Allegheny 1642: Disaster on the Rails (Unscripted)
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2024
- nickelplatelim... Help Support us if you can! Thank You!
There are 12 actual photo's in this video from the incident!!!
In this video we go over the disaster that struck the Chesapeake and Ohio's Allegheny locomotive 1642 on June 9, 1953. The video covers the timeline of events and probable causes, as well as how those causes likely would have occurred. I also theorize on certain factions behavior and the affect it had on all parties involved. Including those who lost their lives and their family. In my opinion, this is my best video yet and one you don't want to miss!!
Excellent video. A few notes to add. This appears to be a failure on all levels. 1642 should never have been ran in that condition, especially with it having multiple trouble tickets written on it. But it’s worth mentioning that 1642 and many (if not all) of her sisters had been retired and were pulled out of storage because of a coal boom. That coal boom put more traffic volume on the rails than the C&O could handle without the H-8s. No other locomotive on their roster had the combination of speed and power to effectively handle the volume. They simply didn’t have enough diesels to handle the high tonnage coal drags the H-8s were made for, and the H-8s could outrun the diesel teams while doing it. The H-7 Chesapeakes were off the roster by this point (having been sold to the ATSF and DRG&W). The H-4s, H-5s, and H-6s didn’t have the speed required to move the large volume of coal as quickly as possible, so they were relegated to branch line service. So all employees knew the H-8s were a very temporary measure and would go back into storage as soon as the coal boom subsided, especially seeing as how the boom was a result of the UMWA and coal companies successfully negotiating an end to the strike that occurred just prior.
With that being said, the maintenance crews, foremen, and supers all likely had the attitude “they can just use the injectors if they need. When 1642 makes it to Clifton Forge, it very well might never leave there again. They can fix the feedwater heater if they want before they stick it back in storage”. That’s not the right attitude to have, but it exists all over the place. Working in fire/EMS, if we get put in a spare rig or a spare is put in service as an “extra company”, minor issues will certainly get overlooked by maintenance. Those issues will usually get overlooked by crews, unless we just don’t like that spare and are looking for a reason not to be in it. Moderate issues (meaning something likely big, but not a safety issue) might even get overlooked by maintenance if they think the rig can get by with it, especially if it’s near retirement. The suits at C&O likely told all personnel involved to run the H-8s as cheaply as possible, meaning only routine maintenance and critical repairs. Even if the maintenance crews noted the issue with the feedwater heater, they likely decided it wasn’t critical since the injectors can be used in its stead. Once 1642 exploded, they probably went into CYA mode.
Fault is also on the crew. If the low water alarm was truly on, why were they messing with the feedwater heater that they knew was defective instead of using the injectors? Also, did they not notice the water level dropping before the low water alarm kicked on? Personally I’ve encountered instances in my job where my primary equipment was defective in a critical moment, I’ve just disregarded it and went straight to the backup instead of trying to troubleshoot it. That can be done later. Me armchair engineering this, I get not wanting to block the mainline and have to explain that at the potential cost of my job. But if I’m in a situation where I’m facing catastrophic failure with fatal consequences, I’m going to do what I need to do in order to ensure life safety. Setting the brakes (if applicable), dumping the fire, and getting the hell away would’ve been a much safer course of action. Makes me wonder what call regarding 1642 the operator in CW Cabin received (which was still there as of 2013). Over the hill across the tracks from CW Cabin, there are still multiple large pieces of 1642 remaining to this day.
I also get the wife taking the settlement. In WV, there was an attitude of “company overlords” still present in 1953 that many people would have trouble understanding today. Remember, West Virginians had to literally go to war against companies as well as local, state, and even federal government over labor rights. Being the wife of a veteran engineer in 1953, she certainly was old enough to remember that tumultuous time period. She was likely married to Anderson and he was likely working for the C&O prior to them unionizing. She may have took it thinking she’s lucky she got anything at all from the company. Also, being 1953, she may not have been able to get a lawyer without a male close family member to speak for her. We talk about women’s’ suffrage and other reforms to women’s’ rights, but we often forget how restrictive society was for women even in the 1950s. Especially when you couple in how West Virginia is always at least 20 years behind the times on everything (I say that having grown up here, and having heard stories from women in my family who were alive back then and what they had to go through to get where they were when I came around). Lastly, as powerful as the C&O was in WV, many lawyers might looked at taking the company on as career suicide.
I would like to pin this response to the top if that's ok. Well said. There is little for me here to counter.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower you’re absolutely welcome to
Having worked 40 years in maintenance, after 3 reports of a problem, the correct procedure would be to replace the pump with a new or rebuilt unit.
That would be the likely correct outcome, except that did not happen here most unfortunately.
If you repeatedly have a problem with a piece of equipment and after the mechanical force cannot find the problem, replace.
Sometimes bench testing or looking for something that may be wrong is not the way to troubleshoot.
The problem may only present itself when the equipment is in actual operation, ie, moving down the track, with the vibrations and steam pressure, or at a certain speed.
The Engineer knows his equipment and what is happening when he operates it.
He is your customer, and the customer is always right.
Sometimes the shop forces think the have all the answers.
@@garyhock2043 Correct! I alluded to that point in another comment. I dont want to overly bash the maintenance dept. here. They got the blame..But also trust that the suits from above were involved in this as well.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Because steam was being phased out rapidly, the cost of repairs played a heavy hand in not doing anything that would cost something. Sadly, 3 lives were lost plus the costs associated with the derailment cleanup.
@@royreynolds108 Yep, that's where the suits came into play.. I agree! Thanks for the comment :)
I'm a licensed first class steam engineer. Procedure is to dump the fire and secure (turn off) the feed water and let it cool down. Typically before the alarm goes off you would see the water level dropping in the sight glass. If the alarm is going you most likely no longer in the sight glass. Furthermore, the reason you secure the feed water is if you have heating surfaces exposed any water added will flash to steam and cause an explosion, which in my opinion is what probably happened. The engineer was probably trying to make a siding to clear the line and the fireman was trying to get the feed pump going. He probably succeeded but too late.
Love this comment! Exactly what I was looking for! Shutting down the feed water makes total sense! One question for you if I may, why would the engineer even risk trying to make that siding? (of which he was actually very close to when the boiler blew up) Or is that just the human error of judgement happening there under a tense situation? I know im sitting here in a computer chair typing this, so it's easy for me to say that if it were me, i'd have stopped that locomotive the second I saw the water in the sight glass level dropping. Especially since he was already in the least jittery about the pump working correctly. Enough to ask the foreman at the stop to look at it. As another poster said..the locomotive should have been taken out of service to begin with. Especially with 2 prior engineer write ups about the pump not working correctly in the previous few days before the accident. Those were the times... and not good ones for safety and maintenance. Especially with steam well on it's way out by 1953. Thanks for the awesome response!!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower the feed water problem is the same thing that happened at 3 mile island nuclear plant. They didn't want to add water for fear of it flashing to steam.
