steam locomotives of the British Railways chuff by, and he also witnessed their replacement by the diesels and electric locomotives that rule the rails today. Girdlestone believed that the steam locomotive still held promise but in a more refined form. In the words of Bob Harris, former Assistant Works Manager at the Ffestiniog Railways Boston Lodge Works: “Phil is a man who firmly believes in his own vision of steam locomotives, born twenty years too late!” 

Girdlestone  started his railway carreer on the 1`-11 ½`` gauge Ffestiniog Railway in north Wales in the summer of 1970 as a volunteer fireman at the age of only 15. By 1977, he had qualified as one of the very few (in those days) volunteer drivers on the line. In January 1979, Girdlestone joined the permanent staff at FR's Boston Lodge Works, and he was soon appointed to the position of Technical Assistant. This allowed him to develop the steam locomotive fleet so as to incorporate modern cost effective enhancements. Brought up in the Allan Garraway-era of the FR, Phil was a keen and disciplined engineer, and he always insisted upon the highest standards when out on the mainline.

This 1984 photograph of the Boston Lodge Workshop shows a 30 year-old Girdlestone (center with paper in hand) as well a 19 year-old McMahon (second from right in the back row). Photo: collection of S.T. McMahon

In the 1982, Girdlestone began correspondence with David Wardale and L.D. Porta regarding modern steam development work in South Africa and Argentina. By 1981, the advanced steam improvements to a South African Railway Class 25NC 4-8-4 number 3450 (nicknamed “Red Devil” due to its paint scheme) began to make news. Wardale and Porta had engineered and rebuilt the locomotive to include the latest in thermodynamics, resulting in a steam locomotive that was more powerful, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to operate than all diesel-electric locomotives on the railroad. In raw numbers, the narrow-gauge 4-8-4 generated more than 4,400 drawbar horsepower (43% higher than standard 25NCs), could travel faster than 75 mph with a 22 car passenger train, and saved 30% in coal and water compared to the unmodified locomotives.

The evidence of modern steam application was staggering, and Girdlestone sought to bring modern steam to his native Great Britain. By 1983, he had been appointed Works Superintendent at Boston Lodge, and he began applying a much heavier set of improvements to 2-4-0 saddle tank tender locomotive (STT) No. 590, a Hunslet Engine Company-manufactured steam locomotive built in 1893.  He and his crew, including a young Shaun McMahon, converted the 2-4-0STT named  “Linda” from oil to coal with an advanced “Gas Producer Combustion System” and Lempor exhaust, much of the same improvements made to the “Red Devil.” After initiation into service in 1985, Linda quickly proved its worth, able to haul longer trains than in its previous configuration as an oil burner, with less than 70% the operating cost of an oil-burning locomotive. Ultimately, a significant drop in oil prices in 1986 resulted in the engine being re-converted to oil, making again a homogenous fleet at the Railway.

Girdlestone (forefront in the cab) with "Linda" post conversion on the Ffestiniog Railway. Note the new smokestack with reinforced gussets along narrow portion. Photo: G. Rushton, collection of S.T. McMahon

The work at the Ffestiniog Railway a technological success, Girdlestone moved to live and work in South Wales at Hugh Philips Engineering Ltd. and worked on the Sudan locomotive modernization program, which included modernization of the locomotive fleet by applying Lempor exhausts and a modified rotary oil burner. Prior to this, Phil had been on standby to move to the U.S to take the position of chief draughtsman on the ACE 3000 project alongside Porta and Wardale. To that end, Porta often described Phil as “the best draughtsman he had ever come across in all of his working years.”

During the summer of 1988, Girdlestone was contracted for a three month period by the Brecon Mountain Railway to design new boilers for their existing fleet as well as consult on the forthcoming purchase of the Vale of Rheidol Railway in mid-Wales by the same company.

