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

Excellent suggestion. Back in the "Steam Days", i.e. before the FRA, the governmental organization that regulated the railroads was called the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). There was definitely an ICC report on the "accident" involving the C&O 2-10-4 boiler explosion.

But then, what would SkyHookDepot have to question & speculate about?

Very funny to see self-proclaimed experts so authoritative in their errors.

SkyHookDepo not only knows nothing about boiler explosions; he also doesn't seem to know much about PhotoShop (since he seems easily fooled by real photos)!

Heres some "second hand" information taken from the original report:

The engine involved was a C&O T-1 class (2-10-4) No. 3020
The incident was a massive boiler rupture, apparently due to crown sheet failure. 
Three crew killed. 
Hauling coal to Columbus from Russel KY. 
The train was 156 cars and 12,884 tons
Running about 20 mph. 
Track was a .18% grade. 
Nearby residents thought the explosion was just thunder, as there was a good rain storm going at the time. 
The explosion blew out the superheater tubes out the smokebox. I have here a picture that shows a tangled mass of superheaters.
There was no time for the crew to do anything, so the throttle was still wide open, brake valves in the running positions, and reverser was full in the corner. 
This locomotive was working very hard. 
The engineer, fireman and front, or head end, brakeman were all killed, but not instantly. 
The engineer was lifted out of the cab later, the fireman was found trackside nearby, and the front brakeman was found walking back down the grade. 
About 100 yards away a fence was partially destroyed by the force of the explosion. 
The front brakeman survived long enough to tell something about the incident. 
In the ICC report, it's stated that the force of the explosion tore the rear of the boiler from the slides, and the right guide yoke waist sheet. The rear of the cab was twisted upward and the front of the cab rearward. 
The cab deck was bulged upward and the ash pan was blown out. 
Smoke box front was blown outthrottle box and superheater header were broken from the dry pipe connection in the smoke box and the superheater units were blown forward into a fan shaped exit from the now open smoke box. 
The feewater heater was fount about 345 feet ahead of the engine, and other parts were found in a 150 foot radius.

Also in the ICC report is a statement that the injured brakeman said several times that he "knew it was going to happen" and "the water was too low." 
Also, very telling, is "I told him (the engineer) that he had water and to put some in the boiler." And, "The water was gone!"
The brakeman then stated to his parents at his side in the hospital that "He (the engineer) ran for ten miles on low water."

The engine was later repaired and put back into service. 
These were some big, powerful engines. 
With over 108,000 lbs TE, they were quite powerful. 
It was normal for them to haul trains of over 13,000 tons without help.
All were gone by 1953

I stand by what I said-I was correct, as usual. This was not a boiler explosion or a tube sheet failure. It was a superheater failure, as first explained by DryDock. If you guys are so bright why didn't you come up with the explanation when I sent out the call for one? No answer necessary.

HA! Too funny!

Did you read what RickO posted above?

Why don't you give us a detailed explanation about how you think a superheater failure can cause the damage you see in the (non) photoshopped pictures of the BOILER EXPLOSION posted above?

You can "stand by what I said" all you want, but you were still WRONG!!!

It was definitely NOT a "superheater failure". I have been on steam locomotives that have experienced a "superheater failure" and nothing really happens, except it becomes darned near impossible to to maintain a hot fire, since the steam escaping from the "failed" superheater unit destroys the draft in the smokebox.

The failure of the C&O #3020 was deemed to be a crown sheet rupture, which subsequently blew most everything out the front! So much for the Engineer running with low water.

I already did. It has already been covered in detail in previous posts. You certainly didn't believe the crown sheet was involved from what I read. You always get these type of anecdotal reports from people involved in industrial accidents-this guy did this or this guy did that-mostly meaningless. I'm looking at a superheater failure at the moment, that's it. I don't know what happened after that, I wasn't there.

What's the matter? 

Rick O's transcription from the original ICC report not good enough?

Rusty

Let's see here...excerpts from the original accident report, information from someone who has many years of experience in the operation of steam locomotives...

I'll have to stick with those facts...

I offered my opinions based on the facts at hand at the time. Had I not been the catalyst in this discussion, none of you would know what did or did not happen, and all we'd be left with would be the guys with the grease guns and the kerchiefs, as usual.

You offered your opinion based on ZERO facts, let alone any practical knowledge of the subject. In fact, you thought it was a complete fake.

