Railfan.net Home Railfan Photos ABPR Archives Staff Safari Photos Railfan Links

Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums Railfan.net Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please Sign In or Register. Apr 28th, 2017, 6:18am
Categories •  FastIndex •  LongIndex •  Help •  Search •  Members  •  Sign In •  Register


Engine Discussion: #26
   Railfan.net Web Forums
   Tourist Railroads and Museums
   Steamtown
(Moderators: NKP759fan, strasburg90)
   Engine Discussion: #26
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint
   Author  Topic: Engine Discussion: #26  (Read 15275 times)
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1023
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #200 on: Jun 20th, 2012, 10:59am »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

How about taking the discussion on this thread over to Baldwin 26, where it belongs?
I have no photo of it, but on Monday, her boulder was lifted by the 30 ton crane and moved over to the frame.  Measurements were taken for the waist sheets which will allow for expansion of the boiler when it is hot, and still stay attached to the frame.
If anyone has photos, please post them.    Thanks


Logged

www.project3713.com

Railroad_Buff
Banned User
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 43
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #201 on: Jun 20th, 2012, 9:08pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

565Fan, " her boulder was lifted by the 30 ton crane"  Don't you mean her boiler?  
 
Tim


Logged
Max Hamberger
Railfan
Posts: 167
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #202 on: Jun 20th, 2012, 9:42pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jun 20th, 2012, 9:08pm, Railroad_Buff wrote:       (Click here for original message)
565Fan, " her boulder was lifted by the 30 ton crane"  Don't you mean her boiler?  
 
Tim

 
Let he who is without sin (or in this case, grammatical errors) cast the first stone. So, that puts you somewhere around near dead last. Anyways, back to the 26. Wonderful news, and the pictures that can be found around the interwebz really do show spectacular progress!


Logged

Best,
Maxwell Hamberger
Montana State University
School of Film & Photography
Class of 2015
Railroad_Buff
Banned User
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 43
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #203 on: Jun 20th, 2012, 10:43pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Max , Just remember your own rules there.  
 
John 8:7  
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
 
Tim


« Last Edit: Jun 20th, 2012, 10:44pm by Railroad_Buff » Logged
wrg113
Railfan
Posts: 131
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #204 on: Jun 21st, 2012, 4:17pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Moderator!

Logged

Take my advice. Don't ever work at a Thomas event.
Railroad_Buff
Banned User
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 43
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #205 on: Jun 21st, 2012, 10:22pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Don't you like see what the holy bible has to say?  Aw to bad.  
 
Tim


Logged
toptrain
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 2393
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
  Baldwin_26.jpg - 70860 Bytes
« Reply #206 on: Jun 22nd, 2012, 7:58pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

June 16 2012
* This photo is a out of focus one of the repaired frame.  
toptrain


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/Baldwin_26.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged

toptrain
" Its A Heck of A Day "
toptrain
Historian
View Profile  

Posts: 2393
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
  Baldw_26.jpg - 85980 Bytes
« Reply #207 on: Jun 22nd, 2012, 7:59pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

* Here is the Boiler photo taken on June 16 2012
toptrain


http://Forums.Railfan.net/Images/Steamtown/Baldw_26.jpg
Click Image to Resize

Logged

toptrain
" Its A Heck of A Day "
mikado1555
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 30
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #208 on: Jun 22nd, 2012, 9:59pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

On June 2nd, 565fan said, "The sizes and dimensions are going back to the original 1929 specs.  Parts that were adjusted to fit the twisted frame over the years are either modified back to "square" or they were thrown out."
 
Are the original specs meaning original dimensions or original tolerances?
 
Did they use a string line along each side frame and set the tram so that the axles will all be in tram and have the frame centered between the rails? If the engine has not been tramed, then there is a big risk of having hot journal bearings and side rod bearings as well as creating weird flange wear.
 
Were the crank pins quartered (or set to the same "quarter" if it is not exactly 90 degrees) or were the crank pins turned to a new diameter without checking quarter and throw? If the quarter is off, there is a risk of rods binding. If throw is off on 1 wheel on one side (throw does not need to be the same on both sides, all wheels on one side need to have the same throw within tolerance of what the cylinder and piston can handle) then there is a risk of binding.
 
The original specs, meaning dimensions here, more than likely won't work well as parts (shoes, wedges, boxes, crank pins, journals, crown brasses, hubs and hub liners) and the frame have more than likely worn so their dimensions are not close to the original.
 
Are they rebuilding everything and replacing crank pins, axles, crown brasses, tires, etc to get everything back to original dim? Or are they rebuilding and traming her to get her back to the original tolerances? Similar meanings and both can be considered "original specs" yet they are quite a bit different.


« Last Edit: Jun 22nd, 2012, 10:01pm by mikado1555 » Logged
Railroad_Buff
Banned User
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 43
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #209 on: Jun 23rd, 2012, 10:00pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

How did the frame get twisted? First I knew of this.
 
Tim


Logged
koasterkidd
Enthusiast
View Profile   WWW  

Posts: 30
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #210 on: Jun 24th, 2012, 6:35pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jun 23rd, 2012, 10:00pm, Railroad_Buff wrote:       (Click here for original message)
How did the frame get twisted? First I knew of this.
 
Tim

 
"Bent" would be an appropriate word to use, rather than "twisted"


Logged
Railroad_Buff
Banned User
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 43
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #211 on: Jun 25th, 2012, 1:58pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Ok. How did this event happen?
 
