Steam Locomotive Maintenance - Avoiding the total rebuild?

I have long held a fascination with Beyer-Garrat locomotives. I have been enjoying the chronicling of the broad-gauging (24 inches to 30 inches) of an NG-16 by The Puffing Billy Railway in Australia. This link will take you to the site where you can follow the rebuilding of the NG-16 129 (I believe that is the locomotive's number) and other projects of the Puffing Billy. Fascinating website.

Click here to go to PBR's blog about maintenance.

From my perspective, this multiple year rebuild, complicated by the fact the locomotive was re-gauged, was not just an overhaul. It seems as if there is not a single part on the locomotive that has not either been replaced, rebuilt, or re-engineered. Hats off to the folks at Puffing Billy for the job they've done on this former SAR locomotive.

Given the fact steam locomotives seem to beat themselves to pieces when operated and the process of producing steam for operating the locomotive produces significant wear and corrosion on the boiler, major overhauls are going to happen.

My question is it possible through careful planning to prevent a total rebuild by addressing certain issues at each major overhaul? For example, instead of having to completely rebuild each component once the locomotive reaches a certain age, can a schedule be developed that has protocols for these parts to be completely rebuilt on the first major overhaul, this set of components is completely rebuilt or replaced on overhaul number two, and so on and so forth, thus avoiding a total rebuild at some point in the locomotive's future?

In the likelihood I haven't explained my question clearly, I'll use the NG-16 the PBR is re-gauging and rebuilding as an example. Would a careful plan of maintenance over several decades have prevented the need for the total stripdown of every component of the locomotive? Meaning, on major rebuild one, would the entire lubricating system have to be replaced/rebuilt? Could it simply be disassembled, broken parts replaced/repaired, and returned to service? Once every 10-12 years receiving the total rebuild versus simple maintenance? By planning to spread these tasks out of over time at each overhaul, would it be possible to avoid a rebuild like the PBR has done with their NG-16?

I find the entire process fascinating and now that steam powered tourist railroads are faced with the issue of operating and maintaining locomotives designed to be scrapped after 20-40 years of service, has anyone thought this process out? I doubt the Rio Grande ever thought any of the K-Class 2-8-2s, pick your class of locomotive, would be operating in the year 2018.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2018 01:46PM by kcsivils.