Thought about this when I recently visited Nashville’s Centennial Park. There they have NC&STL #768- a static display of what Yankees call a “Northern” but Southerners call a “Dixie”.
Like everyone else, there is a move afoot to try and restore this giant to life, but like everyone else, there’s not enough money.
Anyway, one of the issues the restoration group was discussing was the asbestos jacketing over the boiler. What does UP use instead of asbestos on their steam program? I seem to remember that they recently restored their Challenger locomotive… and I can’t imagine the Feds would allow it to operate if there was a danger of asbestosis for the operating crew.
There are several commercial, non-asbestos boiler insulations on the market. Even though steam locomotives went away, boilers didn’t and they need to be insulated. The boiler insulation on the steam locomotives at Golden Spike (which were put in service in 1979) use a material similar to the insulation tiles on the space shuttle. I don’t know what UP uses.
dd
Thanks. I didn’t realize that the Golden Spike locomotives had been modified quite that way. It’s an elegant solution… space age technology solving the problem of excessive heat loss.
It’s a minor, invisible change that’s important to us for sound, medically based reasons. I know I am revisiting a thread that has been argued incessantly in the past. But the question I ask is this: What is the line between faithful restoration and changing the past to meet our standards of today?
There’s no doubt in my mind that the Jupiter of today looks like, may even sound like, the Jupiter of 1868 Promontary Point. “My” own locomotive of that era is the Civil War General, in Kennesaw, Georgia. I know enough about it to know that the original locomotive did not have a Janney coupler on the back of the tender. I know that the original brakes were applied not by a Westinghouse air brake system, and that it probably took a greater distance to stop a train because of it. I know that the big tank hanging over the drivers on the right hand side probably carried air inside it, furnished by pumps directly above it, possibly powered by steam. It might make no difference to a kid seeing the engine for the first time- but it does make a difference to me.
The static display has a sound system buried inside the locomotive- which hisses, sighs, and “chugs” like a real steam engine did. I don’t even know if the sounds are from the General itself- probably not, as the last time the locomotive was fired was in the 60’s, in a centennial excursion run around the South.
No one wants to revisit the joy of traumatic finger amputation by a return to link and pin couplers. No one should expect the operators of live steam to run the risk of asbestosis. Nobody really wants to get hit by soot and cinders riding behind a steam locomotive… so we modify these l
[quote user=“erikthered”]
Thanks. I didn’t realize that the Golden Spike locomotives had been modified quite that way. It’s an elegant solution… space age technology solving the problem of excessive heat loss.
It’s a minor, invisible change that’s important to us for sound, medically based reasons. I know I am revisiting a thread that has been argued incessantly in the past. But the question I ask is this: What is the line between faithful restoration and changing the past to meet our standards of today?
There’s no doubt in my mind that the Jupiter of today looks like, may even sound like, the Jupiter of 1868 Promontary Point. “My” own locomotive of that era is the Civil War General, in Kennesaw, Georgia. I know enough about it to know that the original locomotive did not have a Janney coupler on the back of the tender. I know that the original brakes were applied not by a Westinghouse air brake system, and that it probably took a greater distance to stop a train because of it. I know that the big tank hanging over the drivers on the right hand side probably carried air inside it, furnished by pumps directly above it, possibly powered by steam. It might make no difference to a kid seeing the engine for the first time- but it does make a difference to me.
The static display has a sound system buried inside the locomotive- which hisses, sighs, and “chugs” like a real steam engine did. I don’t even know if the sounds are from the General itself- probably not, as the last time the locomotive was fired was in the 60’s, in a centennial excursion run around the South.
No one wants to revisit the joy of traumatic finger amputation by a return to link and pin couplers. No one should expect the operators of live steam to run the risk of asbestosis. Nobody really wants to get hit by soot and cinders riding behind a steam locomoti
There have been lots of discussions of the color of “Russia Iron”… Personally I like the definition that it is the color of a dull mirror. As I understand it, it was a polished Iron, not shiney as to produce a visual image reflection or even a “glint” in the sunlight, but that tended to reflect what ever color was predominant in the surroundings… blue (sky) or green (trees) or red (sunrise/sunset) or gray (cloudy day), etc.
See:
http://www.narrowgauge.iform.com.au/russian-iron.html
No matter what COLOR “paint” you use, you will run into someone that says you picked the wrong color. To reproduce Russia Iron, you need Russia Iron… and even then somebody will tell you it is the wrong color because the last time they saw it (if they ever did! or they are only relying on someone’s written account of what they “saw”) it was reflecting some color that yours is not at the time.
Great responses.
A resource you might recommend to your archaelogist might be contacting the Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History, in Kennesaw, Georgia. They are a Smithsonian adjunct, and have one of the most extensive collections of railroad references I have seen. I recommend contacting Sally Loy, who is one of the curators there- and an outstanding researcher and co author of two, soon to be three, books.
Here’s the link to the museum:
http://www.southernmuseum.org/archives.html
Hope that helps!
PS. Considering the last theme of TRAINS magazine was “How Much Does It Cost?”, I wonder how much it cost to build your replicas?