Also in 1988, the then-recently-privatized Alfred County Railway in South Africa had begun steam-hauled freight service. The two-foot-gauge ACR hauled logs, produce, and some passengers over its 75 mile-long railroad. The line used a fleet of NGG16 Class 2-6-2+2-6-2 Garratt locomotives to haul its trains, and management, aware of the successes of the “Red Devil” and work Girdlestone had undertaken in Great Britain and Sudan, hired him to serve as its fulltime Chief Mechanical Officer.

Moving from Great Britain to South Africa in September 1988, Girdlestone immediately began modernization work on locomotive 141. The 40 foot long, 62 ton locomotive was significantly larger than “Linda,” carrying a boiler pressure of 180 PSI and generating 21,360 lbs of tractive effort, complete with superheat. Girdlestone and his crew rebuilt the locomotive with a GPCS, Lempor exhaust system, self-cleaning US-style Master Mechanics’ smokebox, computer-designed light weight piston valves with multiple rings (to save steam consumption), and additional improvements.

Girdlestone (middle with arms crossed) and the shop crews at ACR stand before locomotive 138 in February 1996. Photo: collection of S.T. McMahon

Reclassified as NGG 16A, locomotive No. 141 rolled out of the shop in a bright red paint scheme in August 1989, and it showed immediate improvements (it too was soon nicknamed - based on its coloration –as the “Red Dragon.”) The rebuilt locomotive saved more than 30 percent on coal, generated 10 percent increased pulling power, and significant maintenance cost savings.  The modifications to the Red Dragon resulted in 90% availability, and the cost of the improvements was paid off in less than 12 months.  A similar rebuilding of ACR No. 155 was undertaken in 1990, resulting in equally impressive results.  In addition to developing the NGG 16A class locomotive, Girdlestone went on to design both the NGG 16B and NGG 17 class locomotives for use on the ACR and other South African two foot gauge railways on the national system.

Girdlestone leans out the cab of ACR 141 as it powers up Wilson's Cut. Note the lack of smoke from the stack. Photo: ACR

While at the ACR, Girdlestone hired Porta disciple Shaun T. McMahon as Assistant CMO of the railroad. Girdlestone hired McMahon to assist during a time of ACR business and the planned takeover of the Port Elizabeth branch. This provided McMahon an opportunity to gain significant experience hands on in the advancement of steam technology.

While at ACR, Girdlestone was co-opted on to a committee to determine what fuel options were open for a partial retention of steam on the 3'-6" gauge SAR mainline (soon to be converted into semi-privatized Spoornet). At that time, steam was still in service only between Kimberley and De Aar and in switching services on the Reef. The result of this initiative was the first oil-fired SAR steam locomotive since an experiment in 1946. This was 15F class 4-8-2 No.2916 which was converted at Germiston depot using equipment from East African Railways, and Girdlestone was brought in to help supervise the tests and tuning up.

This 1991 photograph shows Girdlestone (second from left) shown with other crew involved with conversion of SAR 15F Class 4-8-2 No. 2916 from coal to oil firing. Photo: P. Girdlestone courtesy of H. Odom

The application of the East African "American-type" trough burners to No.2916 was not particularly successful and Girdlestone suggested an alternative. As a result he was asked to design equipment for the conversion of a 25NC class 4-8-4. The impetus behind all this work was to equip locomotives for work during the dry season, the formation of Spoornet having seen elimination of steam in normal service. It was now operated on behalf of the Transnet Heritage Foundation and normal line clearing and the making of firebreaks had ceased. The new burners were circular with superior atomising characteristics and the first was applied to a 25NC of Beaconsfield depot at Kimberly. It was subsequently applied to a second 25NC No.3417 and retrospectively to 15F No.2916 with success.

Girdlestone remained at the ACR through 1999, some years before the railroad shut down operations due to increased truck freight competition, issues with the national railroad board “Spoornet,” and the washing away of a large rail bridge in a flash flood. 

