Railway Preservation News
http://www.rypn.org/forums/

R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35352
Page 1 of 2

Author:  boilerwash [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Heres a video of R.J. Corman Chinese QJ #2008 taken today on a surprise run from Lexington, KY to the wye track at Bagdad, KY over the L&N "old road" between Lexington and Louisville.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK7rozG4EQ8

This is possibly the last run of the engine as her Form 4 has run out. She was actually operating today on a one day extension issued by the FRA just yesterday. An extension to next month has been filed for so the engine may attend the Midway Fall Festival. However if this extension is not given this may very well be the last time the engine operates for a long time if ever.

Author:  googanelli [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

When was the original boiler time granted?

Joe

Author:  boilerwash [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Quote:
When was the original boiler time granted?


The boiler shell itself was certified when the engine came over from China back in 2008. She still has plenty of time before the flues come due but the boiler will need to be ultrasounded, etc to get her Form 4 to operate again.

Author:  IC382 [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

[quote]The boiler shell itself was certified when the engine came over from China back in 2008. She still has plenty of time before the flues come due but the boiler will need to be ultrasounded, etc to get her Form 4 to operate again./quote]

Correct me if I am trying to think so late, but Form 4's don't need to be done every 5 years. The engine can be operated 1472 days total under steam, or up to 15 years before the full monty must be done.

I can't imagine that R.J. Corman would have purchased an engine with most of the 1472 days/15 years used up. R.J. Corman hasn't operated the 2008 many times. If memory serves...again late for me...the FRA hasn't been handing out too many waivers of any sort for a while now.

Author:  wilkinsd [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

boilerwash wrote:
Quote:
When was the original boiler time granted?


The boiler shell itself was certified when the engine came over from China back in 2008. She still has plenty of time before the flues come due but the boiler will need to be ultrasounded, etc to get her Form 4 to operate again.


This does not comport with my understanding of the regs. I've sent correspondence to a friend who works on this locomotive to confirm or deny.

Author:  boilerwash [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Quote:
This does not comport with my understanding of the regs. I've sent correspondence to a friend who works on this locomotive to confirm or deny.


I may be very well be completely wrong on when the tubes and everything got certified. I figured it may have been some kind of quirky loop hole resulting from the work on the engine being done in china before it got shipped over here.

Either way, without that extension she's not going to be running for awhile cause Corman's got nobody inhouse that can really do the work (or wants to) and the local steam guys that could volunteer to do it are kinda steering clear of it.

Author:  wilkinsd [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

boilerwash wrote:
Quote:
This does not comport with my understanding of the regs. I've sent correspondence to a friend who works on this locomotive to confirm or deny.


I may be very well be completely wrong on when the tubes and everything got certified. I figured it may have been some kind of quirky loop hole resulting from the work on the engine being done in china before it got shipped over here.

Either way, without that extension she's not going to be running for awhile cause Corman's got nobody inhouse that can really do the work (or wants to) and the local steam guys that could volunteer to do it are kinda steering clear of it.


What's your source of information?

Author:  Frisco1522 [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Makes me nervous to see the whistle on the end of a long nipple like that with no brace or support. I can just see that pipe breaking off.
Sounds like 1522s whistle and a WWII steel bell.

Author:  Jeff Lisowski [ Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Freedom Train colors anyone?

Author:  jasonsobczynski [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

5 years, eh? Do the QJ's have hollow bolts?

Cheers, Jason

Author:  Wowak [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

I really wish somebody would introduce that guy to serif fonts.

Author:  mikefrommontana [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

It could be that the state of Kentucky demands, in some fashion, regulatory authority over the boiler and thus the 5 year UT window. This is how historical boilers are handled in Montana.

FRA boiler you say? Well, yes, but depending on the local politics, RJ Corman may not want to use that particular excuse. Alternately, somebody may not be aware of the Federal statutes and operating on mis-information. A quick look at covered and exempt boilers indicates that state would not have a nominal interest http://162.114.4.35/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40109 in a Federal (FRA) boiler.

Would there be a case where an operator, who would fall under FRA operating requirements for operations and roadway, would not want to have their boiler under Federal auspices, and would the FRA allow this; presuming competent local/state oversight?

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

Author:  Kelly Anderson [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

mikefrommontana wrote:
It could be that the state of Kentucky demands, in some fashion, regulatory authority over the boiler and thus the 5 year UT window. This is how historical boilers are handled in Montana.

