The Largest Steam Train to Ever Blow Up 🚂 The Explosion of C&O 1642 🚂 History in the Dark
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- C&O 3020 was an H8 Allegheny Mallett-type locomotive that suffered a cataclysmic boiler explosion in 1953. Let's discuss the incident and how it occurred.
🚂 Further reading 🚂
railroadfan.com...
🟢Patreon - / darknessthecurse
🟣Discord - / discord
🟢Donations - streamlabs.com...
🔴Tiktok -
🔵Twitter - / darkthecurse
🟣Podcast - rss.com/podcas...
🟣Twitch - / edgerabbit
Other channels:
🟣Gaming and Fanfic Readings: / @darknessthecurse
🟣History Stuff: / @historyinthedark
👔Merch: streamlabs.com...
---
I WRITE BOOKS! YOU CAN FIND THEM HERE:
📚Abyss: www.amazon.com...
📚Pryde: www.amazon.com...
📚Abyss on Audible: www.amazon.com...
#train #railfan #steamengine
I remember decades ago when the Space Shuttle was new they announced that the cargo bay was large enough to fit a railroad box car in it. I thought it would be fun if they actually hauled a railroad box car into orbit just to make the Russians scratch their heads.
gotta be related to musk with his sending an automobile to deep space just because
I wished they would have done it.
Really mess with them and take the strausburg Thomas up there and the astronauts wearing Strausburg PD patches. Seriously the PD uniform patch has a steam train in it. I live near there if you click my pic you see my town sticker.
@@hardrays It wasn't "just because", they needed a test load. The car happened to be the right size.
I think the tesla covers that.
C&O engine 1512 blew up on Piney Creek near Beckley WV in Aug 1936. It was a mallet 2-6-6-2. Same design as C&O 1309 now restored and in use at the Western Maryland RR Museum. 1512 blew up in a very remote area undisturbed after all these years. I found pieces of it still there.
Never knew to look. Walked many times from badoff up to raleigh. Have seen some cool old stuff but nothing I seen as part of a loco. Will have to pay more attention next time.
What all did you find and Save?
@@super_taco9319 If it was in mountainous terrain, some parts were most likely shoved off down the hill.
We found parts of an old steam engine near the Donner Summit in the late 70s after an old timer told us where to look. Nothing big. Just various bits and pieces shoved off down the side of the mountain. The largest piece was maybe 120 lbs.
We also started finding some old glass insulators, a few dated to 1870. That started my buddy and I on a hobby of hunting for glass insulators in all kinds of rugged terrain for years. We still do it a couple of times a year after doing a bit of research.
@@RailPreserver2K The most identifiable thing I found was fire box grates. There is also a knuckle laying there. Also found pieces of pipe but no way to identify that. Pipe could be anything.
Wow! I’d love to visit that spot!
I am very happy to spend ten minutes listening as you unload about sunken, bad, exploded and buried British Railways locomotives. Mebbe that's cos I live in the UK so I have issues, too. Keep going!
Tell the truth. You are James Bond's brother!
@@TheRebelOne. cannot tell a lie, it's true... although the family don't often admit to it. Thing is, he never forgave our mother for insisting he be called, 'Bond Bond'. James is his middle name. That's why he always has to introduce himself in that awkward way. And then he gets cross and breaks stuff.
I'm also British Civil Service, but it's a very quiet job in finance - I spend all my time working out how to pay for all the vehicles, buildings and countries he trashed.
Great to hear from you - I kinda feel like rebelling too, some days...
@@rogerbond2244 😉
Hey, just to give you some context into how powerful this boiler explosion was, the H8 Allegheny type are the largest steam locomotives ever built when measured by weight
Which is mad to think about when big boys exist.
Here go again. It's not a train but a locomotive. More kiddy speak.
Definition of a train: An engine or more than one engine coupled with or without cars displaying a marker. Definition of a marker: Red flag, red light or headlight on dim dispayed on the rear.
I would debate that statement. Seems to be very questionable about the real weight of the Allegheny. The only way we could settle this would be a real weigh-in of both the Allegheny and a BigBoy 2nd series. I do like the Allegheny but wished they would have had a higher TE. Also Running the Allegheny other than mountain ranges would allow the HP to be reached.
Cheers my friend.nice to get your heads up on these matters.a boiler explosion is no laughing matter. Have you heard of a loco designed by a gentleman named nigel gressley. He came up with a high pressure boiler built to marine specs for a steam loco the ill fated hush hush
It was a 4-6-4 wheel arrangement. Fortunately the boiler didnt explode the loco was rebuilt as on of his famous A4 Pacific type like the world famous Mallard.
Check out the story on the hush hush aka the H1?
Ok take care dont hesitate to reply and hopefully I'll have some more useless information for you.
Cheers fro new Zealand
Note the indentations in the rails due to the reactive forces of the explosion on the track bed. Tossing boilers are not uncommon with exploding boilers.
I should point out that the Big Boys, Challengers, N&W Class As and C&O H-8s were NOT mallets. Mallets use steam twice, first through two small high-pressure cylinders and then through two larger low-pressure cylinders. The Big Boys, Challengers, N&W Class As and C&O H-8s used steam through 4 equal-sized cylinders simultaneously, and would therefore be classified as simple articulated steam locomotives. The rule of thumb to tell a simple articulated and mallet apart is to look at the cylinders, A mallet will have a larger front pair of cylinders, with a smaller pair of cylinders at the rear. A simple articulated locomotive, as mentioned, has four cylinders of equal size.
The term Mallet was widely used for both simple and compound articulated locomotives, just as Dutch people refer to their country as either Holland or Nederland (I have been there and speak Dutch fluently). The New Zealand A and X classes were de Glehn compounds, although the pedantic say they weren't because the LP cylinders were on the outside. On a 3'6" gauge loco there is no room between the frames for anything that big.
And it’s pronounced Malley. The t on the end is pronounced as an e. On mountain railroads with the length of those boilers, you have to carry A LOT of water in the boiler so when you’re going downhill the water will rush away from the firebox. And once you start going back up a hill, the water comes rushing back towards the firebox. And the H8s were huge, some say heavier than a UP Big Boy.
@Alfred Wedmore The "power limits" of steam locomotives were such that we still don't have diesel-electrics in common use that have as high a horsepower as the largest, but commonly-used steam engines. The most common new diesel-electrics today are GEs with about 4,400 HP. The UP Big Boys and the Yellowstones used on the Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota both developed over 6,000 HP. You can measure the horsepower of a diesel engine by itself out of the locomotive and so the horsepower ratings for these are as measured on a dynamometer for the engine alone. The steam "engine" in a locomotive is integral with the frame and cannot be removed to have the horsepower measured. All you can measure is the "tractive effort" in terms of pounds of pull. And, like a diesel, the HP developed by a steam engine depends on the speed. But you can compute HP from tractive effort and the Yellowstones had about 6,250 HP at 40 mph. And yes, the effect Gary Matthews describes was very real and led to some historic boiler explosions.