As for the engineer,I'm assuming he didn't want to get chewed out or potentially fired for blocking a main line. There probably weren't a lot of protections for his job then even if he was right. His superiors would probably have used the machinist's words against his. And I agree It was also the end of the steam era and he may have been trying to keep his head down as he may have not wanted to learn to drive a diesel.
I've seen instances where people(especially very experienced people) make very poor decisions because they were afraid of losing their jobs late in their career.
Glad you appreciated my response. You can search boiler explosions here on CZcams and really see how destructive and violent it is. Steam expands to something like 6000 times it's volume of water.
Another interesting note is high pressure steam is anything over 15psi. Typically high pressure steam uses a water tube boiler to keep the volume of water lower but heats to steam faster. Typically how coal power plants are set up. Locomotives are fire tube boilers which makes the water volume incredibly dangerous if it gets out of control. I'm not sure how much water the boiler held in an allegany locomotive but imagine hundreds maybe thousands of gallons of water flashing to steam in an instant and expand 6000 times it's original volume. Terrifying.
Yeah, I saw a documentary on 3 mile about a year ago saying that very thing. Now this I know for sure about myself.. And first off, I know exactly the thinking you're referring to about losing the job. That still go's on today.. Just not with me. Anyhow... I for darn sure wouldnt be making that decision not to stop that locomotive immediately based on losing my job.. Especially if I have a high chance of getting myself and everyone else blown up. I realize steam was on it's way out on the C & O in 1953... But Im sure i'd have stopped immediately and dealt with the problem. Getting everyone NOT killed being my argument along with not getting their $4,000,000 locomotive (todays money) + whatever cars and freight lost to derailment destroyed. They wanna fire me.. go right ahead. Jobs will always figure themselves out if you're any sort of a motivated person. Im sure there was another railroad outfit in those days that would have hired him. Anyhow, thanks for the idea.. I will in fact look up boiler explosions and watch a few.
I know of these engines, but not in detail. The commentary here suggests that, apart from the water pump, this engine was fitted with injectors. So the question arises: why was the fireman not using them instead? Were they also defective? It seems to me that this engine, having spent several months out of use, needed a comprehensive shake-down before being put back into service. Such a senseless accident, and unnecessary loss of life.
@@user-cw9qn1nb2n Wholeheartedly agree!
All front end crews in steam days feared scalding, or explosions. When my father was firing a Pennsy J1, 2-10-4 going westbound up the Buck Hill grade in Canton, Ohio in the late 1949's, the stoker jammed up. The train stalled for lack of steam pressure, so he had to drop the fire to avoid scorching the crown sheet. The ties then caught fire & the fire dept had to be called. The engineer and the road forman were furious and tried to blame him. Fact is, there was a clinker that jammed the stoker, because of the questionable quality of the coal that the rail road was using. My father didn’t like the state of affairs on the PRR, and quit to work on the Grand Trunk. He was lucky there wasn't an explosion in his case, but he evidently handled the water properly.
Great story! I will have a story or 3 in the future on the PRR! :)
It is that way today if you are part of the engine crew. If you have two injectors, both are tested before leaving the yard. If the fireman's injector fails to start, the engineer is supposed to start his. Both failing would mean drop the fire and stop the train. If the gauge glass shows water, blow it down and make sure it returns properly. If it doesn't, test the tri-cocks. If it is at the normal ( center tri-cock ), then you can work on the injectors. If at the low level, get away from the loco. One thing about operating in Florida or the desert is that heat will sometimes cause a working injector not to start. You can try to fix that several ways. One is by blowing the water in the injector supply line back into the tender, when the water rushes back it should be cooler than what had been in the pipe before. This might cool the injector enough to get it started working again. Another way is to use a wet rag to cool the injector.
Now as this loco had both a feed water pump and an injector, the feed water pump would be the main source of water for the boiler. The injector would be the backup. As the governor was tested and found to be working when tested, there is the possibility that the pump itself may have been the problem. Again, like with the injector above, it may have worked fine at the yard but when warmed up, it may have failed. In either case, the fireman should have started the injector before working on the feedwater heater.
Sorry about the false start on my comment. This is going to be long but I think it will be worth your time. I've written several times about the Allengeny, and I think I can add a bit to the author's excellent description of what happened.
Based on descriptions of required operating procedures in both the C&O's and the NYC's Manual for Locomotive Firemen, the engine crew were required to successfully test the feedwater heater, the injector , and the low water alarm before they were permitted to leave the Handley yard to begin their trip east. If there were any problems with this equipment they were to report it to the appropriate officials and wait until the engine was either repaired or replaced.
The other critical piece of information about the low water alarm is that it was configured so that it would begin to sound when the water level dropped to 6.75 inches above the highest point on the crown sheet.
The Nathan 4000-C injector used on these locomotives was capable to raising the water level in the boiler at a rate of 0.875 inches/minute, based on testing on engine No. 1636 performed after the accident.
So, it is very likely that the low water alarm began sounding at least several minutes before the water level would have dropped to the level of the crown sheet. The C&O Manual for Locomotive Firemen says "If, at any time, when the locomotive is under steam pressure, the low water alarm gives warning, both injectors or the injector and the feedwater heater must be put on at their maximum capacity. If, however, it is found that water cannot be pumped into the boiler for any reason, the fire in the locomotive must be extinguished immediately." So, when the alarm went off, the engine crew should have immediately started the feedwater heater and the injector. According to the ICC Accident Report, four company officials stated that the injector operating valves were found closed, indicating that it was not operating at the time of the explosion.
At the time of the accident, given the train size and speed we can calculate the boiler's water demand at about 70 gallons per minute. The injector alone was capable of supplying 216 gallons/minute, so there is no obvious reason for the water to fall to the level of the crown sheet before an operating injector could refill the boiler, regardless of the operability of the feedwater heater. if the injector were running, the engine should not have exploded.
I find the idea that several different mechanics, at Hinton, Handley, and Thurmond, would all have missed a serious flaw in the feedwater heater cold water pump. I also don't believe that they would have let the engine depart with its train if they had found a flaw, since they all surely knew that doing so would have put the lives of the crew at risk, and themselves at risk of serious disciplinary action in the event that a failure occurred while the engine was out on the road.
So, I believe that the engine blew up because of negligence on the part of the crew, most directly on the part of the engineer, although the fireman was also certainly at fault. Because all three men in the cab died, we can never know exactly what happened, but it seems likely that the railroad considered the engineer responsible, and that would account for the small financial settlement his wife received.
