Fireman, Don't Let Your Crown Sheet Go Dry.....

Hal, this looks like a pasta extruder, not a boiler explosion. Good Photoshop job, however.

Fairly sure that isn't a crown sheet failure. Nor is it Photoshop.

 

Never used Photoshop in my life.

 

  Bad Order

No, I realize that...I was just referring to the individual who did the original work in PS.

 

HEY STEVE,

 

Not a crown sheet failure?

 

Then let's discuss it!  (I downloaded it under "Boiler Explosions")

 

Bad Order

That's a failure of the front flue sheet.  It has nothing to do with an exposed crown sheet.

 

Boiler failures away from the crown sheet were rare, but they did happen.

 

 

 

Rusty

This is not a tube sheet failure of any kind. This is somebody's idea of what a boiler explosion would look like in PhotoShop. Very funny to see these replies.

 

HEY RUSTY,

 

You're right!  The boiler is still on the frame, but the Smokebox has blown off!

 

You guys sure know a lot!

 

Bad Order

 

 

Here is a better picture of a steam locomotive with a "dry" crown sheet.

 

 

 

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but, Hal, I can tell you for sure I won't be posting any PS boiler explosions any time soon.

HEY J DADDY,

 

Good picture of the sheet ripped away from all the staybolts.

 

I'll bet that crew got a hot bath!

 

Bad Order

 

The crew usually doesn't survive.

 

Rusty

 

HEY SKYHOOK...what do you mean by that reply?  Why single me out?  What is "PS"?

 

I was only trying to start a new topic, and it sure looks like I got plenty of responses in a short time!

 

Bad Order

Doesn't it though.....

Well, for what it's worth, that is a fairly famous photo of a C&O T-1 class 2-10-4, that actually DID experience a low water condition, and blew up.

 

Also, for what it's worth, the vast majority of the railroads had the Engineer responsible for water level control on the steam locomotives, while the Fireman JUST maintained his fire (which was a carry-over from the days of hand firing). Most steam locomotives, even in the "modern era" had the PRIMARY water control on the Engineer's side, and many railroads that had feedwater systems, had a controlling rod & tumbling shaft for the ENGINEER, so that he could control boiler water input.

 

Western railroads, such as the Southern Pacific had both the feedwater system control AND the injector mounted only on the Fireman's side, thus the Engineer was responsible for train operation while the Fireman controlled firing rates as well as water level in the gauge glasses.

 

The vast majority of ALL boiler explosions were caused by human error, i.e. operating with too low a level of water in the boiler!  

HEY RUSTY,

 

I knew that nothing could survive a scalding fireball such as that!

 

BAD ORDER

This looks like Hotwater may be onto something. Same loco, different angle.

 

 

 

 

Heres a clearer version of the one Hal posted.

 

You ARE joking, right?  Since you seem to be so knowledgable about steam locomotives and related boiler explosions, I obviously have NOTHING to add to your post!

One has to respect the steam.

 

While not an explosion, I was involved with an uncontrollable steam leak when the packing blew out under the steam turret, which sits atop the rear of the boiler, (inside the cab in this instant) acts as a steam distribution manifold and cutoff for all the steam driven appliances on the locomotive.

 

Steam under 160lbs of pressure exhausting into the cab with no way to turn it off.  It was the only time I ever felt my life on the locomotive threatened.

 

I had to make quick decisions in order to avoid harm to my crew, passengers and locomotive, even overriding the museum's dispatcher-of-the-day who couldn't comprehend the nature and seriousness of the emergency.

 

Consequently, I tend not to take "hot bath" type of comments lightly.

 

Rusty

"The crew usually doesn't survive".

 

Rusty

 

 

 

Okay, I'm on board, now. I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

So,,,,,you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about?

SkyHook is just being his usual troll self...

On the L&N, BOTH injectors of many locomotives were on the engineer's side.

Odd to see that the C&O 3020 has been modeled numerous times....