By comparison, when EMD came out with their SD90MAC in the late 1990s, there was a lot of hoopla because it was the first diesel-electric to hit 6,000 HP. But the engine, the first 4-stroke that EMD built, turned out to have all sorts of problems and it went out of production. There is not a lot of reason to go to huge single-unit diesel electrics because it is easy to hook them together in multiple units with one engineer controlling 4, 5 or 6 locomotives from one control stand. That never was possible with steam. You had to have an engineer in each one and they had to know how to work together. The lead locomotive could give whistle signals, but there was always a lag before the second and perhaps third ones, could make the throttle or brake changes.
When the diesel-electrics started to come in in the late 1930s, they had engines of 1,200 HP when lots of steam locomotives were over 3,000. But they put the diesels together in A and B units controlled from the front. So you had 2,400 HP in total. They worked up to 1,800 HP and then over 2,000 but that was about the maximum until into the 1970s.
The Union Pacific always liked very large units and had some turbine-electrics in the 1950s that had 5,000 HP from one turbine, but the fuel consumption on these even when idling was so high that they stopped ordering these.
In the early 1980s I lived in Peru and went up to the central sierra often. The railroad from Lima up to the copper mining district rises from sea level to nearly 16,000 feet in about 50 miles as the crow flies. Of course, the railroad winds back and forth and has a lot of true switchbacks, but there were sections when first built that had 4 percent grades. That is two feet on a 50-foot-long steam locomotive and the boiler on something that size probably was 25-30 feet. A boiler is not full of water up to the top, so even a one-foot distance up or down from the level matters. If you went from 4% up to 4% down on a 25-foot long boiler, the difference in front vs. back would be two feet and, yes, that could expose the crown sheet over the fire box.
@Alfred Wedmore 2%. And the water slosh in the boiler was an issue.
Correct. And IIRC it's the Frenchy-French pronunciation, "mal-lay" since that was the fellow's name who came up with the idea. But for most railroaders it was "malley" and to folks who learned the term from books it's mallet as in a hammer.
The Erie Railroad had three 2-8-8-8-2 Mallets. Third set of drivers was under the tender, middle set were the high pressure cylinders, equal size to the low pressure sets. Unfortunately, the boiler wasn't even powerful enough for a 2-8-8-2. Lots of tractive effort, but not enough horsepower.
I discovered your channel like a week ago and I love it a lot. Unlike other channels that talk about these types of stories, you don’t sound monotone or like you’re reading off of a script. You seem super down to earth with your viewers, and you just rant and joke and act like yourself, which is something I appreciate. The railroad history combined with your enjoyable personality keeps me coming back. Great work!
Glad you enjoy it! I try to be a bit animated when I talk.
@@HistoryintheDark you’re a single dad? Jeez! That’s a seriously tough gig
Steam engines have a majestic quality to them , but if you don’t treat them right your majestic engine turns into a giant exploding bomb.
C&O pushed the limits of power in steam technology, with the Lima company. The Alleghenies were arguably more powerful than the Alco Big Boys in terms of hp, but they were rarely operated at designed speed. Big mountains and big risks. As a steam operator myself, I expect this was caused by a problem reading water level or a problem with boiler injection. I'm betting the operators were doin their jobs as best as they could.
Big Boys and Challengers were more simple and superior designs compared to any other Simple Articulated Locomotive. Allegheneys, EM-1s, Yellowstones, you name it. Their safety records, minus 4005's fatal accident in 1954, are just incredible.
That sort of incident has a very humor noir nickname: a steam powered trebuchet.
Now, CSX doesn’t properly maintain their locomotives and the Diesel engines blow up, sometimes catch on fire.
CSX
Crash
Smash
X-plode
Properly maintained diesel engines sometimes blow up. Properly maintained electrical equipment sometimes catches on fire. Defects are not always evident.
Usually though, it's generally something like a piston flying out the side of the car body because someone decided to do something like reset a crankcase over-pressure shutdown alarm. A version of this incident I heard had the operator of the tower (actually a "cabin" in C&O parlance) outside of Hinton, WV, where the explosion happened tell investigators that he heard what was probably the low water alarm going off as the engine passed him, and blew up a minute or so later. So they must have known there was a problem and were perhaps trying to nurse the engine to the nearby yard where they were going to finish their run.
I bet it's not as serious an incident as a steam locomotive suffering a crown sheet failure!
This explosion happened at CW cabin. The operator at CW cabin witnessed it and called for help. Parts of the engine are still on the river bank to this day. I have been there. CW cabin was torn down a couple years ago. There is a lengthy accident report online not hard to find. I expected this video to have much more detail. The boiler blew 200 feet high into the air and traveled 600 ft down the tracks hit ground and rebounded.
One locomotive derailed just as it was starting to cross a bridge. It fell into the valley and exploded. Parts of the boiler weighing several tons landed a mile away.
@@wilburshuman I was told that proper procedure was to dump the fire if the low water alarm sounded but the engineer did not want to be late for his lodge meeting.
When I read the article from the American Steam Boiler Assoc. it mentioned the low water alarm went off and people far from the locomotive heard it. Why the crew didn't dump the fire is a mystery.
blow'd up good
@@algrayson8965 Wasn't this on the N&W near Maybury WV?
Just for the record, these engines weren’t technically “mallets” either, they were “Simple Articulated”. Mallets were compound. Although they were commonly referred to mallets back in the day.
Yes, Mallet's first articulated locos were compound and later versions were simple but when most people use the term 'Mallet' they are referring purely to that system of articulation. In the same way, the earliest Garratt locos were also compound but very soon they were all simple and any loco today with a boiler slung between two engine units is a Garratt, regardless of whether it is compound or simple. No one cares about that detail. If you want to use the term 'simple articulated' that's fine but be aware that there are two distinctly different types. Is a loco with two sets of drivers under the boiler the same as one with its drivers under two tenders? I think not. One is a Mallet and the other is a Garratt. What names would you give you them so I'd know which type you're taking about?
@@davidrayner9832 I'm not sure what you're getting at when you advise the person to whom you reply that he should '...be aware that there are two distinctly different types...' I can see that he knows this, and said as much in his comment. A Garratt can be simple or compound, but it won't be a Mallet.
@@mesenteria He says a Mallet is compound and any loco that uses the same type of articulation but is simple is not a Mallet. I said that the first Garratts were compound but later ones were not yet they are all called Garratts (and you just did that). Using his logic, they should not be. It's an either/or situation. If both kinds of locos with a water tank out front (compound and simple) can be called Garratts, then both kinds of locos with two engines under the boiler can be called Mallets or if a loco like a Challenger cannot be called a Mallet because it's simple then a loco like a GMA or 60 class cannot be called a Garratt. Just apply the same rule to both. I don't care which, just that the same rule applies to both. If you want to go with his scenario, then you'll have to think of a new name for a Garratt that's simple (which is most of them). Let me know what you come up with.
Mallet refers to articulation. Simple and Compound refer to the usage of steam through the cylinders. Simple and Compounds are easily distinguishable from each other.
Also and FWIW, it it not pronounced mallet like the hammer, but pronounced like the name of the inventor of the type, Antole Mallet, ergo ma-LAY.
Something else to take into consideration steam locomotives have to be maintained. Boilers have to be inspected for cracks. Same as superheater tubing. A small crack can be catastrophic with any boiler. And few survive the experience.