Tim


Logged
mikado1555
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 30
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #212 on: Jun 25th, 2012, 5:03pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I am not sure about #26, but know of other engines whose frames have been bent in derailments or been bowed during normal old-time hard running conditions. I have also seen frames that have not been perfectly straight or inline and were most likely been that way from the time they were built. Depending on how much the frame is off, adjusting the shoes and wedges, hub liners and boxes may allow the frame to be centered in the track without needing to do major work to the frame.
 
I would not be surprised if it would be something similar or a culmination of things for #26.


Logged
montclaire
Railfan
View Profile  

Posts: 140
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #213 on: Jun 27th, 2012, 12:21pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

on Jun 22nd, 2012, 9:59pm, mikado1555 wrote:       (Click here for original message)
On June 2nd, 565fan said, "The sizes and dimensions are going back to the original 1929 specs.  Parts that were adjusted to fit the twisted frame over the years are either modified back to "square" or they were thrown out."
 
Are the original specs meaning original dimensions or original tolerances?
 
Did they use a string line along each side frame and set the tram so that the axles will all be in tram and have the frame centered between the rails? If the engine has not been tramed, then there is a big risk of having hot journal bearings and side rod bearings as well as creating weird flange wear.
 
Were the crank pins quartered (or set to the same "quarter" if it is not exactly 90 degrees) or were the crank pins turned to a new diameter without checking quarter and throw? If the quarter is off, there is a risk of rods binding. If throw is off on 1 wheel on one side (throw does not need to be the same on both sides, all wheels on one side need to have the same throw within tolerance of what the cylinder and piston can handle) then there is a risk of binding.
 
The original specs, meaning dimensions here, more than likely won't work well as parts (shoes, wedges, boxes, crank pins, journals, crown brasses, hubs and hub liners) and the frame have more than likely worn so their dimensions are not close to the original.
 
Are they rebuilding everything and replacing crank pins, axles, crown brasses, tires, etc to get everything back to original dim? Or are they rebuilding and traming her to get her back to the original tolerances? Similar meanings and both can be considered "original specs" yet they are quite a bit different.

 
 
I think that the answer would be that 26 is being restored to it's original design parameters, and that the "quick fixes" are being eliminated.  Meaning they are doing the restoration in the proper manner.  This would also explain why it takes so long to properly shop a steam locomotive.


Logged
mikado1555
Enthusiast
View Profile  

Posts: 30
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #214 on: Jun 27th, 2012, 4:40pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

Yeah, I understand why things take a long time. I also do work on steam engines and also am a machinist. What I was told is that it looks like you did more with 10 minutes of painting than what you do with 10 hours of machining. Yeah, that is about right.
 
Also now-a-days the shop forces are not as large (easy 200+ in a roundhouse and 200+ in a back shop of a large terminal) and there are other things that need to get done. It is a balancing game.


Logged
koasterkidd
Enthusiast
View Profile   WWW  

Posts: 30
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #215 on: Jun 27th, 2012, 6:54pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

The good thing is that 26 (hopefully) shouldn't need another rebuild that takes as long or costs as much as this one, which is good for the Site

Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1023
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #216 on: Jun 27th, 2012, 11:20pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

This photo helps to show some of the damage which bent the frame.  Look above the chain to the right of the coupler. There is a bulge atop the pilot beam. This also has an indentation right above the chain, but it doesn't stand out as clearly.

 
No one is sure what the locomotive hit.  But with their ingenuity at the time, they were able to make do without searching for another frame.  The boiler was okay after the crash, so why mess with it? She had a long career with the bent frame, but it was time to change things for the better.


Logged

www.project3713.com

afboone
Railfan
Posts: 120
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #217 on: Jul 1st, 2012, 8:50pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I think I was told she was wrecked at the Baldwin factory.  Something about a boxcar and her ran into a wall.  Not sure.
 


Logged
The_Former_Fireman
Railfan
Posts: 123
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #218 on: Jul 3rd, 2012, 5:56pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I always had a suspicion that the pilot beam was damaged before being attached to the locomotive.  Perhaps while the casting was still "soft" after forging at the plant.  Notice that the steel is warped (not cracked) and there appears to be a relatively small point of impact.  
 
The 26 was originally built as a "house" switcher and used a lot of components already on hand (there are several different casting dates on various components).  Could it be that somone on the shop floor just pointed and said "use that one over there" when the time came?
 
For a whole locomotive to hit something that hard, to cause that much of an indentation, the impact would have been cataclysmic.
 
Just my two cent conspiracy theory.
 
Dave Crosby


Logged
565fan
Historian
Posts: 1023
Re: Engine Discussion: #26
 
« Reply #219 on: Jul 3rd, 2012, 6:50pm »
Quick-Jump   Reply w/Quote   Modify

I don't know the details, but cataclysmic is the word.  Every part of the frame, plus the valve seats, the crosshead guides, and other parts have been reworked to make the frame straight.  A wire was used to line things up as she was being straightened out. This is part of why the work is taking so long.  This portion alone took from late 2007 to mid 2009 to complete. The shoes, wedges, binders and "lollipop" bolts were made in 2006 in preparation for this.

Logged

www.project3713.com

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  ReplyReply     EMail TopicEMail Topic   PrintPrint

« Previous topic | Next topic »