Sultana disaster of 1865 and impact on locomotive boiler inspections

According to "Train Wrecks" by Robert C. Reed (1968), in 1875 there were 1,201 railroad accidents reported in the country. Only 29 of that total were boiler explosions. 50 years later, in 1925, the total number of boiler explosions was the same--29, out of a total list of accidents numbering 20,785.

@smd4 posted:

According to "Train Wrecks" by Robert C. Reed (1968), in 1875 there were 1,201 railroad accidents reported in the country. Only 29 of that total were boiler explosions. 50 years later, in 1925, the total number of boiler explosions was the same--29, out of a total list of accidents numbering 20,785.

I don't suppose that report indicates if the boiler explosions were a result of the accident or if the accident was a result of a boiler explosion.  To me there is a difference but I suppose it's just picking nits.

@Byrdie posted:

I don't suppose that report indicates if the boiler explosions were a result of the accident or if the accident was a result of a boiler explosion.  To me there is a difference but I suppose it's just picking nits.

No, it doesn't differentiate.

most boiler explosions are the result of a very low water condition and them someone adding water into the same boiler. the result is water hitting hot steel that is usually under water. the water coming in expands at to great a rate for the safety valves to handle. if I remember right a gallon of water expands 16 times its original volume causing the explosion. low water could be from someone not attending it or a bad indication on a site glass. and I am sure there were fatigue failures as well but probably not as spectacular.  

@Rick Rubino posted:

most boiler explosions are the result of a very low water condition and them someone adding water into the same boiler. the result is water hitting hot steel that is usually under water.

Not really. Most boiler explosions involving railroad steam locomotives most often happened on an ascending grade with the water level low in the boiler (some Engineers felt it was better to have lower water when pulling hard in order to prevent foaming and/or producing drier steam). Even with the water level low in the boiler, on an ascending grade the crown sheet would still have sufficient water to keep the crown sheet covered. However, when topping the grade, the water would then slosh forward, causing the rear of the crown sheet to become bare, at which point the steel melted and explosion occurred. Many times the boiler was blown completely off the engine frame. 

the water coming in expands at to great a rate for the safety valves to handle. if I remember right a gallon of water expands 16 times its original volume causing the explosion. low water could be from someone not attending it or a bad indication on a site glass.

See above explanation. 

and I am sure there were fatigue failures as well but probably not as spectacular.  

That's why many railroads used soft/drop plugs in the crown sheet, and the Canadian RRs used those button-head "full-away" type of staybolts.

 

if I remember right a gallon of water expands 16 times its original volume...

 

Nope, it's more like 1700 times. Steam is very expansive.

@Rick Rubino posted:

most boiler explosions are the result of a very low water condition and them someone adding water into the same boiler. the result is water hitting hot steel that is usually under water. the water coming in expands at to great a rate for the safety valves to handle. if I remember right a gallon of water expands 16 times its original volume causing the explosion. low water could be from someone not attending it or a bad indication on a site glass. and I am sure there were fatigue failures as well but probably not as spectacular.  

You're mistaken on both counts here. See Hot Water's post re Boiler Explosions. In fact, in 1885 the Pennsylvania Railroad did an experiment where they let a boiler crownsheet get red hot, and then sprayed cool water directly on top of it. There was no explosion; the water merely cooled down the crownsheet. See here for more info (under the heading "Boiler Explosions").

And you're off by two digits on the increase in volume of steam: A gallon of water = 1,600 gallons of steam (if not more)! Some have said he energy contained in steam is second only to that of nuclear energy.

The power of a steam boiler explosion was demonstrated at the Crash at Crush

That event ranks high in the "What could possibly go wrong?" category.

the Sutlana disaster still haunts today's riverboats. Although caused mostly by mishandling of the boilers (tying down the safety valves, etc. and the overloading of the boat (some 3 times a normal load), the disaster was used as ammunition to deny the Modern, Steel-hulled and water-tubed boilered Delta Queen from being exempted from the safety for ships at see laws because she has a wooden superstructure. It took ten years to correct that wrong, but meantime she lost her COI and her usual passengers. If you think getting a locomotive past the new boiler rules is tough, there is almost no work-around for the marine COI, as once it expires, the entire boat has to be brought up to current standards. This is nearly impossible. We complain of having few places to run mainline steam, but in the marine world, there are almost NO boats to run. For paddlewheelers, there are only two period ones left, the Belle of Louisville, and the Delta Queen. The Belle is still operating, but is facing a very strong likely hood that this is her last season. The Delta Queen lost her "Sugar Daddy" during the 10 years to get the legislation passed, and unless funding can be found, she's basically through too.