Personal anecdote
My father worked for the B&O at the time it was acquired by the C&O.
The operating rules for the B&O required the engineer to slow the train to a restricted speed that was indicated by the signal, prepared to stop at next signal.
According to my father, when the C&O rules came into effect that rule was changed to be prepared to stop at the next signal.
According to my father, by slowing to a restricted speed there was less likelihood that an engine crew would forget that they were operating with an approach signal. This would seem to me that C&O safety culture was a bit more relaxed.
I also worked for the B&O, and later the Burlington Northern. Sometime, starting in the mid-1970's, I noticed railroads started hiring managers out of business school instead of promoting managers from the ranks of employees. That was not an absolute, lower level management, such as yardmasters and dispatchers were still promoted from the operating personnel. And the next step up, trainmaster, included those promoted from the ranks.
However, those making the big decisions tended to be business school types.
As mentioned at beginning, anecdotal, so consider what I have written to be as much speculation as observation, as I am dealing with fading memories.
Several accidents that I know of were the direct result of elevating shareholder value at the expense of safety. One in particular happened because, in order to cut labor costs, an operator's position was eliminated, and a faulty radio was not repaired, and the railroad was relying on 19th century technology without the safeguards that would help prevent simple human error causing the deaths of five, and resulting in many millions of dollars of damage to rail and highway equipment and infrastructure.
I guess the corporate "bean counters," who did not know much about railroading, determined that the 30 grand a year saved by eliminating the train-order operator's position was worth the risk.
There is technology dating from the 1930's that can prevent collisions due to crews "forgetting" signals. There is modern technology as well, yet in service to shareholder value, and because of the corporate take-over of the regulatory functions of government, those safety features are not being used.
At about that time, the newer minted managers kept talking about "corporate culture."
Corporate culture, tonnage first, safety last. Shareholder value the only value.
You hit the nail on the head!
Agree with your post 100%, everything you have posted applies to Australian privately operated rail operators nowadays as well. On fact it was so bad, management turned a blind eye to breaches of speed limits as long as trains caught up to the time table and arrived on time. Drivers were rewarded with financial reward at the end of the month, with the most on time arrivals. This led to drivers refusing to slow their trains when confronted with caution signals, hoping the next signal would be caution as well, allowing them to maintain their speeds. In one case, this practice proved disasterous. The next signal was RED as the upcoming train was not yet cleared into the crossing loop, still had six wagons on the main. The down coming train was unable to stop or slow down and went past the DANGER signal and collided with the last two wagons still to run into the loop. These last two wagons were 50,000 litres of diesel and petrol. The two loco's collided with them, derailed them, split them open and spilt to contents which caught fire from sparks, the locos derailed and tipped on their sides prevent fast escape, also were engulfed in the fire. One driver lost his life, and a young lad of 12 years of age, who was along for the ride as a birthday present, also lost his life, both being unable to escape before the fire engulfed them. The only person held accountable for the disaster, was the driver, who held the record for the companies trains on time arrival. He was sacked and left to fend for himself. I understand his wife left him, and he had a mental breakdown and is currently homeless wandering the streets as a lost soul. The company involved is still doing business as usual. Privatisation also killed the Drivers Union, thus they have very little recourse today to seek representation.
@@itchyvet Almost all employee misconduct traces back to incompetent or negligent management. Not just railways but all businesses.
You are largely correct. What has resulted is "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (cutting corners in the name of increased returns that make the executives look good) Look at the derailment and ensuing disaster, a totally mismanaged fiasco, at E. Lebanon, Ohio. I recollect a defective wheel bearing was the alleged cause that may have been overlooked. Didn't ever hear about a defect detector that was supposed to sound an alarm. Likely see more of this sort of thing If the companies don't clean up their act.
Hello, There is a book that details this incident and yes there were witnesses. There was a boy scout troop swimming nearby and heard the low water warning bells going off as the locomotive passed them.
If you think the boiler being thrown is impressive the firebox grates were found on the next mountain over!
What book?
I've heard about that book, but have never found a copy.
Really appreciated having to wait for you to take down the logos before I could see what you were talking about.
That thing more than exploded - it totally self-destructed! Must have made one HELL of a TREMENDOUS BANG when it went off. The CREW never knew what hit them.
"Big Bang - No Theory"
My grandfather was the engineer, so I know a little about this accident. It didn't "explode" in the sense of the boiler giving way to too much pressure. The water level got low (my grandfather, Wilbur H. Anderson, as well as other engineers that day, had complained about both the water level gauge and the water pump. Low water would have made the crown plate (the top of the firebox) to get red hot and weaken. It would have given way to the pressure in the boiler and thousands of cubic feet of superheated steam would have roared through the firebox and cab, rocketing the entire boiler into the sky. It landed next to the tracks, upside down. The widow, my grandmother Georgia Anderson, did indeed receive a 10,000 settlement from C&O, which she very wisely used to buy stock in RCA. When she died in 1972 at the age of 82, she was wealthy (by the standards of the day). The engine was not a Mallet, pronounced "malley," not mallet or mal-Lay, by the men who operated them. My grandfather also drove Mallets. The Allegheny, despite claims made for Big Boy, was the most powerful locomotive ever built. It was built by the Lima Locomotive Works, in Lima, Ohio. Coincidentally, I now live just west of Lima, in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The locomotive factory, as best I can tell, is long gone.
“The force of the explosion tore the boiler from the frame and cylinder connections and it was thrown upward and forward. The boiler struck on its front end on the rails of the eastbound track approximately 440 feet ahead of the point of the explosion, then rebounded. The back head, struck the track 639 feet ahead of the point of explosion where the boiler came to rest on its right side in reversed position with front end, on the adjacent westbound track and firebox on the switching track.” - ICC Report from 1953
Jesus Fucking Christ! I knew it would have been powerful, but that is incomprehensible!
Holy fuck.
It’s primarily the fireman’s job to maintain water level. But the engineer should be supervising the fireman. The engineer more than likely had an ejector or feed water pump on his side also.
One boiler explosion on the Virginian (H. Reid) threw the boiler far ahead of the engine. The crews had been putting in defect reports and repair orders for months with no response.
Investigation revealed that the feedwater pump was inoperative. One injector was inoperative and the other was badly eroded, reducing its ability to inject water into the boiler fast enough to keep up with demand when working hard pulling upgrade. Apparently the water was so low that when the locomotive entered a lesser grade, the water flowed forward and uncovered the crown sheet.
The train was so long that the conductor in the caboose didn't hear the explosion. When the train stopped, he walked forward to find the wreckage from the disaster.
This was definitely a case of negligent homicide from maintenance neglect by management.
Al Grayson Even back in the early days of steam it was a violation to leave the home terminal unless all of the water delivery systems were operating. So the crew should not have left the terminal and if they did with out all the water delivery systems operating they share the blame.
Al Grayson The Steam Locomotive I am involved with had a boiler explosion the year it was built in 1921. The boiler ended up several hundred feet from the sight of the wreckage. It also left an indention in the rail of over a fool at the sight of the explosion. But this boiler explosion was intentional to try and cover up the murder of the engineer.
