When did a locomotive need a new boiler?

[Rick Steele]

I was going through the boiler numbers assigned to C&S locomotives by the C&S mechanical department.

I was not surprised to see that C&S no.4 was assigned C&S 100 on the dome or that that it went successively to C&S no. 12. No. 13 retained the original Cooke boiler. (Latest revision date 3-20-16) that 21 and 22 had C&S boiler numbers. 30 retained her original BLW number of 4917. Numbers 57-62 had C&S Boiler Numbers, as did 64-68. I guess that the one that surprised me most was No. 71 which shows C&S Boiler No. 122.

I have read almost everything published on the C&S, but I have never read of an accident so serious with 71 that the boiler would need to be replaced. No's 72 and 73 retained their BLW numbers at this time, and to give you some idea of how far apart they were from C&S 30, the boiler number on 72 was 15143 and 73 was 15144. over 10,000 locomotives in between them.

But... has any one stumbled across anything that lists a serious accident involving 71 previous to 9/16/1911?

Rick

[skip]

Hol Wagner in his Colorado Road, Page 39, notes that #11 and #12 received new boilers in 1902 and the #11, #12, and #13 received new 15" X 18" cylinders in 1903.
I had wondered why the #13 boiler was left out of his comment and I wondered what his sources were. I also wonder, if the #13 was not re-boilered, why was it not rebuilt along with sisters 4-10? I had always figured that the #11, #12, and #13 were left out of the big re-build because they had recent new boilers. but it seems the #13 didn't. Curious.

Skip Egdorf
Los Alamos, NM

[Rick Steele]

I don't know Skip. Maybe C&S mechanical figured that locomotives 4-12 would take care of the system or that the boiler on 13 was good enough to not rebuild? Maybe that's why 13 was the Central City-Black Hawk assigned switcher because of the older boiler?

Who can say without documented proof?

Interesting, though.

Rick

[ComoDepot]

It seems by the time the 1920's came around many of the existing locomotives were still on their original boilers, closing the line had failed and the Railroad were in quandary what to do next, they obtained quotes for replacing boilers etc and of course looked at other options.

I was surprised they lasted that long, begs the questions what the standards were back then, presumably there was an inspection regime.

[Al Pomeroy]

Some other things that would trigger a new boiler is that it was of a lap seam design and wrought iron construction. add to this condition a badly corrugated crown sheet, side sheets or both. these were typically caulked to stop the leaks, sometimes daily. this ultimately lead to star cracking, which quickly becomes un reparable.

Al P.

[South Park]

  I suspect these two are going to need work, if not total boiler replacement.

[Rick Steele]

That was my original assumption as well, Al.

The 71-73 were relatively new, having been ordered in 1896 by the UPD&G as locomotives 9-11. This would have put the boiler replacement pre-20 years for 71 but still as-built for 72-73 in the original 1911 listing. Somewhere in the foggy recesses of my memory I seem to remember reading about a "crownsheet failure" on 71, this would have necessitated a new boiler. Maybe it is somewhere in Hol Wagner's First 10 Years epistle...

I see that my rosters and everything were victims of a hard drive meltdown, would anyone like me to repost them?

[Rick Steele]

Nah, South Park, just a little work with a torch and they should be good as new.

Rick