Railway Preservation News

UPRR 3985?
Page 3 of 3

Author:  choodude [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: UPRR 3985?

Kelly Anderson wrote:
choodude wrote:
So what did you think of the pictures?

I have never sprung for TrainOders, so all I can see are the thunbnails. They look like typical used tubes at that size.

I certainly understand that. Not only can you not see the pictures, but the 21 pages worth of responses on a site that is lucky to see more than a couple pages in a thread is also out of reach.

I'm hoping you can help my understanding. The only experience I have with how much crud could build up in a steam locomotive boiler over time is the gallon of well water I evaporate a day in a kettle over my wood stove in winter. I'm like the proverbial waif when it comes to the mechanical side of railroading, let alone steam locomotive regulations.

Still, it's my understanding that the pictures in that link demonstrated an enormous amount of crud that built up in that boiler in just a couple/few years of use since the last time the boiler had major work done to it. Enough to knock that locomotive out of service for years.

I'm under the understanding that there is still an applicable Federal Regulation that requires periodic boiler washes, and part of that process includes inspecting through the washout plugs to see if crud is building up inside a boiler.

I don't understand how a boiler can get that much crud in it if it is under "expert" care.


Author:  Overmod [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: UPRR 3985?

Look here, guys.

Yes, there were problems with the swimming-pool-chemical fiasco. There were problems with flatted drivers. I suspect, not having been there personally, there were problems with the new Dickens organization coming in and, frankly, making some false starts before getting to where they are now.

Any purported problems from the Steve Lee years are now PREVIOUS problems. To the extent they existed, they will be remediated to complete quality-system compliant status by the time the current rebuild process is complete -- and I think it gets a little quicker and more coherent with each month that it runs now.

While there are some 'old heads' here who don't think the current UP emphasis on TQM is entirely applicable to something as 'primitive' as a typical large steam locomotive, I think the evolved approach is not only effective, but a reasonable guide to reproduceable and correct procedure as we go forward into an era where no living memory of historical for-profit steam shop operations, outside careful shops like Kelly's, survives. That alone is a reason not to cripple it with disparaging he-said she-said discussions on what ought to be a technically-oriented Interchange.

Author:  car57 [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: UPRR 3985?

These bashing threads, he said she said crap does no one any good and serves to highlight the childish behaviour of some so called know it alls..... its old, its boring and it serves no purpose......i wish there was a moderator on here that would close down this crap...... but no chance of that either on this pilotless captainless ship. The proof of all the pudding will be in the next few years.


Author:  Lincoln Penn [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: UPRR 3985?

Those flues had been in there 6 years, with less than 200 service days total.

There was over a ton of mud, scale and sludge in the boiler. The water sides of the tube sheets looked like gravel roads.

Perfect examples of failed water treatment, no blowdowns, and no real boiler washes.

But, as said, it's all in the past.

Except that some insist on still blaming someone else, 8 years later.

Author:  Rick Rowlands [ Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: UPRR 3985?

Thread locked due to unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations and attacks. This is not TrainOrders!

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group