Most all Steam builders in the 20th century produced locomotives which met ASME codes. I would say all Porters, Vulcans and Lima Shays were built to ASME with a Factor of Safety of 5 for industrial service under state boiler inspection. Many Baldwin and A.L.Co industrial and logging engines were built to the FS 5 for service and inspection under state boiler laws. MANY LOCOMOTIVES !
These builders based much of their Standard Practice of Locomotive Boiler Construction on ASME formulas and practices. Don't think the FRA/ICC rules were alien to ASME practice. They were closely aligned in design elements. The rules of physics are the same for the ASME as they are for the ICC/FRA.

My questionis, "Who signed the Form 4"?

Martin

From the Federal Register November 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 221, page 62832) (The preamble to the initial printing of Part 230.

Italics are mine.

B. Inspection Scheme
...FRA has also determined that safety concerns dictate that there be a competency requirement for the person or persons conducting a 1472 service day inspection and for the person or persons surveying the boiler for the purpose of recalculating a FRA Form No. 4. Accordingly, this rule specifically provides that only competent individuals may perform 1472 service day inspections and/or surveys of locomotive boilers in order to evaluate the accuracy of information on the locomotives' current FRA Form No. 4s.

Note that I have not found any definition for "competent individual" in these rules.

D. Standard for Repairs
...By referencing an accepted national standard for boiler repairs, the task force and the agency sought to impose a measure of quality control that would provide assurance that all welding is performed properly. Because there are several national organizations that prescribe such procedures, the operator will be allowed to follow any one of a number of recognized methods. ``In accordance with an accepted national standard for boiler repairs,'' therefore, means that all the physical, mechanical, and documentation requirements delineated in a particular standard such as the NBIC have been satisfied. The task force considered recommending that FRA simply adopt the NBIC standard but decided that the financial burden imposed on owners and/or operators would be too great. The NBIC program requires reporting of the final repair and third-party oversight throughout the repair, which can be very costly. Accordingly, the task force decided to simply reference the standard to which the repair should be done, without imposing the reporting or third-party inspection requirements of the standard. FRA agrees with and has adopted the task force's position. .

This is the traditional standard since time immemorial for railroads. Other than insular operations under state jurisdiction, most railroad’s locomotives were (and are) not code stamped. Railroads built, rebuilt, and maintained them at will with no third party inspection (other than the ICC man), just like today.

F. Imposition of Qualification Requirements for Repair
By referencing national standards, this rule addresses, for the first time, the issue of qualification requirements for individuals making repairs to steam locomotives. The NTSB and the task force both felt strongly that the rule should establish minimum competency requirements for individuals making certain safety critical repairs. Thus, wherever the relevant national standards include qualification requirements, steam locomotive owners and/or operators making such repairs will have to comply with these requirements. The task force considered imposing more explicit qualification requirements than those imputed from these national standards but concluded that doing so was not necessary at this time. FRA agrees with the task force's position, and, therefore, is not mandating more explicit qualification requirements.

Remember that the FRA does not differentiate between new boilers and overhauled boilers. As I read it, every boiler has a 1472 day life span in the FRA’s eyes, at which time it is required to have a new Form 4 calculated and submitted. New boilers or old must pass the same calculations and contain the same minimum level of workmanship, so it really makes no difference to the FRA whether the boiler in question is an antique coming back into service for the first time, an in service boiler being re-flued (or re-fireboxed) over the winter, or a completely new boiler.

To their credit, there is a lot of “honor system” built into the FRA rules, which allows many of our operations to remain economically viable, but those who abuse that trust need to be ready to bear the full brunt of the Fed’s displeasure. As I say to our machinists and boilermakers when they sign in triplicate the various inspection reports, “One for the prosecutor, one for the judge, and one for the warden.”


It may be more accurate to say that the ASME based its formulas on the builder’s standard practices. The builders were here first, and their engineers were the ones who created the ASME and wrote the first generation of the ASME locomotive code.

Greetings

May I suggest some ideas for thought. First off it needs to be said that the ASME is a professional organization whose minimum standards have been adopted by many government agencies as a standard for many applications. Second the locomotive is owned by a government agency of the State of California who has the responsibility to be accountable for its actions to the citizenry of the state. To that end it is my understanding that the State of California has a requirement about the purchase of new boilers meeting ASME code. So is this indeed the case? If so the question then is was this followed? If it was not why wasn't the boiler built to ASME certification? I also submit that for any government agency this type of scrutiny is good as it reminds people what they are suppose to be doing.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree

Mt first thought is that you (or someone) needs do some research and confirm that the boiler in question is indeed not code stamped, and if not, sight the specific regulation you refer to. Without those basic facts, it is pointless to ponder any follow up questions.

He she is back when she was a tv star.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7_-N_zTJnk

Here she is with her new boiler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nECVem-blw

Dear Mr. Anderson



To which it becomes important to answer the original question at the start of the thread. It is the first question that needs to be answered. Questions help define what needs to be researched. After all it is easy to quote a travel price from the west coast to the east coast but it takes questions to see if the starting point or ending destination are feasible or if other things influence possible travel opportunities.