Had an injector. Was the engine soon due for a 4 year overhaul? Was the engine just kept limping along for a few more weeks before a major overhaul?
That's incredible. The entire boiler shell blown off the frames.
The last boiler explosions in the UK were actually on American USATC 2-8-0 locomotives that were used on UK railroads before going to Europe.
Firebox crown-sheet collapses all of them.
The fault stemmed from the water gauges giving a false reading due to a valve not being fully open.
They weren't 'bad' locomotives. They were 'different' to UK practice in that they had steel fireboxes & bar frames.
It'll give you an idea how much power is contained within that huge pressure vessel.
There is a story that one of the 'Big Jim's disgraced itself at Derby during the war, hauling a freight train. There was so much slop in the axleboxes that when traversing a diamond crossing it actually split the diamond, with two sets of driving wheels going one way, and the others another. They were promptly banned from service until something was done about it. Given they had faults, largely due to being quickly and cheaply built, for an expected short working life, they were actually damned good engines which lasted well and gave good service for many years longer than intended. There's a couple of them working in UK now still on preserved lines.
My grandfather worked for C&O for 52 years.
There is another giant boiler explosion you may not be aware of. Virginian Railroad 800, a 2-10-10-2, blew up in 1941. Apparently I believe this may have been an injector failure.
One of THOSE blew up?? Holy crap that sounds intense...
Just looked up pictures, it's like that thing took off like a rocket
It's my understanding that's what happened with the C&O locomotive.
Decades ago, someone I know had a conversation with a Virginian fireman who had fired the engine that blew up. He had fired it a few days before it blew up and said the engine had serious injector problems.
In the UK there always had to be two methods to feed the boiler with water. This was usually a pair of injector cone. Having operated used these to feed a boiler with water it is so satisfying to get the right balance of water and steam. You can do it by ear because the loco sings when the injectors are working properly. There are no moving parts, however they need cold water to work.
Thanks for sharing!
In New Zealand, there were always two injectors, and these days, both have to work correctly, or you have to drop the fire. Most had one live and one exhaust steam injector, but for shunting, or any otyher operation with frequent stops there might be two live steam injectors. NZR tried ACFI feedwater heaters on K900, most of the Ka class and all of the Kbs, but gave no training in their operation. They invariably leaked, sometimes profusely, and were replaced by exhaust steam injectors, which retrieved as much of the latent heat of evaporation with less cost and complication. I've never had a problem with a live steam injector, but exhaust injectors sometimes waste after the regulaator (throttle) is closed, then opened.
2:55 plugged sight gauges, maybe? Scaling will plug sight gauges first. This will cause the sight gauges to respond to water level changes much more slowly and this sounds like what was going on: BOOM!
I’m sure someone has already pointed this out by now, but the C&O Alleghenys were not “Mallet” type engines. They were simple-articulated.
By the way, I remember reading about this explosion in a railroading book years ago and I was amazed by the distance the boiler was thrown. I can’t remember how far it was, but it was a considerable toss!
I’m also amazed by the fact that C&O decided to rebuild that engine. I guess maybe they did it because they couldn’t get any more from Lima, but I would think that the rebuild cost would be almost as high as the cost of a new engine, if not more.
Thanks for the coverage and photos!
Are you sure the C&O rebuilt this engine? This was virtually the last year of steam on the C&O, F7 and GP7 diesels taking over almost all mainline work. I find it highly suspect the C&O would have invested in repairing a soon to be retired engine
@@cdjhyoung - I can’t remember where I got the “rebuild” information, but I do remember that it was rebuilt. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the same source also commented on the fact that it was retired soon after the rebuild, but don’t quote me on that.
I've seen 1601 close up, an these are giant. So to hear it's boiler was thrown like that is crazy!
Seen it in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn many times, always impressive.
@@drtidrow Exactly the one I saw
VIOLENT! That's about the only word I can think of looking at the photo of the engine. Another explanation the Engineer might have asked to have the cold water pump checked is that it wasn't keeping up w/boiler water demand.
Any feed water heater fitted to these locos?
Whay yup theyar, aer kid! All the people objecting to calling her a Mallet (who are quite right) missed the howler in the title panel. 1642 most certainly isn't a Garrett type, which I don't think ever actually ran in America. Like Mallets, Garretts are articulated locomotives that have two sets of 'motor units' - cylinders and driving wheels etc, but the boiler and cab are slung between them, making a very long locomotive. The lead motor unit usually carried the water tank and the trailing unit the coal or oil fuel.
Whoops. I definitely wrote that description a bit too fast. Thanks for pointing it out.
That steam engine is so massive that it’s stunning ! I mean it’s gargantuan.
train vs locomtive. Important distinction, even in informal speech. Thanks...
Explosion of a locomotive would have been a serious matter in the age of steam, if only from the loss of the services of the machine itself. Railroads, one would expect, would investigate such incidents to not only assign blame, kind of a moot point at that juncture, but to expose possible weaknesses which might be present elsewhere. As this was late in the history of steam, it is unlikely that anything from a design standpoint would be relevant. Steam engines had a long and established history at this point and any inherent mechanical weaknesses should have been worked out long ago. With this in mind, attention has to be turned to operational practices. With an engine pulling a grade, keeping pressure up would have been a primary concern, and there would have been a couple of obvious factors to consider. First and foremost, would be the introduction of cold water into the boiler, which would reduce the steaming rate, and consequently the pressure. Presumably, your fireman wound have things under management as the hill was about to be tackled. After all, it's his job, and the parameters of the hill are relatively constant. Maybe there was a temptation to let the water get a little lower to maintain time, working into the safety factor so to speak. Gauges or not, there are still the try cocks, the definitive test of water level, but we must realize the engine is going uphill, and as the boiler is relatively long, this will tend to flood the back of the boiler where these gauges are located, and make it appear there is more water than there really is in the boiler. This water will boil away faster on a percentage basis than the usual volume present on the level. This condition would also affect the steam disengagement surface, the square footage where the steam leaves the water surface, effectively reducing it. Why would this be a consideration? Because trying to get too much steam too fast from too little surface are just the conditions that can lead to "priming", or water carryover into the cylinders, a great way to blow a head off a cylinder, with the ensuing disciplinary action. The crew undoubtedly would have been considering all of these things. Shave it a little too close and POW. We will never know, RIP! Just a few brain droppings.
There is a fairly large space from minimum water over the crown sheet to a level that would allow water to enter the steam valve. The problem could be as simple as scale blocking passages.
@@billmorris2613 Avoiding water carryover is the purpose of the steam dome, which is approximately at the middle of the water containing section of the boiler. The dome allows the steam pipe to the throttle to be as high as practical above the water.
Al Grayson It’s the throttle valve that is in the steam dome, not the dry pipe. The dry pipe is below the level of the throttle valve opening. So it’s imperative that only steam enters the throttle valve and no water. That’s why it called the dry pipe. The dry pipe carries the steam to the superheater manifolds which adds about 100 degrees to the steam temp at 200 Lbs before going to the steam chest, and then to the cylinders.
What I find unfortunate is that the fusible plugs never blew.
