That would be my question... if the work is being done in a non-code shop, who certifies the welds? An off site engineer can certify the welding procedure, but who A) certifies the welder in the application of that procedure, and B) does on site inspection to ensure the proper procedure is followed in making the welds? I thought that was the purpose of the concept of ASME code shops, that the ASME was a disinterested third party who's only concern is ensuring the shop is following the code.

Not sure where this whole thing is going? If FRA rules are still different and require more safety factor {4 vs 3.5} then why muddle the waters about ASME requirments when we are interested in locomotive boilers? If this site was about ME or threshing machine/tractor boilers the whole ASME thing would have more meaning. From my understanding recent work was done to make the ASME locomotive boiler codes up to snuff, compliant to FRA requirments, but haven't heard that these changes are in place yet?

I do not mean to try to end the discussion by any means, as I too find it interesting and can follow most of it from a hands on perspective. But the danger here has been the same all along is where people get wrapped around the axle discussing ASME codes and assuming that as long as ASME codes are followed the work is good to go. The biggest problems I have witnessed in boiler repair is the confusion brought on by people thinking that they are on the right track because they have an ASME code shop following the book. The work is done and money spent and Shazam the work is not compliant with what the FRA wants. I know everybody knows this already. Also aware that depending on what country your boiler is going to makes a difference on who's code your following. The only one I personally care about is what the FRA demands of us and then delivering it. It will be a great service to all of us when the ASME codes address locomtive boilers to FRA standards or both standards are the same. If you are stopped at a weigh station and the DOT inspector is going over you, your truck and your paper work, you need to comply with DOT rules. Company policy, OSHA and what ever someone told you before doesn't mean squat. Compliance to the ruling power is what matters, despite similarities in all the other points of view.

So my attempt to contribute to this thread, seeing how ASME is being discussed, have the rules governing ASME in building and repairing locomotive boilers been implemented yet? Normally these changes do not happen over night. Don't think it that long ago that John talked about these meetings taking place trying to get ASME codes to address requirements regarding locomotive boilers. Or am I all wet and have totally misunderstood the attempt to change ASME codes or maybe phrase it, "add locomotive boiler codes to ASME code book". Have not heard of this happening yet. Hope I made sense?

I was certified both through the state and through Sundstrand Corp years ago. Still have my stamp in my tool box. Never gave it back when the job was completed. A momento to a long time ago. Cheers, John.

I was hoping that my response a couple of days ago would get to Paul Boschan and have him give us the lesson on curved stayed surfaces.
I have read all the arguments on ASME vs. FRA and I think that is a subject for another thread. What we need is to be taught how to make the calculations so that we can better understand the process in calculating the strengths of our boilers to see what we have to fix. As John Rimmasch stated in his posting on 'firebox steel' , we need to be able to do a preliminary - working copy of the form 4 and be smart enough about it to converse with the boiler contractors. Then a complete repair plan can be prepared BEFORE starting the work. All of the programs I have observed that have not done this have failed. Any final calculation would be done in conjunction of the boiler contractors and then submitted to the FRA.

Paul, are you out there.

Steamerdave

Here's my understanding:

FRA (unless something has changed) regulates not all locomotive boilers - not all operate on regulated railroads. ASME does not regulate all locomotive boiler construction either - some run on FRA regulated railroads and were built to ICC standards back in the day. Back in the days of steam, railroad boilers were built to a lower factor of safety than boilers for industrial locomotives......so, you find boilers built for little logging lokies with a factor of safety of 5, while the mainline 4-8-4 has a FS of 4.......both legal, and both safe if maintained and operated properly.

The "new" FRA code (again, unless something has changed) defines certain practices and standards, yet defers to "national and industry standards" in many clauses. Which nation and industry is not specified, so assuming you meet the FRA criteria that is specified, but build through ASME practice, you will have a boiler that qualifies by ASME standards with a heavier construction to meet the higher FS of FRA. This is a good thing......as is making it even heavier to allow for wastage. Nobody wants to scrimp on robustness while paying big bucks for the craftsmanship and compliance, only to have to replace it when it loses its tiny bit of margin in 15 years.