West Coast Railway Class R 4-6-4s numbers 711 and 766 undertake a light engine move from Ballarat to Newport on May 11, 2004. Photo: Tony 'Ashcat' Marsden

In 1996 , Girdlestone opened “Girdlestone and Associates,” which undertook contract advanced steam engineering and retrofitting work across the globe.The first major project for G&A took place with the modernization of West Coast Railway (Australia) Class R 4-6-4 type locomotives numbers R 711& R 766, for which Girdlestone provided detailed engineering drawings via correspondence. The retrofits included application of a dual Lempor exhaust, conversion from coal to advanced oil firing, addition of power reverse, and additional detailed improvements to allow the locomotives to maintain speeds on regular steam-hauled excursions between Melbourne and Warrnambool, maintaining a 3 hour and 13 minute schedule along the 166 mile route. The WCR reported a 30% improvement in power and a 30% reduction in fuel consumption compared with standard R class 4-6-4s.

From 2003, Girdlestone (second from right) stands with some of his crew members beside the two foot gauge Class LSN he was building from scratch for a customer in the UK. Photo: collection of S.T. McMahon

Between 2000 and 2003 G&A designed and manufactured the main bulk of a two foot gauge modern steam locomotive for a UK customer, denominated Class LSN.  The firm was also hired by Spanish based company ARMF for a number of years so as to carry out locomotive modification work. 

Girdlestone stands in front of P36.0032 after installation of the dual Lempor. Photo: Collection of P. Girdlestone

Following the engineering work in Australia, Girdlestone took on work modernizing a broad-gauge Russian P36 Class 4-8-4 number P36.0032. The locomotive is owned and operated by Golden Eagle Luxury Trains, a company that operates luxury passenger trains in Russia. They hired G&A to design and construct an advanced dual Lempor Exhaust system for the large passenger locomotive. The one-ton assembly was manufactured in South Africa and air-freighted to Saint Petersburg, Russia, where it was installed on the locomotive in 2004. The train operator realized significant power improvements post-installation, and the locomotive maintains the exhaust system today.

Around the same time, G&A was hired by Argentina’s Ferrocarril Austral Fueguino, a 500 mm gauge operation that hauls tourists in the southern-most city of Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego. G&A built an 0-6-0 diesel hydraulic locomotive based on a UK design and, later on during 2005, built an 0-4-0+0-4-0T Garratt locomotive from a mix of spare components left over from a spare Garratt that was never completed and a range of new major components, including a new boiler. The small locomotive included the utmost in modernizations and went into service in 2006. It has operated with diesel-like availability and cheaper-than-diesel maintenance and fuel costs since entering operation.

FCAF locomotive "H.R. Zubieta" on a revenue train. The locomotive was built from scratch by G&A in South Africa and shipped to Argentina in 2006. Photo: FCAF

Up until his death, Girdlestone had been focusing on authorship, including having recently published a book detailing the history of SAR Class 25 Condensing and Non-Condensing 4-8-4s (Camels and Cadillacs, Stenvalls 2014 – ISBN 978-91-7266-185-1). He also had a hand in multiple projects advancing the state of the art in steam technology. It is worth noting that his autobiography is complete and awaiting publication. 

Girdlestone was dedicated to steam technology, traveling the world in pursuit of its advancements pushing the state of the art. It was his passion for technology, science, railway development and, above all, the steam locomotive, which drove Phil Girdlestone to dedicate so much to the iron horse.

Phillip R. Girdlestone, locomotive engineer, born September 1, 1954; died April 20, 2016

Coal Fired Steam - Can it Last?

“Preservationists have already kept steam alive more than five decades past its official withdrawl, though, and participants in the tourist railroad industry are determined to last many more even if the coal industry continues to decline.”

— Hayley Enoch

Coal-burning C&O 614 pulls a train with all its might, blasting smoke out of the stack as it slows to a stall in Miflin, Pennsylvania, on September 28, 1980. Photo by John F. Bjorklund and Courtesy of the Center for Railroad Photography & Art.