But also if the crew suspected something was wrong, I'd be surprised if they'd purposefully let the water level get low for extra steaming, especially considering the H8s were known for excellent steaming. I'd guess it was scale/buildup blocking the water glass (or gauge), and/or an injector malfunction.
It's easy to look back but it sounds suicidal to me to deliberately let the boiler run low on water for any reason. I make apologies for being overly cautious about water level in a steam locomotive.
that railroad tycoon 3 music made me sub....
had to pause for a sec to make sure it wasnt my installation
Illinois Rail museum has a Mallet class, but it's rough.
Never heard about this one. Can you imagine how crazy this was? It's almost a shame there are no witness accounts. All that was left was the running gear! That's nuts!
The final resting place of the boiler is directly related to the type of breech of the pressure vessel. If a seam ruptures causing a ‘rip’ down the side of the boiler it will peel open like a banana, or a coke can shot with a rifle. If the failure is confined to one end of the boiler (like the firebox) a rocket of sorts is created. Breaking these events down in time:
Crown sheet of firebox fails, releasing steam.
The initial pressure wave of expanding steam into the firebox, crew station, and surrounding area causes a blast effect. This is the ‘explosion’.
All the water in the boiler is at an elevated temperature corresponding to the boiling point of the operating steam pressure, which is well above the temperature needed to boil water in atmospheric pressure.
As steam escapes from the hole on one end of the boiler, pressure in the boiler drops, and more of the hot boiler water flashes into steam.
The steady stream of escaping steam creates a jet effect, providing a thrust force at one end of the boiler. Picture a rocket nozzle.
With the right conditions, the boiler will be propelled off the frame and down the tracks. Example, blow up a balloon and let it loose to fly around the room.
When the force of the escaping steam reduces to the point below that necessary to push the weight of the boiler, the boiler stops moving.
There are the two major options: large breech ripping open the boiler in a steam explosion like Mount Saint Hellens, or a steam explosion on one end of the boiler followed by a rocket engine type of jet propulsion.
the virginian AE class loco #800 that had a boiler failure on 1st april 1941 was larger in every respect except overall engine weight ( mainly due to the virginian railways using very small tenders). also they were thru mallet engines with 48" low pressure cylinders and the boilers were larger in diameter and with 50 % more heating area and 30% more traction effort in simple operation.
Someone involved with the Norfolk Southern Steam Program told me that he had talked to someone who had fired the Vgn locomotive a very few days before it exploded. According to the fireman, water injectors on the engine had serious problems.
Someone involved with the Norfolk Southern Steam Program told me that he had talked to someone who had fired the Vgn locomotive a very few days before it exploded. According to the fireman, water injectors on the engine had serious problems.
“Cause, you know, KABOOM! Greatest line ever to describe the second you know that someone went too far, usually me! I love train stories but I’ll sub for that line alone.
If something is malfunctioning with a boiler don’t use it until it is fixed
There is a book with an excellent chapter on "Boiler Explosions" with many photos. Sometimes, only the frame and wheels remained as in the case shown in the video here. The book is "Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line" by Robert C. Reed. It's a really good book.
Got a copy when i was young. 52 now still have it. Also have a book. The twilight of steam. About the end of steam. 50s. 60s. Shows them scrapping the giants. Very sad.
And a jolly good, fascinating book it is too.
Another example of a large boiler explosion would be Cab - Forward 4199.
One thing that can happen is that, with water low and the engine going upgrade, the crown sheet is covered, as the water is higher at the downhill (back) end of the boiler, as was mentioned below. But when you get to the top of the grade and start down, the water moves to the front of the boiler, uncovers the crown sheet, and KABOOM!
There is a ton of energy stored in each unit of superheated water. "Fireless locomotives" (used in areas where flames and/or smoke were a problem) were insulated bottles that were simply filled with hot water at high pressure. When the engineer opened the throttle, the pressure dropped, some of the water would turn to steam, and it could be operated until the water ran out. In a boiler explosion, the pressure goes to zero and ALL the water in the boiler turns to steam at once.
Now, for a really nasty explosion, instead of a boiler full of water, make it a tank (or a tank car) of a liquified flammable gas like propane. Say you have a train derailment, the piled-up cars catch on fire, and one of them is a tank car of propane. If the flames get to the part of the tank that is above the level of the propane, the metal heats up just like a dry crown sheet, and when it fails all the propane turns back to gas at once. Then the vapor ignites and detonates. That's a BLEVE- Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion.
judging from my boiler oopsies, uncovering the crown sheet is peacetime but when i go to re-cover it, it fights and pops stantions and welds. say, the relief valve releases and liquid boils up fast over the hot sheet then that could go bang, totally overwhelming the kunkle valve. dont do that.
Look up Waverly TN Feb 26 1978 - 2 days after an L&N RR frt train derailed in Waverly, an LPG tank car BLEVEed, 16 or so killed, center of town incinerated, dozens w/severe burn injuries. We had moved to Nashville TN Sep 77, about 5 months earlier. Cannot be too careful around LPG and similar compressed gases.
Saw 1604 in Baltimore last summer. It really is massive.
Keep being awesome Darkness! Don't let the idiots get you down!
The boiler on the H8 was the most powerful boiler ever put on a locomotive. It could deliver more power to the wheels than any other locomotive even the UP Big Boy. Changing the diameter of the drive wheels on a steam loco was like a taller (Higher / Faster) gear ratio in an automobile. The Big Boy had more tractive effort however the H8 could run off and leave a Big Boy on the top end.
Holy cow where do you folks get this stuff from?
The Big boy is larger in size (western roads dont have the clearance constraints eastern roads do), the BB is heavier (only because its bigger, but its weight isnt that much more than an H8). As for power, once again, BB barely edges out the H8 by almost 1000hp. 7500hp vs 8300hp (even though the BB is listed at 7000hp this is a serious mistake and very underated for this loco).
Now whether the H8 could outrun a BB, well.... possible. BB has one inch larger drivers, higher BP, and routinely ran at higher service speeds. The H8, while designed to do 60mph, hung around the 30-40 range. The H8 only hitting higher speeds when used in WWII for heavy passenger service - only then just equalling what the BB did every day. Both are superpowered so steam isnt a concern on the top end. On paper the BB comes out ahead, to the slightest degree. When you factor in the lighter weight of the H8, plus its mechanical superiority to the BB.... it should actually be an 'even' race. So its possible for the H8 to win, but not run off and leave a BB.
Im a fan of the H8, way more so than the BB. But there has to be a time when the record is set straight.
Care to bet on that! If you cannot start the train your not gonna pull it. I have tried to explain to the H8 fans.
@@TheWizardofOblivion You may want to do a bit more research on this. Karen Parker has written multiple books based on the engineering research that went into these engines. Her conclusions are the exact opposite of yours.
@@cdjhyoung And thus why this debate has raged on for decades.
I live in West Virginia, I've worked as a Coal Truck driver. Safety is Paramount, Unless Production is down, then its a slightly different situation. Many a good Operator has died do to this sorta thing. sad to be honest. Poor town of Thurmond WV seen lots of coal company an railroad company accidents, many lives lost, they only had a single Dr. an his wife the nurse there in Thurmond to cover a giant area back in Thurmond's hay day, ruff times. The town is still there, only a handful of people live there now, coal still roles thru there believe it or not.
