[Attachment(s) from LZadnichek@aol.com included below]
April 20, 2016
Leo - OK, thanks for sharing what limited information you have. To give our
Group readers an idea of what these switch engines looked like, I've inserted
and attached two representative images:
No. 569 was a Class G-10 0-6-0 type that had been converted from a Class
R-4 2-6-2 type. The switcher is shown here at Galesburg, IL, in 1937 with a
patched stack. It was sold for scrap in December 1953.
No. 509 was a Class G-5 0-6-0 type. It's show here at Chicago, IL, in
1936. It was sold for scrap in May 1954. Locomotives 511, 517 and 518 were
all near-identical Class G-5-A 0-6-0 types.
As the incident occurred in late 1952 just prior to dieselization of
Chicago area switching, it's doubtful the damaged 0-6-0 with "bent" rods was
ever repaired. Most likely, it sat at the Eola round house and was used for
parts until later sold for scrap.
I will comment as to Tom's concurrence with me that there's more to this
story that what's been found, when I was in middle management within the
scrap industry, I was involved in several accident investigations involving
heavy machinery including one mishap that resulted in a fatality. I learned
from the start that only the actual machinery itself "told the truth" and the
participants involved in damaging the machinery usually "didn't tell
the truth....or, at least the whole truth." I leave it at that.....
Anyway, sure wish I could've been a fly on the wall at the master
mechanic's investigation to find out what "really happened" to that unlucky
0-6-0. If you find anything else out, let us all know. Best Regards -
Louis
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
In a message dated 4/19/2016 7:50:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
CBQ@yahoogroups.com writes:
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
April 19, 2016
Leo - Do you have the locomotive number and date of the incident?
Please advise - Louis
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
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
April 19,
2016
Tom/Leo/Greg - None of the above. It was a broken axle. Best
Regards - Louis
Louis Zadnichek II
Fairhope, AL
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
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
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.
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
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from LZadnichek@aol.com | View attachments on the web
2 of 2 Photo(s)
Posted by: LZadnichek@aol.com
![]()
__,_._,___
|