Unfortunately, it is too easy for some to label people because they do not share the same view point as the "Moral Majority". I realize there is a lot of underlying issues in a lot of these threads but the best gifts given to me in my early start with SP 3420 were the people who had the patience to answer questions and not just ridicule things.

Robby Peartree

There are two discussions here...

One about who certifies boilers, and differences in code and status... It is good, continue (please)...

The second seems to be about which stamps (or which stamps are not) found on the new boiler for Sierra RR No 3... So far no one seems to know, or at least has not posted the information here... (which is not required by any identified regulatory agency) In the absence of such information some are making accusations... It appears that no one knows the facts, but that so far has not stopped us from making statements which may or may not be accurate... Back off for now... (please)

Your Always Friendly moderator..

The ASME is a private, Non Profit organization that has in most cases been given the de facto power of law...in most states, if a boiler doesn't carry a cloverleaf, it cannot legally operate except under certain circumstances. It doesn't matter if the vessel in question was, in fact, built to the code, using code approved material, assembled using code techniques, and designed withing code parameters by capable engineers in a capable shop, and passing all quality controls and inspections...no stamp, not legal. Just imagine if the Teamsters had to approve all the designs for all vehicles on the road and ran the DOT, and you have some idea of the ASME and how it works.

The FRA does not now, and never has required a boiler to carry an S stamp, and their inspectors aren't required to have a commission from the NBIC. The FRA (ICC formerly) and the railroads they regulate are a world unto themselves and always have been.

Quite frankly if the FRA is happy with the #3's boiler, its engineering and construction, and if is equipped with all appurtances required for safe boiler operation, then the matter is settled and quite frankly its nobody's damn business what stamp it carries and who built it. I have seen some boilers that were built for use on locomotives and traction engines from shops with a stamp that I wouldn't make coffee with. Nuff said.

Good points Jim ...

States can and indeed do regulate the use of boilers through a so called "boiler law". As with most "safety regulations" to protect the public, a state through the regulatory process adopts industry codes and standards for what is required to to operate a boiler within their jurisdiction. Notice that the key word is "operate". The state's regulatory authority cares not one whit as to who built your boiler, where it was built, and how it was built until you want to operate it. Next time you are in a stationary boiler plant, look at the licenses, they are not compliance certificates as to how the boiler was built, they are licenses to operate the boiler.

Some cities go even further and require licensure of the personnel operating the boilers.

Some states also require operation licenses for unfired pressure vessels.

I have evaluated many traction engine boilers, none of which had an ASME stamp on them. Yet after competing my analysis to determine an appropriate MAWP for the boiler, the owners were issued licenses to operate the boilers.

One of the peculiarities of most state boiler laws and regulations is that they address stationary (or fixed location) boilers only. I was involved in a project where we had to move a portable 250 hp boiler to three separate locations in three different cities. Prior to operating it at each location we had to have the state boiler inspector, do his inspection and issue an operating license for that location. In addition, in one city we had to obtain an operator's license. And this was all being done under the supervision of three state licensed engineers.

As to your last paragraph, that nails it. If the regulatory authority is satisfied as to compliance with its regulations, then nothing else matters.

hth

pkurilecz

From the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health - Title 8 regulations:
Division 1. Department of Industrial Relations; Chapter 4. Division of Industrial Safety; Subchapter 2. Boiler and Fired Pressure Vessel Safety Orders


So, being under the FRA (part of the United States Government) locomotive boilers do not come under the State of California Safety Orders.

Jay Leno's steam cars are exempt as well.

Steve

Mr. Anderson,

Thank you for the explanation of the information in the preamble of Part 230, it helps get a clear picture of the intent of, and motivation behind, the rules.

In regards to new construction, I imagine the number of boilers to be newly constructed for use on steam locomotives in FRA regulated service is extremely small and the owners and managers of these steam locomotives either are very well informed or know consultants that are very well informed of proper design and construction techniques making this niche of the boiler industry reasonably self regulated.

Where I become concerned is when people start making dangerous decisions because they are either uninformed or motivated by external pressures (revenue, politics, personal agendas, etc.) Hypothetically, if a new boiler was built for a steam locomotive in FRA regulated service without an ASME Stamp and a failure occurred, I believe the investigation and almost inevitable legal actions to follow would be at least far more complex than would be the case with a Code stamped boiler. This is my opinion and I would like know the opinions of the members in the legal profession in this regard.

It takes only one event to hit the national news to force a change in industry. Sometimes those events, while maybe tragic, are statistically insignificant. But the pressure put on regulators during the particular news cycle can lead to knee-jerk reactions.

S.O.

The only new steam locomotive of which I am aware, not built to FRA codes, is the water tube boilered 0-4-0 for the Nevada County Narrow Gauge museum. It was built by its own volunteers and numbered 13. I recall hearing that the bugs have been worked out and it is used on occasion. Link to discussion here:
http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,127379


NCNG Museum's website:
http://www.ncngrrmuseum.org