Easy to believe. The C&O route ran, and still runs, through the coalfields of West Virginia. Today it's called CSX. Hinton, near Thurmond, had a large roundhouse and was an important stop in the line in the days of steam. The big Alleghenys were no longer needed once a train reached Hinton, as it was all downhill in both directions from there. They were swapped out for less powerful, and less coal-hungry, engines. My grandfather was the engineer who lost his life in this explosion.
Was Gomez Adams ever on the Board of C&O? It would explain a lot
No he wasnt on board, but some would say he was Trainmaster now and then!
Hi Sam. I have a Bachmann 4CEP unit but I don't know the TOPS number. This is a 4 coach set and the instruction for putting the unit on the track is to lay the coaches on their side by the track and fit the couplings between the coaches and then place the unit onto the track.This can be quite tricky. Also your comment about how long a SR/BR train could be well off the mark. The rush hour trains were usually 3 sets each one 2 coaches long 2BILs, 2HALs and some would pick up another set as some of those trains served Gatwick Airport. The Hornby BILs, HALS and HIL units were very powerful as one motor coach could easily pull 8 coaches on my test track. On the CMRS OO gauge layout I did put 3 units on it as I was testing Kadee couplings. The Brighton Belle motor coach handles it's 4 coaches with ease. I would really like it if people were aware of the 3 railway companies that formed SR and BR especially as there was a lot of steam in Sussex and most of the WC, BB and standard 2-6-4T locomotives were built in the Brighton works. Anyway I hope I haven't bored you. Bye from Ian.
If you read the report you'd know there WERE witnesses. One witness was the operator inside CW cabin.
Another witness said he could see daylight between the boiler and the mountain top as it flew end over end. This account gives rise to the estimate it must have been 200ft high!
Just found this channel. It looks very interesting, will have to watch more. In the late 40's or possibly early 50's a steam engine blew up in Birchton Quebec, Canada. I remember seeing the wreck as a child, but several years ago when I tried to research it, I didn't find anything. Would you have any info on this wreck? Thanks
Best I could do with what you said.
This has taught me so much thank you. 😊
The cold water governor does not control water into the boiler. The cold water pump sends cold, ambient temp, water from the tender through the heat exchanger, warming the water, then to the hot water pump. It’s the hot water pump that sends the water into the boiler through a check valve up closer to the front of the boiler.
Is that how you get your jollys 😆😆 is that what grands your gears ....put salt on your cracker.great video 👍👍👍👍
Something I noticed you asked why they would drop the water level when they didn't need to. That's simple to do everything faster to meet a schedule. They took a chance to temporarily increase steam output on a hill and paid for it dearly. the second one who knows.
4:45 I think the one that exploded in Ohio was the scarier looking of the two, even though the damage wasn't as bad. It just looks like some disemboweled alien character from a bad Hollywood horror movie. Puked all its guts out its mouth. Yuck. Or even worse, imagine an episode of Thomas The Tank Engine where that happens to him. Kids would be emotionally scarred for life.
I’m glad people are taking good care of steam trains now a day’s but geez I haven’t actually seen a boiler explosion in my life but goodness wow
Luckily none of the Big Boys exploded, though one did derail (4005), but it was repaired and put back into service. Luckily 4005 is one of the remaining Big Boys and is at the Forney Transportation Museum in Denver Colorado.
Boiler explosions were common during the steam age. Granted, by the 1940's-'50's the railroad companies had policies, procedures, and training to prevent such catastrophes, but they still happened. Now, as for the boiler explosion itself, I'd wager that it was the damned feedwater heater that was the issue. Those buggers are a notorious pain in the ass to maintain and in the age of the H8's being run off of their wheels pulling coal trains and spewing enough cinders to fill in the Grand Canyon in a year's time, it wouldn't surprise me that some cinders got into the feedwater heater and clogged the pipes.
No matter the case of why the loco went bang, it was loud. The H8's operated at 300 PSI during normal operations. If that loco went nuclear at even 350, imagine just how loud that explosion was.
From what I've read boiler explosions in modern super power steamers were virtually non existent with the C&O incident being one of just two during that era.
I think that the boiler pressure was 265. I don't think that the C&O had any 300 psi locomotives.
I think that the boiler pressure was 265. I don't think that the C&O had any 300 psi locomotives.
Not for more pressure, the only way to do that is to gag the safety valve and shovel in more fuel (very dangerous to do so), but for more stored steam- so they wouldn't use up the steam faster than the boiler could make it, as they used so much more on those steep mountains with long trains.
Hilarious narration!! Instant subscribe 😎
hate to say it bit i will say gauges are not to blame for boiler explosion as its the crews job to do what i call a pre flight check aka give all the oiling points, gauges and if starting up the locomotive clean smoke box and check tubes there aswell as check the firebox also first gauge checked is water. regardless of what the crew on the footplate did they are responsible for the locomotive once they step foot there
The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Co. did an article on this incident in their newsletter sometime back in the 90s, I think. It was called "Big Bang, No theory." Sadly, I cannot find the copy of that newsletter. From what I remember of the article it stated the C&O Alleghany had just been in the shops for classified repairs, but one of the water feed tubes was clogged, giving a false reading on the sight glass resulting in the dreaded crown sheet failure. It is not uncommon for a boiler to be blown right off the frame when that much pressure is released, although it didn't happen with the T1. Some locomotives were designed to prevent this as was the case with the Gettysburg Railroad explosion. There's a video on You Tube about that. Supposedly there's also a book on C&O steam locomotives that talks about this incident in detail, but no information is available online that I can find. I hope this helps a little. I apologize if any of this is inaccurate. I'm working off memory from an article I read many years ago.
Great story. Thank you for sharing.
Union Pacific had the only boiler explosion a 4-12-2 number 9018 the explosion happen at upland Kansas in October of 1948 and there’s another steam locomotive has been sunk underwater as well it was Boston & Maine number 3666
There's also an incident in Indonesia around the late 1960s about a Mallet Steam locomotive who had its boiler exploded due to its safety valve not working properly. Maybe You could talk about that one someday?
note: I think there's only one article on the interenet who talks about the 11th April 1968 Mallet explosion, and was written by an Indonesian, sooo.. I'd recommend to use google translate frequently to researched that one
The reason for boiler explosions has been somewhat misunderstood. Most seems to think that a great inrush or serge of water over a crown sheet causes enough contraction to instigate a boiler explosion. While I will not say this could not happen, the cause in most all cases is due the crown sheet being uncovered for a period of time long enough to soften the crown sheet to a point where the steam pressure will literally force the plate off of the crown radial staybolts whether solid or flexible. This might be a few square inches to almost the entire crown sheet. Once in awhile there maybe some mechanical problems for the cause, but in most cases it human failure to properly maintain enough water lever to protect the crown from overheating. Overheating can also occur on side or door sheets when boilers are not washed out when needed. If you are to ask just how long does it take for a crown sheet to overheat, this involves many variables. Consider normal boiler circulation, track conditions, feed water appliances being used, air brake
(Continued) applications and grade conditions. The temperature in a firebox can vary greatly. Testing of materials from exploded boilers has proven that with firebox temperatures at 2000 to 2500’f, by the time the crown sheet gets to 600 to 700’f sheet strength is beginning to drop considerably. It is only a short period of time before to sheet is forced off of the staybolts. This is another reason that staybolts, heads and sheet condition should be maintained. “Doughnut” erosion of staybolts (in diameter) and sheets where staybolts are threaded thru should not be allowed. There were a few different staybolt head types that can aid in crown sheet support. But nothing is fail safe. Some engineers were known as “ low water men” so a fireman had to be on his toes to be ahead of his hog head depending on where the train is on the railroad and what the steam demands would be. High water can have its problems too. That’s creates more mechanical problems. Also, the proper analysis of water being used for boilers is another discussion. Hopefully, this provides some food for thought.
