There's a precedent in the traction engine community - steam schools for people who want to fire and run steam tractors in public arenas. I think there's probably a basic set of information that anybody wanting to take responsibility for any steam powered machine needs to know in order to work safely and effectively, but that's going to be so basic as to be pretty much common understanding about such things as keeping water in the boiler and not burning yourself by handling hot things improperly. Apart from these vary basic and broad things, any training and qualification program needs to be tailored to the specifics of any operating situation to be meaningfully applicable. Demonstrating compliance with your regulators also demonstrates the knowledge to do so.......and our regulations provide for a wide array of ways and means to achieve compliance so it can be useful to a wide variety of operators circumstances. This is as it should be.

No matter how much you know you have to be willing and able to consistently apply your knowledge in practical ways under real operating conditions. I think there's a lot of accurate theoretical knowledge out there that is loudly espoused by people who don't have the breadth of real world experience to understand what they have memorized, and a lot of other people who work in the world but don't truly know why things are done in certain ways which doesn't provide the depth of comprehension necessary to deal with things that happen which are not a part of the average, normal set of circumstances. Few operators run intensively enough to provide a critical mass of both kinds of knowledge, and maybe that's where we need to work more cooperatively to broaden opportunities for learning.

dave

Saw the pictures, didnt look that hard scaled, 765 with its original tubes had some water effects on its original restore, many of the original tubes got fixed and reused.

I hope cause and effect here learns a lesson and 844 picks back up. I'm not going to be that pointy fingered, every end of tube time your doing much the same thing anyways, changing the flues and cleaning the boiler out. The water running thru pipage may need a check too as mentioned. But a pipe cleaner brush or change the pipe, clean fittings check valves will probably be things to do anyways.

This response is prefaced with the comment that I have a deep and lasting admiration for all of the members of the ESC. The best part about attending ESC (member or not) is the opportunity it provides to "agree to disagree."

There are two clear sides of the fence in respect to "Federally Required Training". In the spirit of "agreeing to disagree", Linn and I do not see eye to eye on the matter, yet we have argued it with respect a number of times. Linn noted in his post...."how do you even codify" the subject and I would add, the discussion has also included this phrase; "we are not in the business of writing the cook book on this stuff." My favorite phrase when the subject comes up is "we don't need to write the cook book, just require that there is one." The issue that the committee (outsiders and insiders alike) faces is that of DEFINING to what extent and by what standards "training would or even could be required."

I attempted to post on this subject last night. My note must have failed. None the less, I have to say; Right now, ESC has much bigger fish to fry and bigger battles to win. Those battles are being won even as we speak and I for one, am not fighting or pushing the "training issue." I am most sure, even as Linn has posted, that the subject will come around again and I do personally believe that it will be an issue that is one day fully addressed. Just not today.

Training or not, the truth is, what we are seeing with the 844 can not and would not have been prevented with training. This is a "locomotive management" issue and all the training in the world could produce the same result. There is a dramatic difference between "locomotive management" and "human caused accident." Training would be designed to mitigate the potential for "human caused accidents" not in an effort to correct "locomotive management" skills.

Indeed, the subject of how 844 got here and the experiences of the past should absolutely be left to those who were there.

Most kindly,

JohnE.

I'm going to stick my neck out here just far enough to wonder, knowing how (some) large railroads operate, if someone in the UP steam program ever wrote, or thought of writing, an operating and maintenance procedures manual for each of their locomotives, based on the long experience they have had operating them (especially 844)? Having been both an OBS and T&E employee, I know that Class I's are really big on writing procedures down in great detail (I've had to carry my share of such books in my grip). If this hasn't been done, first, major oversight. Second, this is an object lesson for the 611 restoration people - you've got a number of older "heads" on the restoration team who were there 20 years ago, it would be a very good thing to officially compile their wisdom for those who will be on the operating team into the future. This is something that would be well worth engaging the services of a competent tech writer for - at least for purposes of editing and polishing.

There are those who believe that any mistake can be prevented by making the training book thick enough. I venture to say none of them are experienced investigators at the NTSB.

I have seen a 5-page procedure, single spaced, for doing an initial terminal test. It was an utter failure, it was not understood, not followed, and it didn't even work properly.


Well, you certainly ought to be recording their experiences on video, audio and the like.