FRA boiler you say? Well, yes, but depending on the local politics, RJ Corman may not want to use that particular excuse. Alternately, somebody may not be aware of the Federal statutes and operating on mis-information. A quick look at covered and exempt boilers indicates that state would not have a nominal interest http://162.114.4.35/statutes/statute.aspx?id=40109 in a Federal (FRA) boiler.

Would there be a case where an operator, who would fall under FRA operating requirements for operations and roadway, would not want to have their boiler under Federal auspices, and would the FRA allow this; presuming competent local/state oversight?

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

Quote:
§ 230.5 Preemptive effect. The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. 20701-20703) preempts all State laws or regulations concerning locomotive safety. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926)...

No state has any claim to jurisdiction over any FRA boiler, and it is not up to the operator to decide whether or not they are under FRA’s jurisdiction. Also there is no such thing as competent state/local oversight when it comes to locomotive boilers (Sorry Mark, present company excluded of course!).

I agree with the others here that it makes no sense that a 1472 SDI is due at this time unless there was some special deal agreed to when she came over. Of course the operator can decide on his own to perform a 1472 as often as he likes, and it’s possible that corrosion issues for example have forced their hand. We had a set of bad tubes once that needed to be replaced after just three hundred plus days, and we performed a 1472 while they were out to reset the clock.

The only inspection the FRA requires at five years the staybolt cap removal.
Quote:
§ 230.41 Flexible staybolts with caps. (a) General. Flexible staybolts with caps shall have their caps removed during every 5th annual inspection for the purpose of inspecting the bolts for breakage, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) Drilled flexible staybolts. For flexible staybolts that have telltale holes between 3/16 inch and 7/32 inch in diameter, and which extend the entire length of the bolt and into the head not less than one third of the diameter of the head, the steam locomotive owner and/or operator need not remove the staybolt caps if it can be established, by an electrical or other suitable method, that the telltale holes are open their entire length. Any leakage from these telltale holes during the hydrostatic test indicates that the bolt is broken and must be replaced. Before the steam locomotive is placed in service, the inner ends of all telltale holes shall be closed with a fireproof porous material that will keep the telltale holes free of foreign matter and permit steam or water to exit the telltale hole when the bolt is broken or fractured. (c) Recordkeeping. The removal of flexible staybolt caps and other tests shall be reported on FRA Form No. 3. (See appendix B of this part.)
(d) Testing at request of FRA inspector. Staybolt caps also shall be removed, or any of the tests in this section made, whenever the FRA inspector or the steam locomotive owner and/or operator considers it necessary due to identifiable safety concerns about the condition of staybolts, staybolt caps or staybolt sleeves.

Author:  bory2502 [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Having worked for Corman, both as an employee and as a contractor, it is my understanding that 2008 got a full Form 4 inspection before coming over. I know the gentleman who worked for Corman at the time and spent about a month in China while they did the rebuild. Also from what I was told a rep from the FRA was over there to sign off on the work.

The only thing that comes to mind is the 5 year inspection of the staybolts. The engine arrived here in the states 5 years ago. So that would make sense for them to take it out of service. The other thing that comes to mind, it is my understanding the engine has to be inspected yearly by the FRA and Form 4 for the engine has to be submitted to the FRA on yearly basis showing the engine in service or out of service. If you let your paper work lapse, then it is my uunderstanding that ou have to refile for the Form 4, and the FRA may require a complete tear down to inspect the engine. It has been a while since I Have read the FRA steam regs so I may be completely off basis. Sorry I spend more time on passenger cars and EMD locomotives.

I know several years ago I was on the crew when we ran the 2008 on the 2010 Kentucky Derby Train. I know we had the FRA out inspecting the engine on Thursday before the trip and were asking about the yearly inspection that was suppose to take place later in the summer. So they may have gone beyond their yearly inspection time frame and the engine needs to be inspected per the FRA. Hopefully some one currently involved with Corman and steam engine will speak up with the facts.

Author:  softwerkslex [ Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: R.J. Corman QJ Possible Last Run Today - Video

Food for thought. The QJ is essentially Mr. Corman's expensive toy. He has plenty of resources to make it go if he wishes. But, he also has a life to live, and just may not have time to play with it right now. I for example have many expensive toys laying around the house gathering dust. I have a player piano in the living that looks great and plays great, and unfortunately I have not touched it in three years.

I think we all collect more toys than we have time to play with. When our attention is elsewhere, we put them away in the closet, and sometimes forget about them.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/