The big question for many of us is "How do we do it right?" Read carefully, know who regulates you, get them involved in the planning stage and ask them if they see any issues in your plans that concern them, work with a mechanical engineer who knows locomotive boilers as well as ASME code, and a boiler shop that is comfortable with what is unusual construction from their perspective. If you find yourself getting into a defensive posture with your regulator or engineer, you probably need to rethink some things....not so much your boilermaker - if they have not dealt with locomotive boilers before. Then you only need to rethink your choice of boilermaker. It isn't about winning an argument with your regulator or insurer....it's about not having an argument.

There's a real danger of overthinking your way into a quandary in this work. Find experienced people with a body of work behind them and a favorable reputation you can trust for good guidance and counsel.

dave

Around the beginning of 1929, the ASME incorporated an "L" stamp for manufacturers of locomotive boilers. Anyone have any idea when the "L" stamp was written out?

According to this the last L stamp boiler was built in 1981 and the stamps were recalled in 1983.

http://www.kauaitrains.com/

Thanks, Mr. Gears.

Dave, I e-mailed Paul. He's aware of the new posts, and told me he'd try and respond this weekend, as he's pretty busy at work.

Just because you can plug numbers into formulas, and have taken one brief lesson or read several manuals on the application of those formulas does not make a person a competent boiler designer or competent inspector. Please run your numbers by someone who has demonstrated their proficiency in performing the calculations on locomotive boilers. The money you spend for this is well worth it in the long run. Working with a proficient partner is the best learning tool out there.

Also do not rely on just the boiler survey to develop your scope of work, experienced eyes are required to actually take a close look at the metal components of your boiler. The UT readings may say it is OK to use, but what about all those tiny or not so tiny cracks emanating from all those holes in the shell and firebox, what has caused this, is it normal or abnormal. There is no textbook or video that can replace experience!

I have seen too many scopes of work grow in epic proportions account of not using proficient individuals to perform the initial inspection and the boiler survey, which in turn, ups the total cost of the restoration to the point of not being able to complete the restoration.

My 2 cents,
Mike Tillger

I know this discussion is broadening in ways that it's author didn't intend, and I hate to encourage that, but I think a few words comparing the modern steel 516/70 with the old steel used that had a TS of 50-55 Ksi might be in order.....I know almost intuitively what the old stuff will do but I've never had occasion to use the new material, and wonder if it will react differently, and if the two are used together will they play well or run with scissors.

dave

Hello: I would like to second the motion for the lesson on curved stayed surfaces, and thank Mr. Boschan and others for the excellent information on "new" boilers in this and other threads.

A quick question regarding stay diameter: On many modern welded "replica" ASME boilers I've seen (mostly stationary traction) the stays often seem to be 1" dia. Is this overkill? Can it result in too rigid a structure between the inner and outer firebox? When you consider that an original boiler may have been built with 7/8"-12 stays with 60deg. sharp vee threads, that would give you a root diameter of under 3/4", so with a telltale hole you are getting into a cross sectional area quite a bit less than a solid 1" dia. bar. In a new design would it be advantageous to use as small a diameter stay as the engineering would allow, I'm not talking about .5" or anything, but simply something equivalent to the original area, would these smaller stays have better properties of flexibility and hence a longer life?

Thanks: Pat Hosford

You bet. One of Linn's pet peeves is modern ASME boilers with "horse cock" (as he says) "full penetration" (quotes there because they very seldom are actually full penetration) welded staybolts. An ASME boiler we recently completed has 7/8" threaded staybolts.



I had posted the announcement last summer of the publishing of the New Edition of ASME Code to Include Locomotive Boilers to a chorus of crickets. The boiler shown above is stamped to that code, as far as I know, the first locomotive boiler completed under it.

I looked at your post last year Kelly and was also surprised that there was so few comments. Many have been waiting for this new code for a long time.....

MD Ramsey

I’m not sure a lack of comments via RyPN is a measure of interest or lack there of. Its of significant interest to me and it good to see what is going on. I had nothing useful to add to the discussion, so did not reply. Perhaps my interest is better shown with real live action as most of my little 15” gauge 4-4-0 is currently at Strasburg while a new code boiler is being built for it.

Please keep such updates coming as they are of interest.

J.R.

Thanks for that, best laugh of the day. And that boiler is absolutely beautiful! I did see your post on the new ASME code. While I remain one of the crickets I'm very glad to hear about it, and hope to get a chance to peruse a copy.
Pat