Re: RGS 20 and D&RGW 346 photos

Repair or replace is always an interesting question. I usually try to save as much as possible for two reasons. One is historical and the other is that from a corrosion standpoint, the older steel is usually better. In the case of #20, on her weld tension test, the new plate failed rather than the weld or the old plate.

It looks like we are replacing a lot of stuff, but she will retain about 80-90% of her old shell. Using the Tross type staybolts will preclude having to weld too many holes shut on the wrapper which can be very time consuming and often makes it cost effective to renew the wrapper.

Fireboxes were disposable in steam days. I asked a Pennsy fellow how many years they got out of flues. He said it didn't matter since they were lucky to get 3 years out of a firebox.

With the cost of materials and the time it would take to make everything new, I believe the boiler would be more expensive to build new. Of course you could build a code boiler that would be the same size for a lot less money but it would be far inferior to the present boiler since most code construction is predicated upon a 25 year life span.

This is a debate with no right answer. I believe the boiler is part of the history of the locomotive. If anything is left that is original it increases the historical value of the locomotive. Some people prefer to view the boiler as completely disposable with a finite life span and it will be replaced just like you would replace the tires.

This type of repair is also great experience for our younger employees. The further we get from steam days the less people know about locomotive boiler construction. Firetube boilers are generally not understood very well in the "real" boiler world of today.