I'm guessing he's questioning Chelatchie's qualifications and standards and practices, not only in terms of fabrication, but in terms of QC. Hopefully, this information is a matter of record somewhere.....or at least provided by them to their customers as part of the bid qualification process. In any case, the customer is satisfied and no dummy.

dave

Hello Mike and Dave:

Yes I am hoping for some answers to my questions.

The design or evaluation of a locomotive style boiler is not an easy task by any means.

While not quoting specific chapter and verse from Section I, there is a requirement that external loads be considered in the design of a boiler. I wonder how many of us here actually consider the external loads imposed on a steam locomotive boiler due to the motion of the locomotive.

While the locomotive does not suffer from slack run in and run out in the same manner as a car in midtrain or end of train, I believe that the acceleration and deceleration forces due to braking need to be considered. With a steel on steel static coefficient of friction of .45 and a dynamic coefficient of friction of .2, these forces can be significant. This results in a longitudinal force on the boiler shell from .2 to .45 times the mass of the boiler shell and its contents. Consider also the vertical forces imposed by track irregularity.

For this reason alone, I consider the factor of 3.5 between operating stress and tensile stress in Section I to be insufficient to allow for this loading.

As a matter of practice, when fabrication shops outsource their design assignments to me, for either fired or unfired pressure vessels, I include an inspection of the finished article. This is regardless of any inspections done by any 3rd party inspector. It is because there is placed on me an obligation to ensure that my design work was followed.

I believe that the input from an NBBI accredited inspector can be valuable to these discussions; however, so far all I have seen is eats, shoots; and, leaves.

Sincerely;

pkurilecz

Matt,
First you give us photographic evidence of the level of workmanship that is possible on a code stamped boiler, then you appear to condemn all new non-code boilers as being inherently defective. I’m failing to follow the logic path here.

As I recall, the only reason the boiler in the photo is a boat anchor today is that it ran into you as the (very particular) state inspector. Suppose some other state inspector had been asleep at the switch as well (in addition to the stamp holder and AI) and signed off on it. It’s possible it could have gone on to operate, S stamp and all. What makes that a better system?

I'll be the first to admit I know little about boiler design and construction. However, I am growing weary of Mr. Austin's parlor games. If he has serious, legitimate issues about #3s new boiler or any other one, he shouldn't be wasting his time on this forum, and should instead be contacting the appropriate regulatory body. Instead, this is the latest post where he attempts to impugn the credibility of someone else, but doesn't come out and say it. He's kind of like the kid in class wants to prove to the world how smart he really is, and how dumb the rest of the world is.

While his posts often spark informative discussion, such as this thread, the informative nature of the thread rarely comes from him. Had he simply started this thread by stating his real agenda, I'd be a lot happier. To the others who have posted, it's been informative.

Perhaps this is a dumb question but why do locomotive boilers, all of which (Leviathan and Tornado excepted) are going to be replacements, need to be designed. Can't they just copy what worked successfully and safely for decades? Or have there been so much change in construction techniques and safety factors that this is not possible?

Steve

Hello Steve:

That is not a dumb question at all. In fact it is a very good one.

The reason that the boiler needs to be designed, even if it is a copy of an existing boiler, is that there is some oversight body to whom it must be demonstrated that the boiler is capable of operating safely at some MAWP and that it was built in accordance with the standards of the jurisdictional authority.

The plans and design work for many locomotive style boilers now in existence are missing. Simply copying an existing boiler is not sufficient.

Locomotive boiler design and construction is currently custom work, not a production line work as it once was.

In the heyday of steam locomotives, a builder, such as Lima, Baldwin, etc., would design a steam locomotive boiler once and then build 75 to 100 copies of it over a period of time.

In my experience, the most difficult part of evaluating an existing locomotive boiler is determining the as built dimensions of the boiler in order that the MAWP may be determined.

Repairing a locomotive style boiler is more difficult in my opinion than building a new one, though both have there own peculiar difficulties.

hth

pkurilecz

While we're asking dumb questions, can somebody talk about how you become a "boiler works"? There's already been talk about being an ASME shop, and the qualifications for that, but what about a non-ASME shop?

Is there any regulation or oversight on who can call themselves a boiler shop? Is this something addressed by the FRA? I've got a buddy who's a plumber, and he's put in lots of hot water tanks, can we buy a copy of "Boiler Making for Dummies" and start our own business? (OK, my joking tone aside, it is a serious question, what determines who can design, build and sell boilers?)

I have the same questions regarding a Form 4. Who determines who's qualified to sign that? What training requirements etc are there? Do you have to take an exam, demonstrate experience, or provide some other method of verifying your qualifications? Is it reviewed by a PE or designer?

I know the civil engineering field well, and there are very strict requirements, tests, qualifications, working under a Professional Engineer for a certain period of time etc. Even if you graduate from the best engineering school, you still have to take tests and work under a P.E. before you get your stamp. Are there similiar requirements for this type of work?

Also, does anyone care to address the issue of a designer that's not also a fabricator? I'm guessing that may actually be common, with one firm being a design company, while the actual boiler makers are a different company, at least these days. I suspect that "back in the day" they did the designs in house, at least at the big guys like Lima, Alco and Baldwin.

It presents some interesting questions in case a problem. Was that problem a matter of poor design, shoddy workmanship, defective materials, or some combination of all three? In engineering it's common to find that a whole chain of events lead up to a problem, for example a design error, followed by less than perfect installation capped off by materials that aren't quite up to spec.

Bob, I wish your questions and points were in their own thread as I think this one should never have been started in the first place. But I don't think spreading out various disciplines is all that unusual.

Stephen

Square inside firebox corners and welded mud ring attachment (rather than driven hot rivets)? Interesting. I always thought steam locomotive fireboxes were supposed to have flanged corners to allow for the expansive and dynamic stresses.

Howard P.

Mr. Austin still leaves some questions regarding his true motivations. He waited a couple of weeks and at least five pages of content on this thread before he finally shows his hand, photos and a statement that he would not be comfortable as the designer of the non-code boiler for #3. He also names people from CSRM and the CSRM foundation by name, implicating that they cut corners, without no real, direct first-hand knowledge about the bid process and the contract requirements.

I'm not doubting Mr. Austin's qualifications. He's obviously well-qualified and knows what he is talking about. If I owned a steam locomotive, I'd probably consult with him, at least as a second opinion.

However, I wish he'd tell us what his point is. The "s**t happens" line from his most recent post is not a full explaination. Is he trying to get Mr. Moedinger to engage in some sort of public self flagellation to attone for what Mr. Austin determines as "sins"? Why not take this information privately to Mr. Moedinger, if Mr. Austin is concerned, instead of a thinly-veiled attempt to shame him?

My reading is Matt is more concerned with worksmanship and QC than with design. Linn and Matt are both expert in their field. There seems to be no mention of any involvement by Linn apart from his design, which I have not seen called into question. The photos do raise a lot of questions in my mind, and I don't have half of either gentleman's background and expertise to draw from. It would be informative to know Dennis and George's perceptions.

dave

Dave,

Thank you for your perspective. I can see your interpretation of Mr. Austin's comments.

I tend to be direct, and don't understand why this whole thread could have started under a more direct tone, such as issues regarding design versus construction, even ASME shops mess up, legal issues being involved in the design of a boiler, etc. Playing some sort of Socratic method where seeminly innocent questions are asked, only to reveal a true agenda waste a lot of time and speculation.

This is outside of my knowledge, so maybe you all can explain.

Are some of those stay welds a little messy?

Why are there chalk marks on some?

Why does the shell have a layered line of three weld beads?

Why is there a series of gouge marks inside the firebox sheet?