“Asbestos insulation” is rarely an accurate description, but often it is used to refer to insulation containing some asbestos. Typically at the end of the steam locomotive era, high-temperature industrial thermal insulation contained maybe 15-20% asbestos. The asbestos was not there mainly to insulate, but for various mechanical properties, sort of like steel reinforcing in concrete. The actual insulation–the main ingredient in the product–was usually calcium silicate or magnesium silicate.
OSHA (effective April 1971) hastened the removal of asbestos from newly-manufactured thermal insulation, which had started around 1969 and took until various dates in the 1970’s (depending on brand, product line, etc.). But as others have said, there’s still the need for insulation.
Even today a lot of industrial insulation is calcium silicate–only without the asbestos in it. Just last year I saw insulators applying asbestos-free calcium silicate insulation to a vessel at an industrial plant. I see no reason why similar insulation would not work for a steam locomotive.
I wish I could give this thread 6 stars. Thanks fellas.
I remember reading somewhere that the Alton and Southern, at the time a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), used crumpled aluminum foil for boiler insulation in its steam locomotives.
I hoped that the NASA technology would filter down to steam engines as it did to NASCAR firewalls. If I ever get “my” live steamer built, I am going to insulate the boiler with woven Kevlar. We use gloves made of this at GE Power Systems Airfoils in Duluth, GA in the polishing department where these guys have to hold gas turbine blades that get hotter and hotter as the sanding belts take off the machining marks. I bet they get well over 200 degrees when the belt gets worn. Several layers ought to give a boiler enough protection.
I can take a glove, put a Coke from the GE fridge in it and go to work and it will still be icy cold when I get there 45 minutes later.
I’d bet that ALCOA never used crumpled aluminum foil as a steam locomotive insulator; aluminum conducts heat more than many other things. More likely what they used is alumina, and not as a foil. Alumina is an oxide of aluminum, and is commonly in powder form. It can be a pretty good insulator, and has been used as such. Commercial aluminum production usually takes bauxite (an ore mined mainly in Jamaica and parts of Africa), refines into alumina, and then reduces the alumina to aluminum.
Modern ceramics would be my choice. I think ceramic coating the outside of a boiler would be a good thing. There are also ceramic fiber mats that could be used. They look like very dense insulation and that’s what it is used for. Here at work we have a truck come out on ocassion to heat treat certain large items for us and they wrap the whole thing in ceramic blankets while the material inside may be heated to over 1000 degrees. You could touch the outside of the blanket and it’s only a few inches thick.
The solution would likely be a fibreglass type product like the Navy uses on steam piping and steam powered equipment.
Originally, the Navy used “lagging” (insulation) that contained asbestos. This was the norm until the late 70’s/early 80’s.
Then, a fibreglass replacement was produced and used.
Some forms of the lagging can be made waterproof by sealing it with paint and a sealing compound.
This might be one of the more viable solutions.
Fiberglass-type products are often an option. Really what I think it comes down to is what form is more suitable for your application, with an old situation still more-or-less true today: woven pads don’t insulate as well but are more shock / vibration resistant and are easier to remove and replace; solid insulation insulates better, but may not handle mechanical shocks very well. Back in the day (pre-early-1970’s), the pads were often made of mostly amosite (brown) asbestos and the solid forms were made out of calcium silicate (or even older, magnesium silicate) mixed with about 15% asbestos. Today, the pads are often made out of synthetic insulating fibers, and the solid forms are still often calcium silicate, albeit without the asbestos. Calcium silicate is light and insulates well, but it has the consistence of chalk–beat on it or vibrate it, and its durability suffers.
question, can volunteers remove this asbestos whith the correct equiptment or do pros have to do it? even on old passenger cars also.
Asbestos is classified as a hazardous material so its removal would have to be done by a properly certified firm in a controlled environment.
Re whether non-professionals can remove asbestos, the best answer is probably: if you have to ask the question, you should leave the task to someone else.
There is almost no such thing as removing “asbestos”. Many, many products contained asbestos. Some products release a lot of asbestos when you remove them, some very little. Also, some types of asbestos are more dangerous than others. Last but not least, for many products, some contained asbestos and other, very similar ones did not, and it is usually very difficult if not impossible to tell which is which by looking at them (although many people THINK they can tell by looking, 95% of them are wrong).
So basically, I’m encouraging you to get professional help. That said, I’ll point out that AT A MINIMUM you want to wear a respirator (NOT a paper or cloth dust mask) with cartridges appropriate for asbestos (fine particulate / dust). Also, especially solid form asbestos-containing insulation should be thoroughly wet down (soaked) before removal and disposed of properly (NOT in regular trash), and wetting down is always better than dry removal. Solid insulation (usually white or gray in original color, but can be colored, with chalky consistency) is fairly dangerous, and usually gives off a lot of asbestos when broken up.
To be fair, there are asbestos-containing products which pose much less risk. Pipe flange gaskets are a prime example. If removed using fairly standard practices (scraped off with a putty knife or similar tool), they USUALLY pose a relatively smaller health hazard.
BUT WHEN IN ANY DOUBT, BE SAFE, AND CALL IN A PRO!
P.S.
Over and above the health issue, there are several legal / regulatory issues. Even if you suffer no physical harm, you could risk a major fine or even jail time. There have been a number of instances where people removing and/or disposing asbestos improperly went to prison.