Railway Preservation News

Fiberglass vs. Asbestos
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Dennis Hogan [ Mon Jun 22, 1998 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Fiberglass vs. Asbestos

Heard that the original T&P 610 restoration in the 1970's used fiberglass insulation. Southern Ry. replaced it with asbestos again when it ran in their excursion program.<br>Anyone know of other attempts at replacing asbestos?<br><br>

Author:  Rob Sterne [ Mon Jun 22, 1998 11:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos

That can't be true. Asbestos is illegal to use today. Although not quite as efficient, fiberglass works just fine.<br>


Author:  Dennis Hogan [ Tue Jun 23, 1998 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question

So when was asbestos outlawed or discontinued as a thermal insulator?<br><br>

Author:  Rob Sterne [ Tue Jun 23, 1998 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question

The 1970's. I don't know exactly when.<br>


Author:  Todd Schultz [ Tue Jun 23, 1998 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question

For buildings it is still legal to use asbestos for pipe insulation, etc. as long as it will not be disturbed, and is in a state where no loose fibers will be released into the air supple. If any work has to be done, I believe that the asbestos then has to be removed.<p>If any of this apples to locomotives, I don't know.<br>


Author:  David Dewey [ Wed Jun 24, 1998 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question

When it came to moving 1215, we didn't have to remove the asbestos first, as we were not planning on scrapping the locomotive. We did have to insure that it was 'encapsulated' which we did by making sure the jacket was secure and by adding additional metal and tape where needed. (This engine was displayed in a dry climate, the jacketing is in remakably good condition!--although once we remove it, we may find it very fragile!)<br>S'<br>David D.<br>


Author:  Rob Sterne [ Wed Jun 24, 1998 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question for David

Are you planning on bringing back 1215 to running condition? If it will be a static display you likely won't be forced to removing the jacket and asbestos. However if you plan on rebuilding it, that's a whole different ball game. The asbestos will have to come off which will cost big bucks. I don't know exactly what the laws are where you are, but I'm sure you will be forced to completely enclose the engine in a tent like structure, and all the workers will have to be in protective wear and masks. Then you will have to get rid of the asbestos in a safe, legal matter. I hope your group has lots of money David. :o)<br>


Author:  K.A.Hughes [ Wed Jun 24, 1998 3:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question for David

Guys,<br>Interesting discussion, thought I'd add my "$.02" worth of info. to the batch. All of my experience with asbestos has been with renovations of older buildings. Another issue that hasn't been brought up with asbestos has to do with removal and disposal. Here in Indiana, in order to work around ANY asbestos you have to be a licensed asbestos removal contractor. Once the asbestos is removed it must be disposed of at a sanitary landfill which is equipped to take asbestos. As both of these operations are "specialities" there are additional insurance costs to be dealt with not to mention the fact that the EPA is involved. Hope this helps.<br>


Author:  Gerry K. [ Fri Jul 24, 1998 6:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question for David

Though costly, I feel that it be required that asbestos be removed from locomotives that are displayed to the public. I have been to several museums and saw asbestos running out of insulated areas due to rain. It is surprising that these museums haven't been repremanded by the EPA. Any opinions?<p>Gerry K.<br>


Author:  Hume Kading [ Fri Jul 24, 1998 8:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fiberglass vs. Asbestos: Question for David

It is ironic to me that some locomotives and other rolling stock, and even structures are still in existence today only because they contain asbestos. The cost of scrapping or demolition may not be prohibitive, but add the abatement cost and it then becomes so.<p>For example, the FW&D (T&P) engine in Marshall, Texas, would probably have been scrapped if not for the asbestos. The city solved their problem by building an aluminum building ($20,000) around the loco thus protecting it from the elements. Better care than it had otherwise received in decades.<p>Further, the problem for agencies like the EPA is that if they shut down a museum or whatever due to uncontained asbestos then they still have the problem. And, in fact, may make it worse by depriving the only people with any motivation to do something about the problem of their income.<p>Even asbestos is a two-edged sword I guess.

Ft. Worth & Denver #410

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group