Karen Parker
Karen, another excellent explanation, first of all. I have to say that the ICC report was my primary source on this video. (The video easily could have been 45 minutes long if I could be thorough on this platform) Given the fact that the crew were all killed, and therefore we will never know what actions, or in-actions they did, or did not do.. I took the high road and simply seriously questioned that whole part of the incident rather than accusing. That, simply because we don't know. You and I know what it looks like. I would really, really like to know why 1642 was not taken out of service after the 3rd engineer report of issue's with the water pump. This is why I site the C & O (maintenance and suits) as ultimately responsible for this accident happening to begin with. Regardless of the level of fault on the part of Engineer Anderson and crew. And this is why I believe the settlement Mrs. Anderson received was a crying, absolute joke. Put it this way, if I lost my wife to an accident like this. There is no way I take that settlement without a proceeding and I know exactly what happened to the best of my ability. Especially if they are laying fault at her feet. Times were way different in 1953 regarding these things, I realize. Still, I do everything I can. Wonderful response, thank you again!
Thank you Karen. I have learned a great deal from your explanation, but am still at a loss as to why the Fireman seemingly ignored the injector(s), the use of which would have saved their lives. Was he so absorbed in trying to get that defective feed-pump to work that he lost sight of what was of the utmost importance - keeping a fair level of water in the boiler? And maybe the Engineer was taking a chance because he had done so in the past, and gotten away with it. I guess we will never know. It is all just so sad.
@@user-cw9qn1nb2n Not only what you said, but my question was also why the locomotive was in service to begin with after 3 engineer's reports about the water pump.
@@user-cw9qn1nb2n the control lever for the injector was mounted next to the engineer’s seat, not an easy place for the fireman to reach. It is also possible that the engineer had already tried to start the injector and failed. The ICC Acident Report tells us that the injector was found, badly damaged, but sufficiently intact to show that it wasn’t running at the time of the explosion.
Engineers would sometimes try to “eke out” a few more miles if the tender was very low on water and a water supply was nearby. This was the cause of the famous C&O T-1 explosion that blew all the superheater elements out the front. That wasn’t the case here, the report tells us the tender took 40 minutes to drain after the explosion.
I agree 100% Most likely the Locomotive Engineer and Crew disregarded the Alarm and continued, until the crown sheet failure . Once the crown sheet is
cracked or broken ALL the water in the boiler INSTANTLY turns to UNCONTROUBLE STEAM and NOTHING can stop the Explosion ... The Fire box and Crown sheet on an H8 Allegheny is MASSIVE in size and Dimension .Fortunately the Crew Never knew what Happened , and Died immediately .
An H8 Allegheny Weighs in excess of 1 MILLION Pounds or 500 TONS ! and just look at the FORCE that lifted , tilted and Twisted everything in an uncontrollable Mass Explosion ... Very sad Indeed
Thanks for the good video. We are dealing these days with deferred maintenance inspection and repair times being cut along with personnel in any number of areas in name of "precision scale railroading". Yes, if the low water alarm goes off, the usual procedure is to dump the fire and close off injector and feed water valves.
Yeah, I definitely think cost cutting was deeply embedded in all of this. It was tough for me to solely beat up C & O maintenance on this knwoing full well the above in your comment was most likely going on.. But ultimately that's who it falls on, rightfully or wrongfully. 3 people lost their lives for the sake of a retaining jobs on the maintenance level.
Another instance of this was the well publicized incident last winter in Ohio. Maximizing compensation to investors and Sr. RR Management at the expense of safety, maintenance and has unfortunately created a toxic work environment for crafts as we witnessed with the strike late last summer and earlier this fall and the settlement imposed by the combination of government/ and top union management.
@@jerryrollins512 And this is what I think was in play with this incident altogether. Except, only one part of it took the fall. Which likely would not have happened today, what with all of the different ways that this kind of thing gets exposed to the public these days.
Did you mean "Precision Scheduled Railroading, or am I just dense with sarcastic language???
The feed water pump may not have been operating correctly, but at the end of the day it’s the locomotive crew’s responsibility to maintain a safe water level in the boiler. Steam locomotives were/are required by law to have redundant means of introducing feedwater for this very reason. If the feed water pump and injector were not capable of doing that, it was the engine crew’s responsibility to close the throttle and dump the fire. We will never know what was happening in the cab, but it sounds like the crew was trying to avoid stopping the train.
And that's most unfortunate! I cant imagine why..But indeed that appears to be what transpired. Makes ZERO sense to me.
An interesting video. Having been involved (as a fireman). In a low water incident on a heritage railway i have sympathy with the crew here. We were operating a loco with an unfamiliar gauge frame (Klinger) at dusk with an unreliable injector on the fireman’s side and a difficult to acces injector on the drivers side. Basically we did not know how to illuminate the gauge frame and as a result we misread the water level. The outcome is we made incorrect conclusions regarding water levels.
We lost the fusible plugs but did not detect them in the cab. We made it to our station but the lasting memory is one of absolute coinfusion due to misinformation.
The loco is not making the distance it should for the fuel that is in it. The water is good, the injector is on ( probably wasn’t as kept knowcking off). Where is pressure going?
Reading this and coming at it from my experience was the crew receiving the correct information? An engineer reporting a faulty pump may well be reporting the water level isn’t coming up like it should. Tested and working??? Low water alarm goes off but hey the gauge frames show level good. ( I assume ther are two). Hang on two good readings one alarm going off. Conclusion(?). Not unreasonable to assume faulty alarm.
I din’t like having to stand there filling the boiler when I knew the levels was below the top of the crown sheet.
Just a thought
Rob
And these are answers that we will never know.. And it's sad!
Very Sad, I feel bad for the Crew . Sounds like the shop should have replaced the Pump and the last time before the explosion the Shope should have dropped the fire and called for a Replacement Locomotive!
Thank you for sharing the video as I am a big fan of C.O's Allegheny. It was very tragic about the explosion of this engine. I agree with you about the settlement to the Engineers wife being very much unacceptable. I never operated a Locomotives
(A fire tube) Boiler. But when I was a young man, I did (as a Stationary Boiler Fireman) operate 4 (water tube Boilers) each as big as a two story house. These Boilers were supplied with water from reciprocating water pumps which in comparison to the water pump on a Locomotive which was probably
" Humongous "
I say all this to relate that if the low water alarm went off, more than likely the pump was running too fast or "running away")
and I had to correct the problem. If the Engineer couldn't correct the problem, but had made 3 separate reports, I believe that the Locomotive should have been placed out of service and gone over with a fine tooth comb as it were to find the problem. Of course hindsight is
20/20. But again thank you for the video.
And why wasn't the locomotive taken out under some kind of load with maintenance on board monitoring how that pumped worked? I mean, just taking it apart for inspection just as likely would have shown nothing wrong with it mechanically. It's under load that would more likely reveal the problem. As you said..it should have been taken out of service. As I mentioned in the previous comment... I wholeheartedly believe it had to do with parts availability/cost of them as far as the inaction by maintenance is concerned. And those issues arise from above on the corporate level. Love the story and thanks for the comment!
Well done video. Unfortunately it feels like some industries/professions are winding their ways down the same path that lead to this incident.