I didn't suggest how long or incomprehensible any manual might be. If I remember correctly, the written CSX procedure for a Class I air test is closer to five paragraphs, not five pages. That is one of the reasons I suggested having any manual for operating and maintaining a steam locomotive be finished by a professional editor. The other reason being that while the experienced mechanical people can often give a succinct description of how to do something, many of them are not expert in expressing themselves in writing. The mark of an effective communicator is being understandable, not long-winded. Unless a writer is being paid by the word (bad idea), brevity is a virtue. Videos are great for helping visualize the procedure in training. Once in the field, you need something in writing, still photo, or diagram you can lay out flat and refer to as needed without rewinding constantly. Make it loose leaf like rule books used to be, so if a truly improved procedure comes along it can be easily swapped out in everyone's copy.

The entire reason that SEVERAL competing "Complete Idiot's Guide to [Software/Computers] For Dummies" book series exist is, as any competent communications expert or technical editor can tell you, too many user's manuals are written by engineers and code writers, not technical writers. Go look at any early Microsoft Windows manual for the classic example of how NOT to write a user's manual.

I also remember a fireman's training class at an excursion line that will go unnamed years ago, where the instructor spent almost all day on the fine points of managing a coal fired steamer, and towards the end of the day, his "any questions?" was met with one of us pointing out that the only coal steamer on the line was about to go down for overhaul, to be replaced by two OIL-burning steamers.... "Why did we just waste half a day on the fine points of coal fires when we're probably not going to get a crack at it for another two years?" Nobody had thought that through.

People like me and seasoned tech writers get paid to look over the information that has to be communicated, and find the best way to communicate it concisely and in a way that cannot be misunderstood, and ask the sometimes-obvious questions that never occur to the experts. If that is necessary for any steam loco manual, so be it. Too often, technical wizardry is inversely proportional to communications ability, as many of us probably know first-hand.

Experience, experience, experience……
You can write all the procedures and manuals you want, but the best teacher is experience. That experience must be passed on, not by printed word, but by show and tell. Procedures and manuals certainly have their place as we have them at Strasburg. They are a very good reference. That being said, writing a cookbook for steam locomotives and having people learn from it is a poor method of passing information on. Yes the raw data is there, but the whys and what ifs are most times left for conjecture. I know of several instances where there were failures of components because the person “went by the book”. You must have a “feel” and an “ear” for things. A good example of this is tapping staybolts on a hydro. Anyone can tap bolts, but not everyone can pick out a broken one. A procedure or manual can’t help you with that. Learning from an experienced boilermaker can. There is a reason the railroads did and still do oral testing. You are forced to understand the topic vs. picking a, b, c, or d for “all of the above”.

Rick

Last week during the discussion on TO, I resigned from Train Orders after a discussion with the web master. My account on TO has been turned over to my 13 year son, Ryland. He has emailed me and told me that my name has appeared in the discussion as quoted on RYPN.

For the record: I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose by anything that happens at the Union Pacific(or on the internet). My company, Wasatch Railroad Contractors was at one time retained by UP, during the Steve Lee era to complete a number of projects, which we did complete. Wasatch has not been asked to work on anything at Union Pacific since Mr. Lee retired.

My sons and I have a deep passion for the locomotives (844/3985). I have been chasing them, working on them, operating them and caring about them since I was 6 years old. I was there for the introduction of some of the current crew members, I watched them come and go for related reasons.

I do not feel that Wasatch has anything to win or gain from the bashing of the UP Steam Program. I do not agree with how it is being handled, at the same time, I am attempting to preserve the truth....to the extent that anybody wants the TRUTH.....not what is being posted on many of the pages. All I can say is; I was there.....I have my own opinion of how it has gotten to where it is today, but I keep most of this to myself. I do have a very creative way of solving the entire mess....one that would be less liability to the UP and a better longer term use of every dollar spent but, that is all for another day and so far, nobody is interested in hearing it. So be it.

Kindly,

And for the uninitiated who don't know who "A. Sinclair" is, do an Internet search on "Angus Sinclair locomotive."

The books in question are considered some of the definitive documentary works on the subject.
Of course, the conspiratorial/anti-capitalist will simply suggest that he was obviously just promoting the purchase of his own books and periodicals.......