One final thing, a number of engine men once asked “just how long do you have once the water is out of the glass. Unknown. But if the
boiler explodes you will only hear the “Ka” part of the kaboom!
Running the boiler low on water doesn't increase the steam pressure as far as I can figure. All it does is allow the pressure to rise faster because there's less water to boil.
You are correct. No rational engineer (and my grandfather, the engineer, was very rational) would have let the crown plate run dry, as that was a common cause of catastrophic failures guaranteed to kill the crew. The water pump and gauge were both reported as defective by my grandfather, as well as previous crews who had operated that locomotive earlier the same day.
Amazing period of dangerous train history
Man, cut back on the Red Bull.. Also, Big Boys and Alleghenys are simple articulateds. Unlike Mallets, their cylinders are all the same size.
Yes, Mallet's first articulated locos were compound and later versions were simple but when most people use the term 'Mallet' they are referring purely to that system of articulation. In the same way, the earliest Garratt locos were also compound but very soon they were all simple and any loco today with a boiler slung between two engine units is a Garratt, regardless of whether it is compound or simple. No one cares about that detail. If you want to use the term 'simple articulated' that's fine but be aware that there are two distinctly different types. Is a loco with two sets of drivers under the boiler the same as one with its drivers under two tenders? I think not. One is a Mallet and the other is a Garratt. What names would you give you them so I'd know which type you're taking about?
@@davidrayner9832 Finally someone gets it right. Mallet refers to articulation. Simple and compound refer to the way steam is used BY that mallet. So, if it bends in the middle..... its a mallet. All you have to do now is determine its type (comp or simp) by the cyclinder sizes. Its really quite easy i cant figure how people mess this up.
Hey there was one that had exploded here in my hometown San Antonio Texas back in 1912
Actually correction it happened on April 14th 1912 & the boiler landed about a mile away from the site in someone's house/backyard
Nice recommendation with a folksy charm! Looking forward to more videos.
Awesome, thank you!
In the first C&O case, the engineer would not normally be controlling the water level. That is a job for the fireman to do unless his injector fails to start.
As for the H-8 explosion. The feedwater pump is also normally controlled by the fireman. Even with a bad feedwater pump the fireman should have been able to put water in the boiler with the fireman's injector. And the engineer also had one. While not as economical to use as the feedwater heater, they could supply enough to keep the boiler happy. If in doubt, stop and drop the fires while running the injector(s).
My grandfather wasn't sure the water was low. He had complained about both the water level gauge as well as the water pump. I'm not aware of any backup for a bad water pump on that particular engine. There is also some danger in feeding cold water onto a red-hot crown plate. Drizzle a little water onto a hot, dry frying pan to see why. The boiler could explode.
Imagine if something like this happened today especially on a tourist railroad
Google boiler malfunction on the Gettysburg.
I've worked on boilers for 30+ years. Running a fire tube boiler out of water results into a melt down, not explosion. The explosion happens because they allowed the water level to get critically low and then when water is introduced it expands into steam at approximately 1:1700. So, for 1 square foot of water you get instantaneous 1700 square feet of steam expansion resulting in explosions of this type.
Delaware & Hudson blew up a challenger. May be interesting to dig deeper into.
Oh dear not the challengers
That was D&H #1510...ALCO built, exploded in early 1941---IIRC, it was only a few months old.....
I really love your videos keep up the great work and also can I give you credit so I can make a reaction video of your cpr 694 video
Go ahead
Also as for stratospheric catapults, no trains that I know of, but there was a thick steel plate put over a borehole for an underground nuclear test (Plumbob/Pascal-B test) was launched into space, probably as molten slag. There is a single frame from a high-speed camera documenting its exit.
It wasn't launched into space. It had the velocity necessary, but it would have been vaporized within a few hundred meters. There's a good discussion on Physics Stack Exchange about this.
@@TheLoneWolfling I would be interested in that discussion. Remember, it left with estimated 6 times escape velocity and by far the fastest propelled human object.
Meteors, especially metallic ones, scream in and burn off a lot, but to those who get to them first, they're ice-cold. I'm not sure it would look like anything if it made it there, but I really suspect it went too fast to evaporate.
That kink in the rail suggests the engine held together for one last downstroke that was rather over spec. 🙂
This reminded me of a mallet type locomotives in Indonesia that also blow up and the locomotive was cc50 02 and after that she was scrapped
There was a boiled explosion in England in the 1920 or 1930s on the L.M.S the particular loco involved was 4-6-0 type of the royal scot class. This loco in question was named Fury. An experimental high pressure boiler being tested at the company works in Derby the former midland works. I dont know the exact details of what happened but following the accident the trials were canceled.
The Fury was only one of a number of experimental high pressure locomotives built in the 20's, but sadly she had the most ignominious end. She was actually being tested on the main line with a train, when she blew up, killing the crew. Her mainframes, wheels and motion were subsequently used for a new locomotive.
My sister when I told her the big boys mere mallets: They don't look like hammers.
Straight to the point without any waffle!
Maybe the gradient let the water level appear ok, but the front part of the crown sheet was going dry...??
For reference for people like myself who don't really know a ton about steam engines, including myself, this was one of the biggest and most powerful locomotives of all times, incredibly close in all respects to and even beating out in others the Union Pacific Big Boy. I'm (admittedly only slightly) suprised I've never heard of these until now. This is a real tragedy though, and while I'm glad it didn't cause any more harm than it did, it is very sad to hear about those 3 people who lost their lives that day.
Sadly not the largest explosion of a steam locomotive. Check out Northern Pacific Locomotive 5105 which exploded on July 7th 1938. As a point of interest, the explosive yield of a boiler comes from the volume of water inside the boiler at the time of failure.
C&I ran through really rough country, it would have been easy for the feed water pump to have a problem not exposed in a cursory inspection.
It wasn't rough. But it was steep, which is why C&O ordered the Allegheny-class engines be built. They had more pulling power than any locomotive ever built to this day. It's very purpose was to pull heavy freight trains up to the highest point between the Chesapeake Bay in the east and Cincinnati, Ohio, in the West. That point was very close to Hinton, WV, where a roundhouse was built to service engines and to swap the big Alleghenys for smaller engines adequate for the downhill runs in both directions. Water pump failures were not uncommon, nor were water gauge problems. According to the engineer (my grandfather) and others who had operated that engine on that day, there were suspected problems with both. My grandfather should have dropped the fire, but probably thought he could make it to Hinton.