More than you might know! I resigned my post (a really good job otherwise) about a year ago for these very reasons that lead to this locomotive disaster...or many aviation industry disasters. There's no way a job is worth potentially putting someone in harms way if it's not otherwise the military. Thank you for the compliment. I do really appreciate!
The reason that the boiler is typically found some distance from the engine frame when a firebox collapse has occurred is the escaping steam creates thrust, a ruptured boiler acts as a steam rocket while it deflates. The thrust must be similar to that from a Rocketdyne F-1, as a BLEVE is always able to rip the boiler from the frame and launch it as much as a quarter-mile.
A boiler the size of the Allegheny, going that distance, is just jaw dropping!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Find the accident report of the SP Cab forward explosion and wreck in the Arizona or NM desert on the Sunset Line, I believe in the 50s. The time of the explosion was known because the telegraph line was cut. A 4-8-8-2 lost the water pump and the water level fell below the crown sheet causing the explosion. From memory, the train was traveling east at about 45 or 50 mph. Most of the boiler was tossed about 1/4 to 1/2 a mile. I believe the story is in one of TRAINS MAGAZINE issues, just can't remember which one.
The boilers on these later and large steam locos were steam generators more than just boilers. They were generating large quantities of steam per minute at around 250 to 300 psi to move those long trains.
@@royreynolds108 Thanks Roy! I do have this accident in line for a video down the road. :)
I work in Rescue/Fire, and when we make three reports of something not working correctly, it almost always means it's going to be the next big problem with whatever piece of apparatus we're operating. If C&O's maintenance shop is anything like working with an engineer in a dedicated role of making sure that ambulances and fire trucks work? Yeah. The third time you report it, you're going to get pushback until the thing has an accident and you prove it.
Sometimes, being the maintenance person or just inspecting a problem isn't as easy to 'understand' without seeing the problem first-hand. Humans are always willing to dismiss each other.
i couldnt agree more!
I have been a voluntary fire man in the past.
What I learned was the following.
If a feedwater pump or injector fails to operate, try to use the other injector, there are always or a pump and one injector at least, or two injectors.
An injector can fail by getting to warm if it is the lifting type, which means it is mounted on the backhead of the boiler and does not need positive inlet pressure, so can be above the water level in the tender. To lift water the steam injected into the injector needs to condensate into water to be able to create a vacuum in the inlet and as such pull water upwards via the inlet.
I had an issue with such type of injector of which 2 were present on the locomotive I was on, because it was a very hot day.
The locomotive being from Sweden was designed to operate in cold climate, therefore it has lifting injectors in the cab so that they do not freeze.
But in the heat of that day around 35°C or 97°F the injectors got so hot that steam didn't condense so they wouldn't start.
The solution we tried was to cool them down with buckets of water, the engineer trying to save steam as much as possible, and prepared to stop and drop the fire if water got too low.
Luckily we got one injector working before water dropped below the glass and disaster was avoided.
Stop the train and dropping the fire, and ONLY dropping the fire, is the thing to do if you got below minimum level. Train crew should be alarmed and passengers evacuated if present or the locomotive detached from the train and moved at a safe distance from the train. The train crew (brake man or guard) should contact dispatching declaring the train in emergency.
And that.... is an excellent explanation. My only conclusion as to the inaction of the 1642 engineer and crew was..fright... Because trying to make that siding as speculated earlier, under those conditions was a death sentence. Im otherwise just baffled. I have no training as a locomotive engineer and my first guess was to stop, get out, and dump the fire.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Or the crew was also in fear of getting sacked for blocking the line, but better sacked than dead I would think.
Many Years ago I was involved with frisco 1522. From what I remember we added a few safety features. Such as a 2nd sight glass on the fireman’s side, lead fusible plugs in crown sheet. But from my understanding frisco removed all of their low water alarms. They Instead they used siphons which helps the crown sheet stay covered. But the Appropriate course of action is to open the bottom of the tri cock, and If steam is released. We would kill the fire and run like hell.
I definitely know and understand the run like hell part! You wouldnt have to tell me twice.
This is unscripted?
Dang dude you did a really good job
Yes... basically I read the material that I wanted to cover a dozen times over again.. made bullet points on paper on items to discuss.. Recorded a couple/few paragraphs at a time, checked recording for accuracy, moved on. The only script im using these days are on locomotive breakdowns and I am reading specifications and the like.
I recall reading that some engineers had a dangerous habit of running their locomotive with the water level low to increase steam output.
I can say that I have read of one incident that involved this practice. Thanks for the comment!
The view was less water by volume, provides a space for more steam volume. I question this theory, because super heated or dry steam has taken all of the saturation out of the steam & turned it into a gas, but at approximately 1720 the volume, but with the same properties & mass as the water it was originally made from. Any overheating of the firebox CROWN SHEET could cause a flash steam explosion. Also the overheated crown could collapse under Existing boiler pressure if allowed to continue. Eventually you reach a tipping point where one or the other, or possibly even BOTH could occur…..
@@densondirosa4497 Actually, under such conditions, that is if memory serves me correctly, The phenomena causes a rapid and uncontrollable expansion of wet steam that becomes workable and extremely volatile.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPowertake a piece of plate steel, take a Rosebud & heat it red hot. Safety glasses on & spit on it…. It’ll dance & sputter & goes away quickly. In this gaseous state it’s devoid of moisture. A mono tube high pressure boiler works on this principle. Water is injected into a tube rather than a pressure vessel. I’ve seen discharge piping from a flash steam mono tube boiler glow dull red. Remember that it’s steam doing this, just not saturated steam. If the vessel or piping doesn’t fail under load, it will eventually cool enough that the gaseous steam, becomes saturated again as containment & firing temps drop.
@@densondirosa4497 Very. very interesting!
I drive a 7 1/4” gauge steam locomotive. I get very uncomfortable if one of the two Giffard injectors is not feeding at anything less than it’s full capacity. (The way it sounds tells me). I will withdraw the loco at that point, using the other injector to raise the water level to some point above the top of the gauge glass. This reduces boiler pressure and temperature and throwing out half the fire follows. With the remaining fire going ‘dead’ I blow down, increasing the blow down valve opening to full at 30lbs per square inch.
I’m only comfortable if the water level is just a bubble away from the top of the glass.
All water is sieved rainwater.
Why say all this? A fire tube steam boiler is of course an explosive device to be treated with the utmost caution.
Now both injectors and injector steam valves are taken off, disassembled and immersed in distilled vinegar (acetic acid) for at least 24 hours.
It is deeply perplexing how the state of affairs described in this video could have arisen.
I am glad that you see the source of my animation throughout the video. Thank you for sharing your insights! Truly appreciated!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower there’s a saying ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ meaning it is possible to underestimate or ignore risk while settled into a repetitive routine. It’s merely a hypothesis but I wonder if this crew had made the run hundreds of times before and just stopped registering warning signs the would be ‘obvious’ to most crew most of the time. I take your point however about the reliability of the evidence of the witnesses.
