BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Re: Help me understand

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Help me understand
From: "qutlx1@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:49:58 -0500
Authentication-results: mta1002.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=aol.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mx.aol.com; dkim=pass (ok)
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1461113406; bh=W7uk59A3ziadpVl0WL7vMPDA+UnIGopKHFHTWLkTxQw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=tc4KynBUkO4MpnijLyknkHCFZ9IzIKQqMFPAI++cO8tTRm/0MFaIsxYf3KmCEkuv1Wy2yzTI8K4XxTi2NpEg6YKKkxPMk6GA27Y1Hv4ECNgIt5BaspBFTvRuNFWsnu3nO5NWVT2S9eoONOc15W334qOFKkuFKsNiq5wOWCicSr8=
In-reply-to: <a647.788d7ef1.44480c47@aol.com>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <a647.788d7ef1.44480c47@aol.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com


Louis,

Don't have loco. Number but have the following.

Cecil's seniority date is 10/24/52 and he states he was working for about 6 weeks. So that places the incident around the end of Nov.,early Dec. of '52. He also states there's 
6 inches or so of snow on the ground and its bitter cold.

We do know from BRHS bulletin 51 and Russ' West Eola tower sheets that the following 
0-6-0s were still working around Eola at that time. 509,569,517 and 518. We also know from my presentation on Saturday night that 511 was the assigned switch engine at Streator in '49.

Hope this helps,

Leo

On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:33 PM, LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

April 19, 2016
 
Leo - Do you have the locomotive number and date of the incident? Please advise - Louis 
 

From: LZadnichek@aol.com
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 4/19/2016 1:39:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: [CBQ] Re: Help me understand
 
April 19, 2016
 
Leo - No, this incident is "new" to me. Since the locomotive was able to limp back to Eola, then I don't see how the side rods could've been bent, as that in itself would've disabled the switcher. Rods would've had to been dropped to move the locomotive using a rescue locomotive. Same for a broken axle. And since the locomotive was moving at the time of the incident, I don't see how the cylinder cocks could've played into the incident per the engineer getting a mark on his record for "not" using the cocks. If the locomotive had been standing still and water had accumulated in the cylinders, when the throttle was opened and the cocks were closed, YES, I can see a burst cylinder head as the result. But, moving along one moment and BAM the next resulting in bent rods, you've got me.... It would be possible to move a locomotive on its own power with one burst cylinder head (would be huge clouds of escaping steam) providing the engineer could get the locomotive off "dead center" with the Johnson bar (reverse lever). Knowing how age can dim or distort old memories, I now wonder if the switcher suffered a bent or stripped eccentric rod on one side caused by the pin crystallizing from lack of lubrication? Or, speculating further, perhaps the engineer did spot a rabbit, shot it from the open cab window, then stopped the locomotive to retrieve said rabbit while forgetting to open the cylinder cocks to drain the accumulating water from the cylinders. Then, returning to the locomotive with his prized dead rabbit, he opened the throttle and BAM, a blown cylinder head. You know the engineer and fireman (and whoever else was riding the light engine movement) all got their stories together for the investigation that was sure to follow. I just don't "buy" that the switcher swallowed a slug of water that stopped it in its tracks (no pun intended) and bent the rods. It surely would've shown in the investigation that the fireman was carrying too much water, you'd think. And, I just don't "buy" the crew limping back to Eola with bent rods; a bent or stripped eccentric rod, yes, a bent main or side rod(s), no. I think there's another piece to this story we're still missing. Any other opinions out there? Best Regards - Louis
 
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL        
 
In a message dated 4/19/2016 1:06:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:


Louis are you thinking of the same incident ? Engineer got his record marked for not using the cylinder drain cocks. They did limp back to Eola roundhouse and head out again with another locomotive

Leo

On Apr 19, 2016, at 11:21 AM, LZadnichek@aol.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

April 19, 2016
 
Tom/Leo/Greg - None of the above. It was a broken axle. Best Regards - Louis
 
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
 
In a message dated 4/19/2016 7:55:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time, CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:


Tom,

The story comes direct from the fireman on the engine, who is a spry very senior citizen. I just checked the written version and he refers to side rods once and main rods twice.

Leo

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2016, at 12:38 AM, 'Tom Kline' TKline@airmail.net [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Usually the case in Greg’s explanation causes the cylinder heads to blow off.  The bolts on the head are weaker than the rods and this was not an uncommon occurrence and something to look out for.  This can also occur by simply not opening the cylinder cocks.  Not paying attention to the cylinder backpressure gauge and allowing excessive backpressure to build would also cause blown heads.  I wonder if the story has changed through the years and ‘side rods’ was really part of the valve gear and it happening to the main rods is an assumption over time?  Adding the possibility of a crank pin shearing before a main rod bending is a possibility along with a bent piston rod.   

Also, ‘drawing water’ into the dry pipe can admit water into all of the steam lines.  I’ve had a heavy-handed engineer douse my fire out by blowing water through the atomizer box in the firebox after yanking the throttle out too far.

Just some thoughts.

Tom Kline

Houston

From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CBQ@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:24 PM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Re: Help me understand

 

Thanks Greg, that explains why at the investigation the hogger  was asked if he knew about the drain cocks.
Was there a control in the cab for the drains or did one have to go to the cylinders and drain them ?

By the way the fireman was asked at the investigation how much water was in the glass and he stated 1/2 a glass.

Leo


On Apr 18, 2016, at 9:46 PM, graywolfs02@hotmail.com [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi Leo,

A short answer to start with: You can compress Gas (steam) but you cannot compress liquid (water)

After a loco stands for a while, any steam still in the cylinders cools and condenses back to water. When starting the engineer will open drain cocks on the cylinders to let the condensed water out then close them to keep the steam in to do its work.

Another thing that happens and what may have happened here is that the boiler was most likely full of water,and as they tipped over the hill and drifted down grade, the water in the boiler entered the steam dome (where the throttle valve is at) and when Eng Nelson opened the throttle instead of admitting steam to the cylinders, it let water in and as water cannot be compressed the mass of the engine and momentum, kept the side rods moving, even though the pistons for all intense purposes "stopped"....and "poof" bent rods.

Any others with further steam experience, please chime in.......................

Hope this helps Leo.


Greg K



__._,_.___

Posted by: qutlx1@aol.com



__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>