@@littlejohn1432 Well I am from, near Roanoke Virginia, and near there is some steep country and a lot of broken country around the Eastern Continental Divide. All the railroads ran massive engines sometimes with helpers.
I couldn't even begin to imagine if I was rail fanning and caught a steam engine blowing up on recording. That would be some scary shit especially if it was a H8 class locomotive. I probably have a heart attack lol
Hopefully you'd be a safe distance from that explosion, but it's very unlikely. People operating steam today are very experienced in safety and proper operation.
Putting water in wasn't always what caused them to fail - red-hot steel is pretty soft and pliable, and the "water" side of the crown sheet was at 300psi or so of pressure, enough force to push the pliable crown sheet past the staybolt heads and vent the boiler. Once that happened, pressure in the boiler dropped almost immediately to atmospheric, causing the hot water in the boiler to flash to steam in milliseconds.
Actually there was a train that took off the rails. The Flying Diesel Corps of NYOW which had the story back on Sept 1955 where a train flew a distance of a 155 feet at 15 feet high. Another sad story of a Company that abandoned all rails in 1957. Interesting color scheme.
The Henry Ford Museum has an Allegheny. I would love to see it restored to operation and then let loose on a flat run. Just to see what that Big Mama could do.
Ah, yes. You mention her. I played on that a lot as a kid because my parents had a yearly pass to the museum and village (great place to take little boys in the winter.)
Dude, great vid, but that microphone, are you trying to sound like your speaking from the 1800s 😂
I grew up next to the C&O tracks just north of a small whistle stop on the north side of Columbus OH called Linworth. All most all of these 2-6-6-6 Allegheny saw service on this line. The homes for a half a mile either side of the tracks were covered in ash because of the soot from the engines under such tremendous load. It was not uncommon for a engine to pull over 100 cars full of tachonite pellets. The hopper cars were so full you could see the pellets avalanche off when the cars swayed from side to side on uneven areas of line. There were times where it wouldn't be uncommon to take a fully loaded train over a hour to clear a crossing.
They would have known the water pump was having problems because the water level in the sight glasses would have been low. The sight glasses tell the water level in the boiler and how high it is over the crown sheet. If they were having problems getting water in the boiler, they should have reduced adding any fuel and move toward shutting the thing down. This would have meant stopping the train and getting other locomotives. They likely were having problems and decided to try to keep the thing going to see if they eventually could get it to correct. You mentioned another boiler explosion on an upgrade. When going on an upgrade, the water will move toward the back of the boiler where the sight glasses are, so the level in the sight glasses are much higher than what is in the front of the boiler. The crews know this, but it can still lead to miscalculations.
This is where poor maintenance can jump in and cause a deadly miscalculation. The pressure and water level in the boiler are monitored in the cab, but if the lines leading to the pressure gauge and sight glass become fouled with corrosion or scale, they may give a false reading that will cause the crew to not realize the boiler is experiencing a dangerous excursion beyond normal safe operating conditions.
@@JohnH0130 That is true. There would be a line for the fireman and a line for the engineer's sight glasses which reduces, but does not eliminate that problem. The maintenance schedules, if followed should reduce that, but using hard water speeds up problems. I tell people if they want to find out some of the reasons railroads wanted to replace steam, they should help maintain them. They are maintenance nightmares. There is less maintenance on diesel-electrics and if there is negligence, they will shut themselves down. If maintenance and testing is lax on a steam locomotive, it explodes. One thing which we now have which only came available late in the steam age is sonic testing of boilers and pipes.
@@lewisdoherty7621 The engineer (my grandfather) had complained at an earlier stop, about the water gauge as well as the water pump, a deadly combination of problems. If he had known how low the water was, he obviously would have dropped his fire onto the tracks and walked the short distance to Hinton. Another locomotive would have been dispatched and the now-burned crossties would have required replacement, but it beats sudden death from an overheated crown sheet and steam roaring through the firebox and into the cab. In addition to my grandfather, Wilbur H. Anderson, the fireman and brakeman, both with him in the cab, were killed.
Perhaps the cold water governor wasn't replaced correctly after inspection just before the explosion?
I was up close to the Allegheny in Baltimore, the size is unreal you felt miniature next to it
HIM
A boiler explosion usually caused by extreme low water in the boiler , ( Human error not checking the water level in the gauge glasses ) water level is critical in any steam boiler !
The same if the water level is , "Too High", can cause rupture of the boiler , In most cases of boiler explosion "Human Error" is the culprit !
Digging the Railroad Tycoon 2 music.
Please stop calling the locomotive a train. A train is a cut of cars displaying markers. The H8 had several ways to check the water level. Sometimes the water glass can give a false reading due to a number of problems. There are also a set of valves in a diagonal pattern if you open the lower and no water comes out, either turn on both injectors or dump the fire and run. The H8 also had fusable plugs. The center of the plug would melt if overheated and steam and hot water would blow out the firebox and drive the crew from the cab.
The definition of a train in the USA (& I suspect it's the same in Canada & Mexico) is "A locomotive, with or without cars, displaying markers". Markers are a signal at the rear of a train displaying red to the rear. The signal can be a simple as a red flag jammed into a coupler knuckle or as complex as a end-of-train (EOT) device connected to the train air brake line & sending relevant date to the head end crew (conductor & engineer) via telemetery.
Delaware & Hudson 4-6-6-4 No. 1510 exploded as it started to climb Richmondville Hill (NY) in July 1941. Another crown sheet / low water situation. The boiler separated from the frame and blew 196 feet down the track. The still moving train crashed into the boiler and pushed it another 235 feet. The three men in the cab were killed instantly. The wreck is pictured in Jim Shaughnessy's book _Delaware and Hudson._ (page 380 - 381)
Have you done a video on the March 18, 1912. The city of San Antonio, Texas locomotive explosion?
This is America. Locomotives have "engineers", not "drivers", unless you're referring to the powered wheels on a steam engine.
did you say it was a mallet?........no......no no no no NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!! it was not a mallet look at the cylinders that locomotive utilizes equal pressure through all four cylinders it doesnt use the exhausted steam through the second set. buuuut then i researched the hell out of this engine and found out it is a mallet? honestly i thought mallets usually had bigger cylinders in the front but once i researched it, the internet seems to point towards mallets having all same size cylinders as well? i dont know what to beleive anymore.... but this really DOESNT look like one to be honest..
OK, its really very very easy. If the dang thang bends in the middle, its a mallet (or articulated, the two words are synonyms) PERIOD! No matter what anyone says, Anatole Mallet invented the hinge that allows a loco to 'bend' in the middle. NOT how the steam was used BY that mallet. i repeat, NOT HOW THE STEAM WAS USED.
Simple and Compound are the two main types of mallets. Simple mallets, like the H8 Allegheny, have equal sized cylinders all around. Compound mallets have regular cylinders in the back, and large cylinders in the front. Anatole built his first mallet as a compound mallet. So everyone thinks that is what mallet means, when Anatole could have easily made his mallet a simple mallet. Anatole didnt invent simple or compound. He invented articulation!!!!!!
Once again, mallet only refers to the loco being articulated. Mallet has nothing to do with simple or compound. A mallet can be either!