In a memoir, a British fireman (ie stoker) wrote that he was on a passenger locomotive set to depart from Derby on a GWR loco fitted with only one gauge glass. The gauge glass shattered and had to be isolated. The guard blew his whistle signalling the driver to get under way. The fireman was horrified by the driver’s willingness to depart on time arguing that the fireman could use the isolation cocks to check whether the water level was high enough: ie open the bottom isolating cock and see whether water or steam came out of the bottom cock or not. If steam, put the injectors on. If water, then the level could be reckoned to be covering the crown sheet. If water came out when the top cock was opened then turn injectors off.
In a flash, the fireman could see the risk and threw his shovel out of the cab as the train began to move.
The driver was furious. But of course, the fireman had done the right thing: on a hand fired loco, no shovel meant no steam.
The distribution of authority between driver and fireman seems to me important in this case. The driver is more Senior but the fireman used his Authority (legitimate power) correctly.
Aircraft safety has been improved enormously by distributing authority more nearly equally among flight crew. Aircraft are ‘flown by Committee’ and quite right too. Seniority should never trump Authority.
Heaven only knows if Seniority HAD led to the suppression of the stoker’s better judgement in the case you describe.
Of course the same principle should apply in all walks of life, even, say, between parent and child.
@@stephensmith799 Im afraid the reality is that fault can be placed on every level of this accident. From the suits, to the maintenance department to the locomotive crew. But only one person was blamed.. The engineer. And the widow, as I have come to learn, was settled with accordingly. Of which she took naively.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower it’s not an explanation but yes, this sounds like the Swiss Cheese model of disasters… when all the mistakes line up like holes in slices of Swiss cheese and the consequences of individual errors create a collective one. Agreed about the wife’s compensation.
What a tragedy. I find it hard to believe that the locomotive driver and crew did not know the level of risk they were putting themselves in by ignoring the problem and continuing to operate the locomotive. So heartbreaking for wives and other family members went through.
Work place pressures of the day is the only thing I could think of.
It sounds like the maintenance crew didn't believe the fault reports when they didn't find the cause the first time, and didn't want to take responsibility for taking 1642 out of service to change out the pump. Once the low water alarm went off, the only possibility would have been to dump the fire right ******* now, and hope the crown sheet would hold. From the narrative, they tried to get water back into the boiler, hoping it wasn't too far gone. That's a training failure. If they did get the water pump restarted , and it sounds like they did, it put feedwater onto a red-hot crown sheet. The water flashed into steam, with catastrophic results.
That's actually not totally in left field.. I have the official investigation report from that accident.. The video could have been about 45-50 minutes long...LOL.. For now, i'll just say the blame went on maintenance.. And since all were killed, anything regarding the locomotive crew is purely speculative. But as I stated in the video.. just what the hell was going on in that engineering cab when the low water alarm was blaring? Look through the comments here..there is a great post by someone who thought the engineer was trying to reach the siding to get the train off the main... doing so fearing for his job... I have a pretty good response to that as well.. Thanks for the comment!
The low water alarm meant that the crew faced imminent death, especially on a locomotive as powerful as this one. It's hard to describe the level of adrenaline that hits in those circumstances. To respond in a way that might have saved both the locomotive and its crew, they would have had to drop the fire without thinking about it. Eyewitness descriptions suggest to me that the engineer was frozen in some kind of operating stance, perhaps trying to clear the main. The fireman, meanwhile, may have been panicked into thinking he could put water back into a boiler where the crown sheet was already exposed. It's so hard to think in those conditions. Crews have to be trained to do the right things so thoroughly that they do them without thinking. I don't know what the recommendations of the accident investigation were, but had I been on that board, retraining of all engine crews in low water alarm response would have been one of them. It would have immediately followed a new procedure that required maintenance forces to take engines out of service for repairs if life safety systems - feedwater pumps and air brake compressors among them - were reported defective, and to escalate the level of repair actions until complaints were resolved. I might also have required test runs including a Road Foreman of Engines after the repair of life safety systems. RFEs have great clount on a railroad; NO ONE ignores their recommendations.@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower
@@charsbob Such training and proper crew response only happens with repeated drills. The Navy, for example is a great example of that. Even then you get just as much flight as you you do fight when the real deal arises. So I understand exactly what you're saying. As far as recommendations and such... Keep in mind the incident happened in 1953. That sort of thinking wasn't so easy to come across in the railroad industry. Your solution is very valid, especially in today's more aware environment. Great comment and thank you!
In case the water level drops below the safe limit in the boiler, the crew must dump the fire out in case of a coal burner, or stop the firing machine in case of an oil burner, and turn of the steam valves for the injectros, so they cannot be used, since injecting water in this case is going to lead to boiler explosion. In my country, after these safty steps were done, the engine must cool for 24 hours before a boiler inspector checks it out. In case of crown sheet damage, the engine is sent to the workshop.
That's good information! Thanks for commenting!
Thank you for sharing this video
You
You're welcome!
This is why you have 2 injectors. Main supply should be the feedwater heater. If that fails, turn on both injectors. If that fails, I was told by old hogheads you dump the fire.
Youre talking plates that are up to 3/4 inch thick.
Most such failures are due to low water, a lot of the time sediment in the water blocks the hoses. IIRC, C&O had soda cakes put in tenders to deal with such sediment.
Well I had it half right in my guess in what you'd have to do in order to stop it... Stop and dump the fire.. Now why none of that happened.. we'll never know, unfortunately. Thanks for the input.. I was just guessing because I really dont know what the procedure is for this kind of casualty.
If youre from NKP Historical Society, talk to Don Dailey. I seem to recall he was the last man to qualify as a fureman at Frankfort with NKP. He sometimes fired 587.
Thanks for the reference! I am not from the society, but I do know of it. I would like to know the firm answer about the protocols on this type of casualty.
A boiler will not make excessive steam that is unable to be contained or released to prevent explosion, simply if the crown of the firebox is exposed. This is an erroneous believe that many have. If the crown sheet is exposed, it will overheat, deform and eventually be pulled off the crown stays when it collapses. It is also why in the UK not only do locomotive fireboxes contain fusible plugs that will melt when exposed and put the fire out with a controlled release of water/steam, crown stays also tend to be fitted with a nut to help support the crown sheet.
With the way the boiler was lifted off the frames, and thrown forward, it would suggest the crown sheet collapsed. simply being exposed could not course an explosion as am exposed crown sheet would not generate excessive amounts of steam that can not be contained, instead within a very short space of time if the locomotive is being worked, the crown sheet gets to the temperature where the steel plate starts to become soft, and will start to deform. Within a very short space of time, the deformation will lead to the rupture of the crown sheet off its crown stays and you get the explosion of the type seen here in the form of a uncontrolled immediate release of the pressure contained within the boiler.