Then, when the FACT was posted from the ICC Report that it was a likely crown sheet failure, you stated in complete contradiction, "It was a superheater failure."

The only thing you catalyzed in this discussion was your ability to make a fool of yourself.

SkyHook, what you have failed to realize is that those of us in the steam locomotive community are very familiar with this BOILER EXPLOSION on the C&O. (It was NOT a Superheater failure.) It was caused by low water, which results in the melting of the crown sheet and a resulting explosion. This is "old news" to Hot Water, myself and several others who post here. 

The reason we are familiar with it is because the failure mode was so unusual. Blasting the superheater units out the front of the smokebox was a very atypical failure mode. I read the ICC report on this accident many years ago. I don't remember a lot of the details, but it was clear from the report that low water was the cause, however I don't recall that there was ever a satisfactory explanation as to why the boiler failed the way it did.

I'd still like to know if boiler explosions, for whatever reason, were what percentage

of railroad accidents?  Since this one and the Hinton Allegheny explosion both were

on the C&O, one wonders if this was specific to boiler design, engineer training, or ?

And did the C&O have a higher percentage or ? How about on the Pennsy with its famous Belpaire firebox?

I'll have to dog through some of my old books, but I did have one at one time that dealt with railroad disasters, and it had a whole section on boiler explosions.  From what I remember, all roads had boiler explosions, from the early days on up.  The April 1995 issue of Trains had an article titled "Big Bang, No Theory" that went into detail on how a boiler explosion happens.

In general, boiler explosions/failures had nothing to do with boiler design, nor the railroad that they occurred on. In every single case of a boiler explosion, except one on the D&RGW RR, the cause was ALWAYS HUMAN ERROR! In the VERY unusual case on the D&RGW RR, the eventual cause was deemed to be an incomplete monthly boiler wash, which subsequently led to the failure.

On the subject of the Penn...This outfit had to have had more wrecks, accidents, and just plain bad luck when it came to running their chooch, but for what ever reason(s)...and this may be related to the Belpaire boiler/ firebox design, or not...they seem to have had fewer boiler mishaps than most roads.  Go figure !    as for C&O 3020, Gene Huddleston stated that the engineer on this run had a reputation as a "low water man", FWIW.

Surprisingly, some "Engineers" back in the older steam days, always seemed to feel that the "lower the water level", then the "hotter & drier" the steam was, for increased power. It is entirely possible that such a theory may have indeed been true, back at the turn of the century and prior to advanced superheating designs and boiler construction, and well prior to feedwater heating systems.    

I've heard this too.

1 pound of water will expand 1600-1700 times per volume! So depending upon how many pounds of water, at what rate of flow, is flashed to steam, then the pictures of these locomotives, and deaths are the result. I remember my Step dad telling me that a low water alarm, meant that someone had lit the fuse to the dynamite. The boiler explosions that I've been witness to in the oil refining industry, all were due to low,low water levels, with a collapsed tubesheet!

Hmmm seems a few "Fully Steam Qualified" men here already knew what indeed did happen....your answer was PS...  How about you do your own research in the future.  Good grief...

Interesting discussion. It is amazing how much a troll can contribute.....

Yep, crown sheet failure.  NOT a superheater failure.  Massive steam release blew thru the flues and blew the contents of the smoke box out the front.

I would love to see details of this failure.  Most of the time the MOST of the steam vents thru the fire box grate, lifting the rear of the boiler off the frame.  Did the brick arch hold, or perhaps blew into the grate, directing the steam out the flues?  Was this coal fired, or perhaps oil fired? Was there no fusible plug?

Interesting if deadly subject.

And yes Skyhook, you got it wrong all the way around.

Rich, the fact that it was unusual was exactly the reason I interpreted the photo the way I did. There was no detailed explanation as to what happened here. I was the only one with enough guts to proffer a possible opinion until the actual facts of the situation came forward. Normally, a crown sheet failure would blow toward the low pressure area of the firebox and the cab, wouldn't you agree. I still believe that there are facts that we may not be aware of regarding this accident.

All of a sudden, we have people coming out of the woodwork, many with no background in steam or any other discipline, criticizing me. Okay, I have broad shoulders; I'm just happy that so many people know me and are so passionate in their opinions one way or another about what I have to say. I had no idea.

Anyway, thanks for your balanced analysis.