The May 2016 issue of Trains Magazine features an excellent article by Hayley Enoch outlining the difficulties facing the U.S. railroad preservation industry in procuring quality coal, especially given the recent decline in supply due in large part to coal-fired utilities switching to cleaner, more affordable natural gas. The article explains nicely the varieties of coal available and the way each type of locomotive burns said variety. It also alludes specifically to struggles coal-fired steam locomotive operators face procuring consistent fuel.

To combat this struggle, many operators already have found significant benefit in converting coal-fired locomotives to oil. The engines can be refueled from a standard oil pumper truck, the fireman’s job is made less labor intensive, and there is no ashpan to empty or fire to rake. This in turn cuts down labor associated with operation.

That said, even with coal at $200/ton and diesel at $2/gallon, it is still roughly half the cost to fuel a locomotive on coal than oil ($7.69 per MMBTU vs $15.60 per MMBTU).

All that aside, we as preservationists have a duty to keep steam locomotives and historic rail equipment operating well into the 21st Century. Already, the changing public perception associated with coal consumption is beginning to have an impact.

Consider, for instance, the Durango & Silverton Railroad – it faced criticism from local residents regarding smoke coming from the engine house associated with hostling the locomotives overnight. The solution agreed to by all parties was to burn compressed wood pellets in the engines overnight, a fuel that burns more cleanly than coal and with less odor. This measure was also combined with use of emissions scrubbers on the roof of the engine facility.

It is not too much of a stretch to anticipate this type of concern impacting other railroad preservation groups. While photographers may enjoy a large plume of smoke, it is neither responsible of the fireman or the railroad to tolerate that under most circumstances. Every steam railroad was concerned about smoke - couching it "back in the day" from a perspective of inefficiency and economics.

Today, preservationists have a responsibility to use locomotives efficiently and with an eye to avoid criticism from an ever-changing riding public.

Another Alternative in Solid Biofuel?

We at the Coalition for Sustainable Rail have been working with the University of Minnesota’s Natural Resources Research Institute to develop a solid biofuel alternative to coal for use in all manner of boilers – including steam locomotives.

The fuel is made from woody biomass (e.g. sustainably-harvested forest, used railroad ties, etc.) in a process known as “torrefaction.” Known as torrefied biomass (or biocoal), the fuel conversion process is a derivative of coffee roasting technology originally designed in the early 20th century in France (torrefaction = "to roast" in French).

This is not just coffee roasting technology anymore. Raw biomass is heated up in a sealed, oxygenless environment to between 250 and 300 degrees Celsius, a process known as partial pyrolysis.  At this temperature, many of the volatiles in the woody biomass begin to decompose and part of the sappy lignin that binds the material together breaks down and vaporizes.  This gas is captured in the sealed vessel, then returned to the original heat source to add to the combustion heat and increase the thermal efficiency of the reaction system.  Research has shown that the fuel conversion process is up to 96% thermally efficient.

Test Burn of Torrefied Biomass Pellets

Torrefied Biomass Test Burn

The briquetted pucks produced by torrefaction are analogous to coal, except that they are renewable, have no heavy metals, burn cleaner, smoke less, and smell a bit like BBQ in their unburned state. The GIF above shows torrefied biomass pellets created by NRRI during an open-air test burn, and the following table compares torrefied biomass with other regularly-available fuels.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID FUELS COMPARED TO TORREFIED BIOMASS