Judging by the evidence, the loco footplate crew were either very complicit or criminally incompetent, by failing to take the necessary steps to prevent an accident by a combination of ignoring warnings signals (the low water alarm), failing to observe the water level (gauge glass and try cocks), try to get feed water into the boiler (by injectors) and conserving the steam (shutting the regulator) and (assuming the loco in question is a coal fired loco) dropping the fire (or at least knocking a hole in the bed to hinder steaming). Sadly in most incidents like this, the people with the answers to the questions, are the ones who get killed.
A great video, many thanks for posting, you got yourself a new subscriber from the UK.
Fusible plugs also will not work correctly if they are corroded over... I suspect that they often were for those using them here in the States. Not required to by law in those times, that's also the rub here.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower we find lime scale build up is a factor where I live, the water is rather hard, so many of us use boiler treatment to counteract this and help keep corrosion down, but the scale build up can prevent a plug from either melting when exposed, or melt even when covered with water. Many of the railways here used water treatment plants, some just sucked it out of rivers, and there's a great tail of Flying Scotsman on the former Great Central railway having injector issues. When the fitters looked I the tender tank, the filters were clogged up with muck and weeds, but I'm the tender we're large numbers of fish swimming around quite happy. On traction engines, We have to have our plugs out every year now for the boiler inspector. The other thing that hampers a fusable plug is mud/sludge. In UK steam days, locos had a 14 (Alnough this was oftern longer) day exam and washout, were the plugs were removed for examination and to aid washout. There's a wonderful film call wash and brush up that's shows this in British railways days, that Bennett Brook railway has shared on CZcams. Some of the things they did then would make us cringe now, but back then the boiler was a replaceable item. The last crown collapse in the UK on the railways was 1962, but it was only a partial rupture and the crew servived. Several issues there experienced with explosions in the war with the USATC S160s that were on trial. These were blamed on the different style of water gauge, that if operated in the way most crews had been brought up to do, would trap the safety ball and give a false reading, and the different way US crown stays were fitted. Previous to that, there seams little recorded regarding crown failures on the railway from around 1900. There was one or two notable incidents, such as on 1931 Lms experimental high pressure loco Fury suffered a boiler tube failure that pushed the fire out of the fire hole and killed the specialist on board. Previous to that in 1921 a LNWR loco exploded due to wildly inaccurate pressure gauge, and inoperable safety valves.
I agree. It seems that any excessive pressure would lift the safety valves immediately The water level would be creeping up, not soaring up.
Did US steam locomotives not have fusible plugs in the crown sheet of the firebox? These are hollow plugs filled with an alloy which has a lower melting point than the copper crown sheet, designed to melt and allow the steam and water in the boiler to safely extingush the fire before the crown sheet can melt. I've fired locomotives in Britain and South Africa, and all are fitted with one or more fusible plugs as a safety feature to prevent boiler explosions. If the firehole door is open at the time when the plug melts, the footplate crew may be injured by hot coals thrown out by the high pressure jets of steam, but at least the boiler doesn't explode. Fusible plugs can be quickly replaced.
Many U.S. Railroads did not deploy fusible plugs and as far as I am aware they were not required to do so by law. As I understand, there were individual railroads who did use them. Such as the Southern Pacific. A commentor in the Allegheny accident video said the H-8 had syphon plugs which I was not aware was associated with being a type of fusible plug. Of which case I can reasonably say that U.S. engineers and fireman probably weren't very well versed on them.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Syphon plugs would have only been of use if a syphon got blocked. Syphons normally would be running cooler than even an exposed crown sheet where the plugs would have melted out first. Syphon tubes could actually put water on the crown sheet even if the water was below the top of the crown sheet.
Great, informative video, thanks!
You're most welcome! Thank you :)
Regarding the settlement, this should be enough to cover for the engineer's income until retirement. Things are different these days, with multi-million settlements, but that's essentially what it's for. $112k in today's money doesn't sound like it would cover more than a couple of years of income.
Thank you for replying!
You are 100% correct on your thoughts about the mechanics. I've driven a truck most of my life, and worked with other types of heavy equipment. Most mechanics have a very bad habit of thinking they know everything, and us operators are idiots. It pervades the whole industry. Even though I operated the same equipment so much I knew it better than my wife. When there was a problem, I knew. The mechanics would blow it off as operator error until my macnine blew up. Operators know their machines. Mechanics need to take a leeson in hubrous.
I could not have said it better. Thank you for sharing your idea here. It's very valid.
I was a trucker, too.
The only repairs I let others do were the ones that I could not.
Great way to save money, and keep in tune with my big baby.
I’ve always treated other’s trucks with the same respect and care as my own, and more so because they WERE NOT mine.
I also love trains…
Forgive me if I’m thinking wrongly…
If I was the engineer on one of these fire/breathing behemoths, and there was a low water alarm, and no way to get more into the boiler…
Dumping the fire would be one thing.
I also know there is a blow-down valve to loosen scale on the side of the boiler, which dumps a LOT of pressure.
Would that not help?
Mind you, you are talking with a guy that is capable of overheating a truck going up Parley’s Pass out of SLC at -20 degrees.
Cut my teeth on the old Mack’s, and still fixing everything on the road today.
This event brings to mind a story about an engineer and fireman that put coke in the firebox….
(For all you that don’t know, coke was a product of processed coal that is used to smelt cast iron, and it burns REALLY hot!)
@@dangeary2134 Great story!
@@dangeary2134 I loved reading your story! Sounds like something my old man would've said
@@dangeary2134 Coke also burns with very little smoke. Coke was used by certain railroads going through long tunnels to try to lower the smoke and gas problems of those long tunnels. I know that the Colorado Midland engines carried coke to transit the Hagerman and Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnels under the Continental Divide.
After 2 times, the fire is to be dropped immediately, and the engine towed to the shop and the water delivery system is to be torn down and replaced!!!
Oh I agree.. But the loco shouldn't have been operational to begin with!
I’ve looked at the comments with interest but I can’t help wonder how the water pump would have been assessed by the technicians in order for it to pass because it seems to me that perhaps it was isolated from the loco’s feed and outlet lines and fitted with a shop water system that omitted the testing for blockages in the locomotives lines. No doubt, the shop couldn’t replicate the engineers’ observations, probably with a cold loco too, and therefore were unable to identify what the problem was. Having said this, I would be interested to know if the testing procedure was thoroughly analysed in the court filings.
There is no indication that this incident ever went to a court proceeding. In today's world it surely would have! The locomotive should have never been in service after three engineers reported problems. The crew's actions baffle me as well. Just a weird situation all the way around.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower thanks for the reply.
Very interesting. This type of accident doesn’t seem to offer any time to even go through a troubleshooting checklist? Not knowing much about steam locomotives, the comment about dropping the fire seems reasonable but like it was mentioned I can imagine the fear engine crews had in doing something so extreme, especially at that time. If you did it, be prepared to stand tall and justify your decision, be second-guessed and blamed for lost revenue. Sad story.