Ok you 're  out of water . How long does it take to "dump" the fire so there's no danger of an explosion. (cool down)  I guess with  oil  you  just shut  off the flow?

No problem on a coal burner either, simply rock the grates to the fully open position and the fire falls into the ash pan.

It's my impression that you open the ashpan and you can pretty much shake the grates and drop the whole thing between the rails.  I vaguely remember reading Rich's account of such an incident when 1225 broke a flue.  Rich was in the cab of 765 adjacent to 1225 and "hit the ground running" to get to the 1225 cab, concerned the 1225 crew may have been injured by steam and unable to take that action themselves.  I'm sure Rich can elaborate/correct any errors in my foggy memory.  

The ashpan itself can only be opened from the ground, however the fire can be completely dumped into the ashpan from inside the cab by simply over-centering the grates with the grate shaker bar.

There is no answer to this question. It depends on how close you are to the failure temperature of the metal. There may be no time left.

Next time, a "reverse" Google image search might save you the fallout of being proven wrong. Simply go to the Google Images page and click the little camera icon in the search bar. It will ask you to upload a picture URL or one from your computer, and it will find all instances of that photo on the internet along with any associated info.

Another notable crown sheet failure occurred on 20th Century Limited Dreyfus Hudson #5450. I actually have the accident modeled on my work bench as we speak 

Gene Huddleston mentioned the 3020 in his book "Chesapeake & Ohio Super Power Steam Locomotives". Gene states that a man who knew the engineer on 3020 was "trading water for steam" and that while the main force of the explosion went out the front of the boiler, the rest of the explosion's force was directed out through the firebox door into the cab and through the grates to the ground.

These are photos of the 5450 crown sheet failure in Alvin Stauffer's book, Thoroughbreds.  

The amount of energy stored in saturated water at 265 pounds per square inch is awesome.  In the case of the 5450, 400F pressurized water flashed to steam in a split second (steam at atmospheric pressure occupies 1,600 times more space than an equal weight of water).  Imagine the water in a good sized locomotive boiler expanding 1,600 times in an instant!

How much water is typically over the crown sheet?

How much is the water level over the crown sheet affected by the grade the steam engine is on?

Good questions. There should always be a MINIMUM of 3 inches of water over the crown sheet, even when the water is virtually out of sight in the bottom of the gauge glass. Some railroads have the gauge glasses positions so that even with the water in the very bottom of the glass, there is still 5 to 6 inches of water over the crown sheet.

Concerning operations on grades, the Fireman MUST allow for having very high water level in the glass ascending a steep grade, however not so hight that water is carried over into the dry pipe and into the superheater units. When reaching the summit of a steep grade, the water lever is generally raised a bit more, as the firing rate is reduced, thus when the throttle is closed to a drift, there is still water displayed in the bottom of the glasses (most of the water in the boiler obviously 'sloshes' forward when going down grade).

Gee...and I thought all you had to do to be fireman was to throw a bunch of coal in the firebox! 

Would that be the incident on an eastern tourist line that led to the adoption of the current FRA steam loco rules?  Would you care to reveal what actions you took?

No. The crown sheet failure on the Gettysburg Railroad, which injured the Engineer & Fireman, led to the Combined Mechanical Standards Committee, which along with the FRA led to the current "revised" boiler regulations/standards. 

You also have to put your head out the window and watch the drivers roll

And fry the bacon and eggs on your shovel, so that you can put them in the driver's roll. 

I would like to point out, with all this discussion about how much water should be above the crown sheet, that lack of water is not the only reason for crown sheet failures. Another significant threat is mineral deposition on the sheet, primarily from poor water chemistry. The insulating effect of scale deposits on the crown sheet can raise the normal operating temperature of the sheet close to or at the failure temperature of the metal. As little as 1/8-inch of a silica-based deposit can reduce heat transfer by as much as 30%. So, maintenance of water level, while essential, is no assurance that you will not have a crown sheet meltdown.

Tri-cocks allow the engineer to check his TRUE boiler water level regardless of the gauge reading. Most tourist steam engines are fitted with TWO water level gauges and a low-water alarm.

Grades present challenges as the water level shifts and extra care must be exercised to keep the water above the crown sheet!

At TVRM, we also had low-water drills where we had to act out the procedure for preventing a crown sheet failure.

With superheated steam at 175 PSI or greater, NOTHING is taken for granted!