Years ago I took a Mississippi River 2 night cruise on the Mississippi Queen, also a stern paddle wheeler, sister ship to the American Queen, also a stern paddle wheeler,  and both owned by the Delta Queen Steamboat Company, the same company that owns the Delta Queen.  You state that the Belle of Louisville and the Delta Queen are the only two left.  Did something happen to the Mississippi and American Queens?

Edit: just did some quick "Googling" and both of them appear to still be in business although each through a different company.  Both, however, are bona fide steam vessels.

The American Queen is still operating, but not a traditional steamboat as the wheel only provides about 30% of the propulsion--the rest coming from Z drives. The Mississippi Queen, which was a true almost ALL steam (even the Delta Queen used diesel generators for on-board electricity production) was sadly cut up for scrap. This was a travesty put on by Majestic America Lines to prevent it from ever being competition to anyone--they're the same company that let the Delta Queen's COI expire too. So the American Queen would be like 4449 with a diesel hidden in the tender doing most of the work. Yes, some steam, but not all steam, and definitely not all paddlewheel propulsion. So I will stick to my comparison that what if we only had two mainline steam engines in the whole country? And it's not like there are other boats "waiting in the wings" they are GONE.

I don’t know where this fallacy of putting water in an overheated boiler causes it to explode got started. That is not how it works.

If you are faced with a serious low water situation with a steam locomotive boiler, the right course of action is to activate every boiler feed water device you’ve got. The incoming feed water will not cause an explosion, it will cool the boiler, just as admitting feedwater always does.

I have read many accounts of marine boilers exploding when sea water floods the fireroom.

From Wiki:

"Boiler explosions are common in sinking ships once the superheated boiler touches cold sea water, as the sudden cooling of the superheated metal causes it to crack".

 I guess that phenomena gets incorrectly applied to injecting feedwater.

Latest news from the Belle of Louisville!

https://mailchi.mp/1d320eb8b12...onboard?e=1c0a9f8b17

Sounds like good news for their operation!

@Tracker John posted:

From Wiki:

"Boiler explosions are common in sinking ships once the superheated boiler touches cold sea water, as the sudden cooling of the superheated metal causes it to crack".

 I guess that phenomena gets incorrectly applied to injecting feedwater.

The Wiki reference, if it is correct, (and that's a big "if") is an apples and oranges situation when compared to a locomotive boiler.

The differences?

• Sea water covering the boiler in a sinking ship is an external application of cold water in massive amounts, with an equally massive and sudden amount of cooling.
• Feedwater being injected into a steam locomotive boiler is an internal application of cold water in relatively small amounts, with an equally small and gradual amount of cooling.

The two situations are completely different.

True.  And feedwater is injected into the boiler below the waterline where it immediately mixes with the water in the boiler.  In the steam tractors I'm familiar with, feedwater is injected at the front of the boiler away from the crown sheet.

WRT marine disasters, I've read several newspaper accounts of boiler explosions during sinkings so I believe the Wiki article is correct.  The firetube boilers in the first century of marine steam were more susceptible to explosion due to the large volume of heated water compared to more modern water tube boilers.   My dad's DD took a Kamikaze hit off Okinawa and the forward fireroom's water tube boilers jumped off their foundation when the plane's bomb exploded.  Steam was released from the boilers but there was no explosion.  The steam rose to the top of the fireroom and the boiler crew survived by going low and waiting for the steam to clear.

@Tracker John posted:

True.  And feedwater is injected into the boiler below the waterline where it immediately mixes with the water in the boiler. 

No, not in all cases. More modern steam locomotives tended to utilize top-mounted boiler checks, thus "spraying" the feedwater well above the water level in the boiler. Even many forward located side-mounted boiler checks were slightly above the water level in the boiler.

In the steam tractors I'm familiar with, feedwater is injected at the front of the boiler away from the crown sheet.

The same applies to steam locomotives.

 

I have not seen the show and it has been some time since I read up on the Sultana.  As I recall it wasn't the explosion of the boiler that produced the catastrophic casualties.  Rather most of those who died were caught in the subsequent fire or drown.  Why does this matter?  There were instances during the Civil War where artillery pierced boilers.  The results were catastrophic for the crew in the immediate vicinity of the boiler when it underwent its rapid loss of pressure.  However it wasn't necessarily fatal to the ship itself, and thus to the rest of those on the ship.  With the Sultana it wasn't simply that the boiler exploded.  It was that the boiler exploded in a way that took out the ship's pilot house and also caused burning fuel from the firebox to spread.  The result was a ship on fire with no means of control.