Characteristic	Wood	Wood Pellets	Torrefied Biomass	Charcoal	Coal
Moisture Content (% wt)	30-40	7-10	1-5	1-5	10-15
Calorific Value (BTu/lb)	3,850-5,100	6,450-6,850	8,600-11,000	8,000-9,500	8,600-14,000
Volatiles (% db)	70-75	70-75	55-65	10-12	15-30
Fixed Carbon (% db)	20-25	20-25	28-35	85-87	50-55
Bulk Density (lb/cu.ft.)	12.5-15.6	34.3-46.8	46.8-53.1	12.5	49.9-53.1
Vol/ Density (BTU/cu.ft.)	53.7-80.5	201.3-279.1	402.6-501.9	161.0-171.8	493.8-638.8
Dust Levels	Average	Limited	Limited	High	Limited
Hydroscopic Properties	Hydrophilic	Hydrophilic	Hydrophobic	Hydrophobic	Hyrdrophobic
Biological Degredation	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Milling Requirements	Special	Special	Classic	Classic	Classic
Handling Properties	Special	Special	Classic	Classic	Classic
Product Consistency	Limited	High	High	High	High
Transportation Cost	High	Average	Low	Average	Low

Unlike other alternatives on the market for replacing coal, torrefied biomass is about as close as one can get to the original “black diamonds.” It can be shoveled or stoker-fired into a boiler, it burns in the same way as coal, and the fuel shares the same handling equipment. Just as outlined in Ms. Enoch's original Trains Magazine article, however, solid fuels require unique loading systems (clamshell bucket, loader, etc.).

High-end torrefied fuel is approximately 11,000 BTU/lb, while optimal bituminous coal is approximately 13,000 BTU/lb. While it is easy to assume that it would take 15% more torrefied biomass to equate the same heat output of bituminous coal (since it is 15% less energy dense), the reality is a bit more nuanced.

The ash content of torrefied biomass fuel is generally at or below 5%, whereas typical bituminous coal is around 10% ash content (Kentucky-sourced). Likewise torrefied biomass fuel is generally around 1% moisture, while the same bituminous coal is 8%. This means the torrefied fuel will light and burn much easier, and the combustion will be much more efficient (heating ash and water does nothing to improve the fire but consume energy). Therefore, a locomotive boiler may require slightly more biocoal by weight than coal to boil the same amount of water, but not the aforementioned 15%.

When CSR first announced its project in 2012, NRRI was able to make a few pounds of torrefied biomass per hour. In the coming few months, however, it will finalize commissioning of a one-of-a-kind, 28,000 pound-per-day reactor capable of making quantities of fuel sufficient to fill steam engine tenders for testing.

View fullsize

Big reactor - this November 2015 photograph shows the biofuel reactor currently being commissioned by the Natural Resources Research Institute at its Coleraine Minerals Research Laboratory. Fun fact - the building housing the reactor was built in 1911 as a locomotive backshop for the Oliver Iron Mining Company.

We are currently in talks with a few steam locomotive operators to undertake testing with the fuel to see how it performs in traditional fireboxes, both burned alone and blended with coal. Our group is aiming to get ahead of the curve in finding a readily-available, drop-in replacement fuel for coal.

To quote Ms. Enoch:  "Will a day come when tourist railroads may be forced to move away from coal if their operations are to continue? It seems unfathomable, but nothing is out of the question. For the moment, though, that day is still on the horizon." 

We agree that the day is still on the horizon, but we are working to be prepared in case that day does come. Our research is focusing in part on ways to keep the traditions of hand and stoker firing alive, regardless of whether the locomotive burns coal or a wood-based alternative.

Preliminary Inspection of L&N 152

Shane Meador takes a UT reading along the sidesheet of the firebox.

As announced earlier this year, CSR has been retained by the Kentucky Railway Museum to serve as consulting engineers on the rebuild of its 1905-built 4-6-2 locomotive - former L&N No. 152. 

A core component of this consulting work is to perform a mechanical inspection of the 111 year-old locomotive that includes a full ultrasonic thickness survey of its boiler and a thorough mechanical inspection. Prior to undertaking the detailed survey and inspection, we sent a crew of two, President Davidson Ward and Technical Advisor Shane Meador, to New Haven, Kentucky, this week to perform a preliminary inspection.

