I went back and reread the original posts....and I find no mention of fillet welded stays until this one. If that's the intention....it isn't obvious.

"Nothing to see here folks, everybody go on about your business......"

Not a very convincing argument to be made that this isn't very much a part of the business of the business of railway preservation. Saying there's nothing more to be said without saying anything of substance first isn't very satisfying.

Of course changing the stays is a good idea....nobody chooses to do so on a whim. I don't think knowing why they came to need to be changed is a bad idea, especially in light of it being part of a public press release in the first place.

dave

Wellllll how about that? Two bolts needed to be changed. No one said broken.
And those 2 bolts' location required too much tear down to be able to perform the repairs and then run just the last day of their season.
And for this an ALARM is sounded about Meiningen concerns?
NEWSFLASH ! ! We changed FOUR ( O.M.G.!!!) bolts in NKP 765 before this years season. And we have run only 4,000 miles!
How many bolts were changed in 844 last winter? In 3751? In 630? In 4449?
Don't we all know the Tornado has fillet weld bolts?
I would LOVE to work on an engine that needed only 2 bolts changed in 10,000 miles of running.
Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

NEWS FLASH.......!!!!!!!

Matt Austin and I have agreed on a subject for the first time in our professional history! We agree.......the reason for posting the topic was to deface Fillet Welded Bolts! Matt, can you believe it has taken the two of us this long to get to this point? We should see what else we agree on!?

Now, we can further the conversation; Matt Austin, since he can not win his case in person, is out to deface anybody else who believes in Fillet Welded Stay Bolts. Would we agree on that subject as well, Mr. Austin?

Matt, you are an artist at living in Hawaii, taking photos found on the web and taking them out of context. The photo you posted, which happens to be a WRC project shows flexible stay bolts in burned holes.....which holes will have a V groove installed and the bolts welded in "full penetration", which, as of this post is the only legal way of installing such bolts at this time in the USA (welded, that is). So, Matt, you are correct, I too wonder how the guys are measuring the 1.1mm clearance for the bolts. Matt, when you want to post photos of projects.....best if you can post pictures of first hand experience. Like the Tornado, a subject that you have neither seen nor handled first hand. You are unqualified on the subject.

No.....Matt, private messages about topics will NOT be posted. This is why they are called "private messages". I am most sure that the moderators will uphold this rule between you and I as they have in the past!

At least all of us understand our intentions at this stage. Matt and Robby.....we will see you at the next ESC/NBIC meetings so that you can debate your case in person.....right? I am looking forward to it!

Forgive my ignorance. I assume from the picture that the ragged holes are from where existing stay bolts were cut out. What confuses me are the two new stay bolts being installed. Why wasn't the ragged edge of the cutout cleaned up first? Are the stay bolts temporary and will only be permanently installed after the wholes are cleaned up and the vee grove (bevel?) cut?

Thanks for the comment, Planeman.

The crown sheet and the tube sheet knuckle (actually, all of the tube sheet) are all new items. The last few rows of the crown sheet were NOT drilled prior to installation. This is done on purpose. The purpose is to allow for final fit and finish of these items. Stay bolt angularity is an important factor. The best way to address this (in most cases) is to drill (burn) and then then bevel the holes in place once the sheets are located where they belong. What you see in the photo is the first step of burning the holes. The final preparation of the holes follows. This practice is in line with historic boiler practice and also with modern practices employed by many boiler makers. Though I am most sure that some will be willing to debate the matter.

Hope that helps.

Kindly,

John,

Thanks for the response. Coming from an industry were computer aided design is a given , I am surprised that the state of the art of boiler manufacturing has not progressed beyond using a cutting torch from outside the firebox to burn holes though the inner sheets and crown sheet to get two holes aligned. Based on outward complexity of modern steam locomotives like a Cab Forward, Northern or a Challenger I would have thought that boiler design and manufacturing practices were so relatively simplistic.

When I see postings of the work being done in the future by WRC, Strasburg and some of the other steam locomotive rebuilders I will have better appreciation for the work they do laboring with such seemingly antiquated methods.

When reading about some of the issues with modern boilers like the Tornado and 3801, I had made the rash assumption that the problems that have been reported were primarily due to workmanship, materials issues or perhaps just communication of requirements, but now realize those conclusions were premature.

It sounds like there is an opportunity for a Engineer with good computer aided design and manufacturing skills to jump in and adapt some of the modeling work being done in other industries to boiler design and manufacturing.