True. If one followed the practices that the British railways used, you wouldn't have such an issue. Of course, they required the boilers to be cleaned with steam lances and inspected by the smith, using lamps and mirrors and that all plugs be removed (so that the man with the lance could get to every surface). Properly cleaning the boiler is a lengthy procedure.

And in many cases overseas (Germany, UK, etc.), the fireboxes were copper. A different animal and philosophy altogether.

Being that the discussion has remained civil and we are striving to teach and learn equally, may I share my question and observation of the 49th Title of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230.

You can find a copy here:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 4&rgn=div5

A service day is defined as fire in the firebox with pressure in the boiler above atmospheric. Every 31 "Service days" the boiler is to be washed and inspected. In Appendix C of the section noted above, you will find the 31/92 day inspection forms and the annual inspection form. It is interesting to note that in the form(s) the question is asked:

Were all washout plugs removed and inspected?
Was the boiler washed?

Two questions, in my mind are raised when I see interior boiler conditions like that of the 844.

A.) If the forms were completed properly and if the questions answered were answered correctly, then what we see is a direct result of 31 days worth of service? Right? If not, then B.) must be true;

B.) The inspection was not done correctly, the paper work was falsified and the boiler has taken three or more years to get itself into the current condition it is now in.

Honestly, if we follow the law to the letter of the law, only one of the two above options can be true. There is no room for debate.

Here is why there is no room for debate: If you follow the letter of the law, after the first 31/62 or even 92 operating days of noticing that the boiler is building up excessive scale, would you not take corrective action? That is unless you were not removing all of the plugs, washing the boiler and inspecting the boiler, in which case, if you operated and filled out the inspection forms, you had to have falsified the forms to be able to operate. It is nearly impossible to allow a boiler to build up like this in 31/62 or 92 days of operation.

At Wasatch we inspect power plant boilers as well as locomotive boilers. Some stationary boilers are only cleaned once a year and often operate for more than 250 days per year. I have seen with my own eyes boilers plugged solid from only 250 days of operation and no inspections. On the other hand, FRA requires that the boiler be inspected every 31 days. Thus my question; How does a boiler build more scale and mud in 31 days (presumably) than a stationary boiler that has run without cleaning and inspection for more than 250 days in a row?

I just have to ask, as a rhetorical question to our industry. Who, among us, as professionals or hobbyists would NOT have noticed an excess build up of mud and scale in the first 31/62 or 92 day inspection(s) and who among us would have NOT taken action to correct it at that very moment? If you answer the question by saying, "I would NOT have taken action." You, my friend have no right being in the steam industry. Point is; what has happened here did not happen under the control of the past managers and did not happen in 31/62 or 92 operating days and clearly was not being inspected by the letter of the law, the 49th Title of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230. Had the inspections been done as required........?

Kindly,

JohnE.

I'm a retired analytical chemist, and have some limited experience with steam locomotive water treatment. Basic water chemistry isn't rocket science, and there are various inexpensive kits and instruments available to do what is required. Training to do these tests wouldn't be horrible. But even more important, and less complex, than chemical testing is visual inspection. Every 30 service days FRA requires a boiler wash out. Hey, you've got the wash out plugs removed; take a peek with a flashlight. You won't see very much area, but if a lot of crap is building up, you'll see it. Is a lot of crap coming out during the wash out? Maybe you need to more blow downs. Annually, you have to get inside the boiler. Certainly you'll see if lots of scale/corrosion if it is forming. If so, it is time to get a second or third opinion on your water treatment program.

Possibly, there could be some general guidelines published on what things should be tested, and what good ranges are. Things that immediately come to mind are Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and level of whatever treatment chemicals are being used. Whoever supplies your treatment chemical should be able to provide information on the latter.

All municipal water suppliers are required to provide results of a long list of tests to all customers on an annual basis. You should be able to get information on the variability of the results by talking to their lab people. Certainly this is much easier for a fixed location museum/tourist line, with only one water supplier, than for someone running a long distance.

If I was the water guy for an engine running a long distance, well ahead of time I'd try to get an analytical report from every location where it is anticipated I'd need to take on water. Vary the treatment program, based on those tests. And, after the trip was over, and the engine back home, I'd recommend taking a look inside, whether or not a wash out./inspection was due.