Yeah, in my mind it's already too late to try and get at least one of the injectors going... The alarm is already going off and the "bomb" is armed. So IMO, you gotta stop the train, and then you have two choices... drop the fire and hope it's not too late..if it is..you're blown up with the boiler anyway. OR you and your crew beat feet down the track and for sure live another day. Now, im assuming the railroad would have you drop the fire and then run. Me, I value life over anything.. So i'm sorry all, Me and my crew are beating feet. ABANDON SHIP!!! Thanks for the comment!
Imteresting video. However I found the very frequent pop-ups urging us to ‘subscribe’ to be distracting and unwelcome. It is not something I see on other channels I view except right at the end of the video. (It may also be counter-productive, as it has certainly made me think twice about subscribing.) Perhaps dial it down a bit?
It's because the channel is new and analytics is showing that viewers are skipping to key parts of the video. So I place the sub stuff at two or three different points of the video if it's 8+ minutes long so everyone catches at least one of them. If you watch the whole video, yeah it would be a bit distracting I would agree. It'll simmer down once I reach a good level of subs.. It's not an outlandish number, I promise.
The serrlement to drivers widow was a disgrace She probably did not have legal advice but if that had happened today C and O railway would be facing millions in compensation to her
Well, good info from Karen just below here stated the C & O faulted the Engineer for the accident.. And that might be... But it doesnt excuse the locomotive not being removed from service after 3 reports of issues with that water pump.. C & O was responsible ultimately.. And the settlement.. yeah, a total disgrace.
Im a diesel mechanic, so i do t deal with super high pressures like steam locos, unless it has to do with high pressure fuel pumps. That being said, as a mechanic, we, at my shop at any rate, take driver concerns seriously because it could be a wreck waiting to happen. With the pressures that steam locos operate under, the mechanics should have looked into the root cause of the issue, not just trying to simple fix it, since it was written up for the same thing 3 times.
Thank you very much! Exactly my irritation with this story. The loco should have been removed from service and as you pointed out..anybody that has any sort of mechanic working or knowhow, would know better that parts dont necessarily seem or act broken under normal or static conditions. That loco should have been removed, and an engineer along with maintenance should have taken it out and put it under diagnostic strain to see how that pump was responding. Surely they would have found the problem.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx one can only guess at their reasoning. But yes, I've come across issues more times than I can count where the issue wasn't something that could be replicated unless the truck was under strain. I understand it's a bit more difficult when talking about a steam locomotive, or any loco for that matter, but the part in question should have taken out, torn down to bare parts and inspected for issues. If none were found then trace it back to the tender until an issue is found. Or have a mechanic ride with to confirm the issue to see what it's doing.
@@bear470 Ultimately maintenance at C & O was responsible for this accident and knowing how tight on cash many of the railroads were at that time... Along with the big 3 steam manufacturers also financially crippled and steam parts becoming less available and thus more and more costly...
Then you combine that with the suits that dont give a damn about anything except money, and they're telling maintenance to cut back and cut corners or find another job.. Well, you get what happened here.. And maintenance took the fall.. As they should.. But all involved should have gone down too. But that rarely happens does it? Especially back in 1953. Nowadays.. the media is really good at finding things out. So at least there is that.. Even though it still regularly happens today. Im sorry for the tangent..But this sort of thing really chaps my butt...even if it was 1953.
@TheRailroadCrossing-wc5gx believe me, I get it. I can't argue anything you said, as I agree wholeheartedly. It just sucks knowing it was preventable, but the majority of class 1 railroads at the time didn't care about steam anymore and just wanted to get as much out of them with as little put into them.
@@bear470 Especially locomotives as young as the Allegheny were at a cost that's equal to $4m today per loco... But i'll tell you what.. That's just poor business planning. How C & O survived the great merger era.. I dont know yet. (By all practical rights they shouldnt have) I do know how N & W did it..and it was brilliant. But I digress... TTYL.. Im out for the night.
Very interesting video thanks for sharing this info
Glad you enjoyed it... And thank you for watching!
How could the crew even see down the track with the cab basically the same width as the boiler?
Basically the crew had to stick their head out of the window.. Not the best way of doing things.
Your spot on our maintenance team where I work at our just as bad
That's unfortunate!
Nothing beats hindsight. Especially if you weren't there.
Nope, I wasn't there.. But I do have the ICC report, that's as about as detailed as we will ever know.
Nor were they.. It's their best interpretation. There is no absolute. Really just a best guess, no black boxes then.
Dump the fire would be the first thing, after that pray...
Exactly!
I was at that county fair in Ohio the day before the traction engine exploded 2003 ? I think ?that was deemed the cause too low water level and the fuse plugs were bad that it did not melt ! Along with badly rusted stay bolts .
Thank you for sharing!
Couldn't the driver and the fireman check by the gauge if the pump was feeding the boiler?
That means the photo at 1:23 does not show 1642?
The photo at that 1:23 mark is tagged as the T-1 boiler explosion of 1948. It's just an example of what a boiler explosion can look like as I progress through the story. The tag is printed bold at the top of the photo. Thanks for the comment, much appreciated!
Why do you have to have bloody banjo music plinking away in the background?
Because it, and old Western music has been tied to old cinema footage of steam, since, well.. forever. Even the game, Railroad Tycoon uses both music types.
C & O: "for progress". Yeah but whose? Not the crews' but the executives and stockholders.
Another reason to embrace dieselization
It certainly was for them.
7:00 or as sonic would say "You get out of there!"
Sounds like it was a waterfeed pipes were blocked up with crud an water minerals
Distinct possibility.. if so, then the fusible plugs were likely that way as well.
What about the injectors? The water pump is only one way of feeding the boiler. There is at least one injector and some locomotives have 2. The water pump only works while in motion. Usually from an eccentric on an axle. The steam injector works as long as there is steam and cold water.
I have to add another question. What about the fuse plugs? They are designed to melt long before the crown sheet melts. They melt and let's steam into the fire box.
To the best of my knowledge, The H-8 didnt have fuse plugs. And many, many other American railroads didnt use them either. Everything in my source's focuses on the water pump. Since all were killed, there is no way of knowing what the crew was doing to stop the water casualty.. And it just baffles me to no end on just how and why these men lost their lives. Especially since Engineer Anderson was monitoring the situation from pretty much the get go. The whole thing is just really, really sad to me. Thanks for the comment!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower According to the ICC report. The boiler was fitted with 3 Nicholson thermic syphons. A type of fuse plug where when tripped would syphon water instead of steam into the firebox. Beside the cold water pump. There was an injector and Worthington feed water too. The report is not really clear on why the crown sheet overheated. It appears that it was the fault of the fireman and engineer not using every available source of filling the boiler and not dumping the fire when the alarm sounded.