Planeman

I hope that's sarcasm as torch cutting was never a practice. Of for no other reason the then torch cut edges tend to destroy cutting tools.

Jason

Well, this is certainly getting interesting.

In my experience with changing partial sheets for repair work, the patch was laid out and all holes drilled and forming done before installation. I'm not saying this is the only way..... but the only difficulty I've heard using this approach was when one crown sheet was inadvertently formed backwards relative to the hole patterns and installed backwards as a result. Oops........and then there was the boiler built in a small New England state with stays bent into S shapes to be made to fit. Let's not go down this path further. Leaving out the photos and what they supposedly show, they have nothing to do with the subject of Meiningen built boilers, and contribute nothing to the discussion of that subject, and only clutters and obscures the information that does.

I think one would need to be fluent in Engineering and Hochdeutsch and have access to the results of Tross' work to completely understand this situation. What I'm reading here suggests that there may be some differences in the design of the boiler shells and fireboxes that are not optimally compatible with the application of Tross staybolts, possibly resulting in a less than reliable and robust final product. I have no idea whether this is accurate or fair......and would welcome an honest, through and unpartisan explanation.

dave

Dave, I agree with you on this point. I believe the same sort of things were
said about the Gettysburg boiler incident immediately after it occurred.

I also agree with others that the replacement of 2 staybolts is hardly a big
deal (ASSUMING there isn't more to it than we know).

But I disagree firmly that an engineering degree is the be-all, end-all requirement
for understanding boilers and fireboxes and methods of construction and attachment.
There are more than a few proud sheepskin holders that lack any knowledge of
the practical side of the shop. Paralysis by never-ending analysis doesn't get much accomplished.

The world is full of well-engineered stuff that doesn't work, or doesn't work well.

This is just my multi-degreed opinion; speaking only for myself and not intending to start or continue a flame war.

OK, I agree about a degree having little meaning other than an ability to be a very good student with no presumption of any other practical ability, but I think a certain baseline amount of engineering knowledge - whether accompanied by a piece of paper or not - is vital in the understanding of engineering problems. I know many people with advanced degrees (or not advanced degrees in liberal arts like me) who are in any practical way useless, but I have been fortunate to also know others with degrees who are very expert and able in the academic and practical senses. Critical thinking and analytical ability can come from many perspectives, and is universally useful in all fields of endeavor.

The process of science and engineering is one of constant reanalysis, however......and as such must be never ending. If not, we'd still be hitting each other with big sticks and wondering where fire came from. We can't be afraid to constantly test our assumptions and beliefs based on recognising and analysing new conditions as they arise, or facts discovered in research from new sources. We need to know what we know is really what we THINK we know and always remain open to other ways of thinking, no matter how invested we are in our current pattern of belief.

So, here we have two very smart people with different perspectives coming from different directions at a situation and reaching different conclusions. There's a lot to be learned if we maintain an honest and open discussion about the situation, nothing to be gained by diverting the discussion into character assassination or going down tangential lines of misinformation. I don't see this discussion following that path, but getting digressive and much less useful, which is a shame.

dave

Out of all this, I sincerely hope actual facts will be shared regarding Tornado. Having attempted to digest a fair amount of Dr. Tross's work, there is a world of difference between what he ultimately came up with and what we see in service now. As the new locomotive code for ASME is being finalized, the discussion of fillet welded bolts is still on the table, albeit not recommending sticking a straight rod in a hole and welding it. Anecdotal evidence is being gathered but it is all over the place in terms of quality and content. What does appear to be factual is that absolute full penetration welds are not necessary for satisfactory service as most such installations out there are "mostly penetrated" welds and have held up fine for nearly a half century in some cases. Another fact that seems fairly certain is that staybolts will break and the frequency of breaking usually has to do with the degree and frequency of their distorting due to thermal cycling. Eliminating stress concentrations from geometry, corrosion, and heat affected zones seems the only way to mitigate this situation. Simple FEA is useful, but can be a bit misleading in this instance because in many cases within a firebox, the stay stress will exceed the yield point of the material simply because the bolts bend in service. This then leads to a fatigue cycle that must be figured into the equation. I've always been a proponent of rubber staybolts however there are some attachment and strength issues that still need to be addressed.

I guess now we have to ask whether Brother Moedinger has an engineering degree or not. :)