We are currently using Cannonball Water treatment in 4960, and have been for several years. The system consists of 2 basic parts, a sulfite based oxygen scavenger and a polymer dispersant. They do not sell any antifoams, because they believe that water properly treated and monitored will not have foaming, and I have not used any antifoam since switching to Cannonball. For Jason, I believe I am paying approximately $200 for 15 gallons of each of the chemicals.

The Oxygen Scavenger comes in two forms, a diluted, ph balanced version, and a more concentrated non pH balanced version. I use the more concentrated version and adjust my pH through addition of caustic soda or blowdown. So far, the results have been satisfactory. Water testing is done after each run.

As 060 Hogger has suggested, the Sulfite treatment program results in lots of blowdown and significant chemical usage, and I would agree with that. My only experience with the Terlyn product was from the 3751 group when they visited last year, as that is what they were using at the time. Along the route from LA, they got some bad water and were dealing with foaming issues.

Previously we were using a dry layup between runs, blowing out the boiler while still under about 10 psi pressure and storing the water in the tender for reuse. If my chemistry was good when the boiler was drained, using the same water would get me close to the same chemistry when re-inserted in the boiler. This year, however, I have been doing a wet layup by jacking the sulfite concentration up and filling the boiler 100% full. I monitor the sulfite concentration regularly to ensure significant residual, and since the boiler is fairly tight, don't need to add any during the 3-4 week lay up period. I understand the nitrogen blanket concept 060 Hogger discussed earlier in this thread and am considering that for the future.


Other than Terlyn, Sulfite, and Porta treatment, what other options are out there?

Eric Hadder
Grand Canyon Railway Locomotive Manager

Good Morning,
It's going on 2 on the afternoon, and I'm having my wakeup coffee.
Oh, the joys of working a night shift !

You all are having a great discussion without me, just keep it civil !

Someone asked in a PM if they should be routinely testing pH.
I will respond here, because I feel that it is important.

Yes, we are targeting a Basic pH range, as stated previously.
The pH scale is Logarithmic, based upon powers of 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale
Think of the Richter scale for earthquakes,
where each unit is 10 times greater than the one before.

Yes, there are dip strip test kits and wide range Litmus type test strips.
They are convenient, but only accurate in a wide range.

The tried-and-true method is to use a permeable glass electrode
that has been calibrated with a pair of standard buffer solutions.
The instrument manufacturers have come a long way in recent years,
making this portable.

The use of wet chemistry drop titrations for Phenolphthalein ( P ) Alkalinity,
along with Methyl Red ( M ) Alkalinity is more field-conditions-friendly.
We are dealing with a linear scale and no instrument calibration is involved.

IMHO, Yes, a pH test of boiler water should be performed as a backup check
that the water is in the desirable range. Experience has shown that
a P Alk of150 is a good target to achieve a pH of 10.
The exact makeup of your native or conditioned feedwater will shift this slightly.
Some waters have carbonates, some have phosphates, alumina or borates.
All of these can affect the soup.

I have to smile, reading Dave's question on the volume of sludge and sediment.
This illustrates the local nature of water sources.
There is something present that the treatment is reacting with, beneficially,
and producing a soft sludge that is easily washed-out, rather than a nasty adherent scale.
Dave is getting just the desired effect he paid for.

Good steaming and Full Coaches to you !

Mr. Sobczynski,

Here are the facts as they pertain to OUR experience with LSB;

We did indeed have two engine crew members have issues when breathing steam (Yes, I know it is water vapor) in the enginehouse. When we looked at the MSDS, there were several ingredients that were proprietary, so we didn’t know what was in it. We called them and asked and we were rebuffed. If we don’t know what is in a product, we aren’t going to use it. I don’t care if it is water treatment or paint or cutting oil.

You had to send your boiler water samples to them for testing. To us, that is like having the fox watch the hen house. We always have and continue to do it in-house so we can react instantly to a given situation.

One size does not fit all and NO water treatment is a miracle cure. That goes for LSB, Cannonball or anyone else.

We have been doing this stuff for over 50 years and I think we have earned the right to express an opinion based on our experience. We also screw-up just like everyone else and hopefully learn from it.

After you tell Brendan he is entitled to his opinion, you accuse him of being slanderous and ignorant. You did the exact same thing when you called Mr. George a snake oil salesman. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Rick

That's kind of what I was wondering about when I asked my question of where it had been coming from, and why it's no longer there. Then again, the response that it was being held in suspension and being blown out during blowdowns sounded reasonable enough to this non-chemist. Do you not agree that is the logical explanation?

If one methods makes it settle out of the solution while the other method neutralizes it and allows to be carried off, aren't they both valid? Also, of the two, I would think the one that produces less sludge would be the desired solution, as long it's not allowing the material to react with the boiler instead.

Insinuating that a product is unsafe based on "I recons" is irresponsible. As you stated the railroad has been running for some time and as a result (coupled with excellently executed self promotion, this is a compliment fyi) many think the operation to be god like and as such to make an un-tangible statements is irresponsible (especially when inaccurate). And since based on no information is in fact ignorant.

George engaged in shouting at me because I asked for a price on his product (because "I'm not a current user and likely a spy for Terylen") and proceeded to explain that if I'm not a spy then price should be irrelevant as his is the "only product which works effectively in steam locomotive boilers". Now I have to pause and say that I was inquiring out of interest in using his product. Despite this, he was slinging insults at myself Al Phillips and Gary Bensman for some 30 minutes despite the fact we repeatedly tried hanging up...... he repeatedly called back . To continue, couple the facts that he has given different processes by which to use his product to people within the same operation and the statement about the "only" product for locomotives..... well, snake oil. Fact is, the components of those products you can get at any lab supply company. To put out the statement "only"...... there is no only. And, AND.... he went on to explain that LSB destroys boilers and should never be used...... snake oil.