 

That is a true mess of boiler tubes. Sad to read of the demise of the engine crew.

 

Gilly

Steam = Treat with respect! 

 

I don't remember ever saying that. In your case, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I asked for documentation, and I got it...OK, but you couldn't provide it.

 

mlavender480...I would reply to you, but I've never heard of you.

 

 

 

Well, I'm just heartbroken...

That photo of the C&O T1 is legit. It is NOT a Photoshop job. It has been seen on the net and in other places for many, many years. It is a well-known accident among the steam locomotive community. This was very unusual in that it was a failure of the front course of the boiler, as opposed to a crown sheet failure. Not many boilers failed this way.

 

The stored energy in a boiler full of steam is monstrous. When C&O Allegheny 1642 blew up at CW Cabin (near Hinton, West Virginia), that huge boiler ended up almost a half-mile down the track ahead of the engine and the body of the engineer was found on the opposite side of the river. The New River at this point is several hundred feet wide!

 

Nothing to be messed with...

 

That's true, Rich!

 

I've heard that the energy in a pound of superheated steam exceeds that of a pound of Dynamite!

 

Bad Order

 

If you have any additional information I would like to know how this could happen. From the photo it appears as if the tubes are being forced through the front tube sheet which may still in place or the back tube sheet pushed the entire tube assembly through the boiler shell to the front. There does not appear to be any evidence from the photo of crown tube failure, so I was wondering if someone could provide a possible failure mechanism in this bizarre explosion. If the unit was over pressurized, say from a relief valve failure, I can think of several failure points other than a complete tube sheet rupture, especially if the boiler drum was riveted rather than welded.

 

You're thinking of the FLUES.  Most of what you are seeing there is superheater tubing.  Hundreds of feet of relativly small diameter tubes folded inside the flues, but outside the boiler drum pressure boundry, attached to a header mounted IN THE SMOKE BOX.  I would say the energy released when the front flue sheet failed blew the Superheater header out the front of the smokebox, pulling the superheater tubes out with it as it went.  Bet you would find that header a LONG ways down the track. Most of the flues are still inside the boiler.

Low water on crown sheets, as I understand it, create accidents as at Hinton, but

would the same thing cause this, or would some other misstep or failure?  Either

type was a rarity, was it not?

Interesting topic guys. I did a quick image search for C&0 1642, and wow! It's amazing how quickly it was reduced to scrap.

Steam must be treated with respect.

 

I got a call on the radio 1 day from a building maintenance man.  For some reason he bypassed some kind of safety valve because something was wrong with a water feed pump for a huge Cleaver Brooks boiler for a 14 story apartment complex.  He called me because I worked with smaller boilers, but they weren't steam.  He said he was too afraid to go in the boiler room & told me he bypassed a safety valve & that there was no water in the boiler.  I said someone has to go in & turn it off.  He said no way.  I ran in & killed the boiler.  He said now what, turn the water on?  I said no way, don't touch a thing.  It is probably melted.  It did melt down, I wish I took a pic. of the inside of that thing.  I remember looking in the rear glass & seeing the red hot metal. The end caps were removed and the entire middle of the boiler had to be replaced.  Not sure how much that cost, but it wasn't cheap.

Thank you for this great explanation for what we are seeing in this picture. I can see now that these are superheater tubes, not boiler tubes. No boiler explosion would ever result in a picture like this. I don't necessarily agree that the front tube sheet failed, however, although it may have. The superheater more likely failed from corrosion or a combination of corrosion and acid erosion. The boiler itself may still be intact.

 

The reason I am questioning the front tube sheet failure senario, is because these sheets are much more likely to form cracks where the tube is either rolled or welded into the sheet than to fail catastrophically. I have never seen a blowout of a tube sheet, but I have seen many cracks. If you have further thoughts on this, I would appreciate your input-thanks again.

There has to be an FRA (or other) report as the result of their investigation of the accident.  Why doesn't someone devote a bit of time to tracking it down rather than speculating on the cause?