@@peteengard9966 Okay, since you have seen the ICC report, I took the high road on the actions or inactions of the engineer and crew. Since we will never know what they were doing. It is extremely easy to foot the blame on them, and often major companies took that road. But it does in fact, look like the crew did nothing to stop the melt down so to speak. having said that.. It does not answer the question as to why the locomotive was in service to begin with after three engineer reports worth of trouble on the water pump. This is why I think the C & O suits and maintenance is ultimately responsible for this accident. Even though the engineer and crew appeared to have not done the right thing. Which is also baffling to me, because Mr. Anderson was aware of the water pump issues prior. I did not know that those syphons were a type of fuse plug.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Not to argue with you, but I look at it from a different angle. The crew operating the locomotive the day before the accident testified that it operated normally and had no issues feeding water. The fact that several maintenance people looked at the pump and some did something suggest a serious intermittent problem with one way to add water to the boiler. Why the crew didn't realize that the boiler was about to explode is beyond my reasonable understanding. Intermittent problems with any mechanical device is the most difficult thing to replicate and properly diagnose. I'm sure that none of the maintenance personnel would have allowed an unsafe locomotive to be dispatched. The ICC report is very lame to the fact that the original issue was not investigated to a satisfactory conclusion.
I was a big truck and mining equipment mechanic for 55 years. I never let an unsafe vehicle to be dispatched. It's also beyond my control what happens to a vehicle when it left the shop. I've seen my share of bad drivers and intermittent problems. I'm not trying to place blame on anyone. It was a tragedy that shouldn't have happened. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the operating crew for the safe handling of the equipment. They paid the ultimate price.
Take care and a happy and healthy New Year to you and yours.
Could they have been drunk? I know that in that time period drinking on the job was generally quite a thing and it was kinda accepted, ofc could be different for railroaders?
I hope not!
Do these locos not have backup injectors?
Im positive that they do.. The question is would they still work if the pump system is compromised? Or work well enough, period if the crew is still pushing the locomotive to max effort??
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower on UK steam (I can't speak much for US ones) - you typically have a live steam and an exhaust steam injector, with one set at a level when under way to essentially keep the boiler topped up. I'm aware (some) US locos were designed with feedwater pumps and preheaters (UP at least from memory) with I'm sure a backup injector or two.
WAIT I KNOW THAT PLACE 5:16 (the image I mean) I went there when I was little, that picture is at the Lake Superior railway museum. When I as little I would go in that really small kids train (it’s on the right of the screen).
That's too funny! It's remarkable how we can just think of these things randomly when cued. Even if it was that far back in life.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower So true! Btw, a very simular engine to the one that exploded in the video is there, you might recognize it. It’s Duluth Missabe iron range 227. You get to go in the cab of it, it’s so cool!
@@LegoMannnnn Yellowstones were the horses of the Duluth. I have a specific video coming on them. Not the one coming tomorrow..but my next one.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Btw I do Lego stop motion on my alt account. I’ve never done a train crash movie, but I have recently started working on a stop motion about the derailment of Big Boy 4005.
Did any machinists get fired? What a lazy bunch of imcompetents.,
That I dont know, but the Engineer and crew took the fall.
That degree of damage illustrates the sheer power trapped in a locomotive's boiler - something not to be treated lightly. I know from Robert C Reed's book that quite a number of US locomotives exploded, which raises a question. In Britain it was - still is - common to fit a locomotive with what are called 'fusible plugs' - plates inserted in the crown sheet which will melt in the case of low water and release the steam before the pressure reaches explosion point. Were these never used on American steam?
From what I know fusible plugs were not widely used in American Locomotives. Neither am I aware of any law requiring their use. It seems like a very simple, but worthy and inexpensive precaution. But yeah, in this Allegheny accident... The explosion threw the entire boiler off it's mount some 400+ feet ahead of the explosion point.. Which I must say I havent seen any other explosion like this. Usually it's more like those T-1 photo's I put into the video. So the force in this one was just something very...well.. almost unreal!! Losing 3 lives was unwarranted here.. But had this have been a passenger steam locomotive instead... How many lives then? Dont mean to be dramatic.. Just the oversight on safety..especially then.. was just AWFUL
In that steam tractor explosion at an Ohio fair the fusible plug had been replaced with a steel bolt, iirc.
OMG!!! You're kidding?
certainly a lot of power needed to rip the boiler of the frame like that but if you can find it - look for some photos and the story about the virginan railway AE class 2-10-10-2 mallet loco #800 that had a boiler failure on 04/01/1941 near Stewartsville VA. When its boiler failed it didn't just lift the boiler off the engine frame, but actually separated the front pivoting low pressure cylinders and frame from the fixed rear high pressure cylinders and their frame. the front engine section actually continued some distance further along the downhill grade before coming to a stop.
interesting side note the internal diameter of the largest section of the boiler on the AE class locos is larger in diameter than of some of the deep tube underground railway tunnels in London. you could actually drive a london deep tube train through the boiler from end to end.
also the Southern Pacific did use fusible plugs (4 in smaller locos and up to 7 of them in a cab forward) but did not stop them having issues with boiler explosions.
fusible plugs are only a band aid on a bullet wound if the crew don't operate the boiler safely.
@@mountainman0 I do in fact have info on the Virginian 800 that I can make a video from. And I just might have a source for imagery as well. :) Stand By to Stand By... LOL (Old Navy thing we used to say) I will definitely do a video on the subject. Just not too close to the Allegheny one. I was actually going to look up the N & W to see if they used fusible plugs.. In my thinking, and IMO of course.. if any American Railroad used them, it would be the class act that was the N & W. I might have guessed the Southern Pacific would have.. But N & W I was definitely gonna look into str8 away. Thanks for the comment, as always!
This is going to be long but I think
I gotcha.. I've done it a few times myself!
I agree with you 💯
Thank you!
We all got lazy bastards in all professions.😂 Not just railroads. The lazy man's way! Of checking stuff out.😂
And in this case, getting people killed.
negating responsibilities and blatant negligence ; the greatest american virtues.
@pvs1681 what about Russian virtues?
I think it's a pockmark on just about any major corporation no matter what country it resides in.
really any country, not just American or Russian
@@remylopez4821thanks for proving my point🎉
Further diving deeper under the hood in this Allegheny incident... By 1953 The big 3 steam locomotive manufacturers were already in financial trouble... Steam was well on it's way out and thus replacement parts were getting more scarce and expensive.. You see where I am going with this. And on top of that, dozens of railroads were also in financial trouble. Money was hard to come by. There had to have been an enormous amount of pressure on steam maintenance workers to make do with what they had. And I think these facts had as much to do with the seemingly laissez-faire maintenance handling of that water pump on 1642... It wound up costing 3 men their lives.
Aliens
They took over their minds!
Hasta gazpacho
#1642's crownsheet failed due to low water and the boiler explode.
That's correct
😉
@@jacksalvin364 👍
We watched the same video
@@pootispiker2866 😉
After 2 times, the fire is to be dropped immediately, and the engine towed to the shop and the water delivery system is to be torn down and replaced!!!
Yeah, I just dont get the entire response thing by the crew.. let alone why the loco was in service to begin with!