The two CSR members met with volunteers and staff members of KRM to perform a cursory overview of the engine. Work included visual inspection of the pressure vessel and machinery, site preparation of areas of interest, and spot checking  boiler sheets throughout the locomotive with a UT tester. CSR also arranged to have a sandblasting contractor meet both teams on site to discuss the unique job of blasting the inner and outer boiler surfaces. 

Shane Meador (foreground) and Joe Bratcher (background) look over the condition of the firebox wrapper sheet in the vicinity of boiler studs.

The preliminary inspection was beneficial to both groups - providing CSR the opportunity to visit with KRM crews and get to know No. 152 a bit better and giving KRM's Crew 152 the chance to meet with CSR and discuss next steps regarding locomotive preparations.

Speaking of next steps - Crew 152 will continue stripping the boiler of the few remaining components, and they will finalize the removal of tube ends and ferrules from the tubesheets. The locomotive boiler will then be sandblasted and prepared for detailed UT inspection.

Shane Meador inspects the large 5-1/2" superheater openings in the front flue sheet of 152.

Once the boiler is prepped, CSR will send a larger crew to Kentucky to perform a multi-day work blitz, including the complete UT inspection of the locomotive boiler and a mechanical inspection of the engine and tender. This inspection will feed into completion of a preliminary "Form 4" calculation, which will indicate the Maximum Authorized Working Pressure (MAWP) of the boiler in its current condition and outline any areas that might need detailed reconditioning.

We are thrilled to have the opportunity to work with KRM on this important project and look forward to the next steps. 

Diametral Speed for Pi Day

View fullsize

Today is "Pi Day" - the date of 3-14.16. Pi was very important to railroad engineers of yesteryear, and not just the dessert-type.

Balancing of steam locomotive driving wheels was an engineering exercise subject to much trial and error (and some success). One term often thrown around in steam locomotive technical pieces is "Diametral Speed," or the the speed when the diameter of the driving wheel (in inches) equals the speed (in mph). This “Diametral Speed” occurs at 333RPM thanks to the relationship between the circumference of the driving wheel (2πr).

Thus, when the 84” diving wheels of an ATSF 4-6-4 are rotating at 333 RPM, the locomotive is traveling at 84 mph. Likewise, when the 60” wheels of a Chinese QJ are spinning at 333 RPM, that locomotive is traveling 60 mph, and so on. Since a steam “engine,” like an automotive “engine,” is limited by maximum rotational speed (read: “redline”) at approximately 550 RPM, the larger the wheel, the higher the speed. But, since the power range of steam locomotives depend partially on the flow of steam through the pistons at certain RPMs, the smaller-wheeled locomotives develop maximum horsepower at lower speeds, which is why small driving wheels were used on freight locomotives moreso than passenger locomotives.

As to this advertisement, when cast steel wheels of Boxpok and Baldwin Disc variety came onto the scene in the late 1930’s, they allowed railroads to improve balance and reduce dynamic augment (track forces attributable to overbalance) since they were significantly lighter (and stronger!) than the traditional spoked wheel. This 1937 Baldwin ad outlines the significant improvements. More info on balancing can be found in CSR's White Papers on Steam Locomotive Balancing -www.csrail.org/whitepapers

Regardless, we hope you had a chance to eat some “pi” yesterday. Enjoy your ‪#‎techtuesday‬!

NEW WHITE PAPER: Advanced Internal Boiler Water Treatment

Engines, both big and small, have used Advanced Internal Boiler Water Treatment, including South African Railways 4-8-4 No. 3450, shown here pulling a train in 1985 in a stunning photograph taken by and courtesy of William E. Botkin.

We hope that your 2016 is off to a good start! While we have been busy on a number of fronts already this year, the CSR Team is excited to announce the release of our newest White Paper and fourth in our series on the Development of Modern Steam: Advanced Internal Boiler Water Treatment.  

This White Paper, was written by CSR Director of Engineering Shaun T. McMahon and provides both technical detail and precedent examples of how important water treatment can be to reducing maintenance cost.