Well... yes and no... but tdmidget does bring up a good point. Certainly, for a railroad of any size that had the facilities, it was normal practice to use a stationary boiler to heat up or even keep loco boilers hot while they received some repairs. However, this link is a valid description of the process used to fire up a steam locomotive at a museum that operates somewhat infrequently. This process would have been pretty similar to what you might have seen on a shortline or logging railroad when they fired up a steamer cold - say, if it had been down for repairs, or the monthly boiler inspection / washing, or if the railroad only ran a couple of times in a week. These types of lines often didn't have the facilities to warm up the engine from a stationary boiler. Admittedly, for a shortline that ran twice weekly, the boiler would probably still be warm but the pressure would still be nothing or pretty close to it... so the process would still be about the same. Is it harder on a boiler than a gentle preheating from the powerhouse? Sure... but you do what you got to do! Plus, the kerosene burner described in the link probably doesn't put out anywhere near the heat that the boiler's atomizer is capable of under full load, so I don't think that the heat - or rate of firing described - is excessive (just my opinion, YMMV). For instance, if the turrent was supplied with air pressure to run the blower and atomizer at full capacity from cold, then you would probably see problems due to thermal stress start to show up in the boiler.