It's sad that he acts completely irrational at times and does come off so very poorly as his product results in the second cleanest boiler I have ever seen. But even at that it's grossly more expensive than other alternatives.

Mine is opinion based on factual experience and tangible occurances, Brendan's is based on opinion concluded outside of fact.

Regarding George, Some people act differently dependant upon their audience I guess.

Cheers, Jason

What I'm taking away from this so far is that there is more than one good way to solve water problems, but each needs to be measured against the specific conditions expected to be encountered, and efficacy frequently measured and strategy adjusted based on frequent test results. Without testing and verification, any product in use becomes more religion than science - you may be momentarily fortunate in your results but won't know why, or what to do when things change.

Any rational person can't fault Strasburg for choosing not to use a product they can't find out enough about to verify to their own satisfaction that it was not responsible for what would be a hell of a coincidence otherwise.......this is another instance of a need for more transparency to build credibility and confidence. Nothing works better than facts to convince reasoning beings. Ball in Terlyn's court to play or ignore as they see fit.

I know less about Cannonball than Terlyn so no opinion. I know less about Terlyn than Porta System, so if we can ever get the logistical / regulatory impediments resolved, I'd be happy to try that based on what I know now. I know more about more traditional test and treat methods than any of the above, so until I learn more that's where I'm going to go first, with the help of disinterested third party experts with no product line to push to taint their advice.

dave

So Dave, one cannot have a proprietary formulation? They are required (and do) provide MSDS disclosing health concerns so why are you adding to the idea there could be credibility to the claim. What is being said about this product is that the manufacturer is lying because...... Why?

Don't want to use something? Unfounded and refutable claims of it making people sick are not necessary.......

Cheers

Jason,

I fail to see why you are so combative with this. You keep building straw man arguments, trying to stuff words and motivations in SRR's mouth. SRR and its personnel did not say that the product definitely made their employees sick. They just said there was an issue. When investigated, they could not find the information to make them happy, so they chose another product. They do not claim that nobody should be able to have a proprietary formula or a "secret ingredient" just that it is now their preference to not use such products. They never said the manufacturer was lying or engaged in some grand cover-up. Your allegations that SRR is engaged in some sort of smear campaign against a product and that they are lying, their employees didn't get sick, etc. are the fantastical ones.

At the end of the day, a consumer decided not to use a particular product and gave their reasoning why. They didn't have to, they owe no responsibility to give you their justification, but they did. Whether you think it is a good reason or not is not the issue. At the end of the day, SRR is a for-profit business and their decisions, good or bad, have consequences that they and they alone have to live with.

Another "discusssion" that needs to go to the "Railfanning" section of this forum!

Mike

None of the above Jason. I think a lack of available information is being a deterrent to selling the product to knowledgeable customers here who make decisions based on facts, not emotional responses. If withholding information deprives potential customers of information they want to make the decision.......is it worth keeping it secret? Very credible customers had a problem and the manufacturer didn't help them figure out what their problem was. No option for solving the problem apart from not buying the product any more. Nobody said anybody was lying....or at least I didn't. I said I wanted to be less ignorant so I could make better decisions. I also said I trust disinterested third parties because they have no conflict of interest. I also never said I was going to make decisions about water treatment based on Strasburg's experience......especially since I'm not running Strasburg so wherever I am will be different and therefore require a different response.

So, let's stop talking about anything but how different products work under what circumstances and how.....and a lot more about testing and how to use test results for good guidance, please. That cigar is just a cigar.

dave

Wilkinsd, the statement of issue is "We had attempted to use the LSB4000 quite a few years ago and met with the unfortunate effect that numrerous employees who were routinely exposed to the stuff were exhibiting similar health issues." I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, Please do not put words into mine..

Dave and Wilkinsd, People are of course welcome and free to use whatever product for what ever reason they see fit and by all means let's talk about them. But, let's stick to tangible pro's and cons of product effectiveness or procedure. You say you'd like to here from a third party, you already have. I have no affiliation other than that as a customer of both LSB and Cannonball. What emotional responses do you refer to?...... one of the many hazards of conversing via text.

Mikerowe, no matter how ridiculous it is relevant..... how many products would you buy if they have ill health effects? It was stated early in this thread something about mis-information being one of the largest issues regarding water treatment. The relatively benign nature of the product coupled with it being rapidly biodegradable are two of the most attractive components.

Eric, thanks for the info! You inadvertently bring up a good point, along the lines of Hogger's original post. Properly utilized, chemicals from a decent laboratory/industrial chemical supply company can have great effectiveness. As I stated earlier, the second cleanest boiler I've ever seen was utilizing the cannonball products. From my research, when running TDS at a target of 3k-3.5k a locomotive boiler is very prone to light foaming(even when keeping alk around 150), foaming that will be evaporated by the units. Truly no foaming? Lucky, lucky you and very cool!

As Dave said....... moving right along.

I don't mind a discussion of the facts and of realistic theories. It is the mudslinging that annoys me!

Mike

I should have been more specific, Jason....the disinterested third parties would be professional chemists contracted to test and consult and occasionally return to monitor the ongoing test and treat procedure, and recommend generic additives as necessary, with no product line to sell. Most of us who are mechanics / managers don't have the base of specialized knowledge available to do more than just tell each other what our experience has been, but lack the perspective on being able to differentiate between different conditions at each other's operations.

If you reread your recent posts, it's coming across as advocacy rather than disinterested commentary. Can we return to chemistry now?

dave

Jason,

As a subset of what we are talking about, what kind of interior coatings have you seen on the "clean" boilers you've inspected?

I'm terms of deposits left from use or applied coatings?

Jason