| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| What’s wrong with automatic boiler safety? https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21594 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | buzz_morris [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | What’s wrong with automatic boiler safety? |
Although not directly involved in steam restoration, I have been helping to restore train equipment for around 10 years now, and I still don’t know why more current technology isn’t used in boiler rebuilding. I see a lot of posts here about human failure, with what happened with UP-745. As an engineer (electronic) it would seem obvious that a few automatic safety systems would reduce the occurrence a low water condition to next to nothing. I have not seen the fusible plugs mentioned but that’s what I’m talking about. It sounds like the crew owes their life to them. They just should have been the safety of last resort. Water sensors to automatically trigger feed pumps and injectors. Low water, high pressure, over temperature sensors to cut off fuel, and or douse the firebox all well before a failure. If your too poor for all that how about an optical sensor and horn on the water glass. I’m all for historic accuracy but when it comes to operating something with the same potential energy as a case of dynamite, known to periodically boil people alive, I would think you would go with whatever you could get safety wise. How many people do you think would get on an airplane if they knew that if the pilots, however well trained, did not check a gauge and press a button every few minutes, the engines would explode? |
|
| Author: | Martyhuck [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What’s wrong with automatic boiler safety? |
What's wrong with automatic boiler safety? It won't last under the operating conditions in a locomotive. |
|
| Author: | nathansixchime [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NO amount of technology will prevent human error |
buzz_morris wrote: I’m all for historic accuracy but when it comes to operating something with the same potential energy as a case of dynamite, known to periodically boil people alive, I would think you would go with whatever you could get safety wise.
How many people do you think would get on an airplane if they knew that if the pilots, however well trained, did not check a gauge and press a button every few minutes, the engines would explode? As has been previously mentioned, what happens when these safety precautions fail to do their job, or create inaccurate readings? Who will design, implement, and maintain these devices? The very same crew that cannot keep an eye on the water glass or a hand on the injector? There already exist several precautionary measures already in place on a myraid of steam locomotives across the country meant to deter or prevent a catastrophic failure. In the end, it will always be a failure of the human condition to not heed or properly maintain these safety devices that will result in misery. An airplane and a steam locomotive are completely different beasts, however an airplane will drop from the sky if a) it is not properly maintained b) the crew is not properly trained c) someone ignores the controls, flight pattern, etc. As a passenger on a plane, I am surely aware of this. All of the safety briefings, illustrated escape brochures, and other things are there to happily remind me that I am potentially in serious danger if the right people don't do their job. NO amount of technology, new or old, will prevent what the human body can do or undo. And on a note of historical importance, the care and operation of a steam locomotive involves skill and competence, which is part of their mystique, their "romance," if you will. If the "brave engineer" is relegated to simply pushing a button to make the train go, a steam locomotive, a piece of viable technology from the past, becomes absolutely meaningless. It's all about how one must MAINTAIN their engine while under operation. You maintain the fire, you maintain the water in the glass, you maintain boiler pressure...just like you'd maintain running gear, blow down your water glass, or lube the frame. These are just of the few, necessary tasks required by any engine crew, anywhere, at anytime. Competent crews were able to do it for years and years before we came along, and we can do the same, if not a better job! And oh, don't confuse your valve and journal oils, either. Kelly Lynch |
|
| Author: | Tom Richards [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NO amount of technology will prevent human error |
What you're advocating amounts to "idiot proofing." While well-intentioned, in the practical world this usually ends up creating even worse idiots. A better answer may well be to select superior people, train the bejesus out of them and let them take responsibility upon themselves. |
|
| Author: | Tom Richards [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: NO amount of technology will prevent human error |
I'm sorry, you weren't advocating idiot-proofing, the original poster was. In response to your posting, I would point out that in spite of all the factors you cite, there were still some failures. If there's a way to do even better we do need to be open to it. |
|
| Author: | John Bohon [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What’s wrong with automatic boiler safety? |
I do not think todays technology is good enough to start an injector, especially a cranky lifting injector. Starting an injector is not like pushing a button. You have to feel, hear, and see the injector pick up and then you have to pay attention and be sure it does not break and stop putting water in the boiler. While it may someday be possible to invent a machine to do this job I do not think today is the day. Locomotives with feedwater pumps could probably be rigged to start the pump but then you still have to be sure the pump is actually moving water. That takes monitoring. If a locomotive has a feedwater heater it only has one so the second required means of putting water in the boiler is an injector. Again, no machine is readily available to start an injector. The last option I can see is to install some sort of electric pump to be used in emergency. This pump would not preheat the water comming from the tender unless some sort of inline heater is installed. Injectors and feedwater heaters do preheat the water to some degree. If the water put into the boiler is cold and it hits a hot crown sheet the problems could easily escalate. Again you will need some kind of monitoring device to be sure the pump is actually pumping water. That sounds like a lot of stuff to maintain to me. All of these electronic devices are going to have to survive and operate flawlessly on a machine that is literally flailing itself to pieces while going down the track. If you want to understand this better try hitting that moving target called a firedoor on say a well worn Southern 630 while she is bouncing and hunting down the track on jointed rail at 35 or 40 MPH. The boiler is being subjected to these rock and roll conditions putting strains on the boiler unknown in stationary boilers. Then there are the extreme levels of dirt comming from the stack, grease and oil flying off the running gear, dust from the coal, and dirt comming up off the right of way. Add to that being thrust through rain, snow, sleet, and whatever else mother nature can throw at a locomotive and you get a world that is not very friendly to devices that work on electricity. On the railroad we have enough trouble keeping the high and low voltage systems working on relatively clean smooth riding diesels. I really doubt it would be any easier to do the same on steam locomotives. Then there is the FRA who says if something is on the locomotive it must work or you can not use the locomotive. As someone pointed out, what do you do when you have 500 people on the train ready to go, half a glass of water showing in both water glasses and the electornic device fails or gives a false indication? You know you have water in the boiler but because the electornic safety equipment has failed you are not allowed to operate the locomotive. Even worse, what do you do when this happens on the road with a trainload of passengers. Refunding 500 tickets under these conditions would be a hard pill for just about anyone to swallow. I do not think it is so much a case of not affording the equipment as it is finding a combination of equipment that could do this job. As far as using modern technology to rebuild boilers this is being done every day on any locomotive now operating. Electronic testing of boiler steel thickness, modern welding techniques, and improved water conditioning are exapmles of modern technology being used in boiler rebuilding and maintaince today. All of todays operators are paying the extra costs of these measures to help insure the safety of their locomotives. John Bohon |
|
| Author: | Don C. [ Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Risk |
Risk = Frequency x Likelihood x Severity So how can you affect the result and lower the risk? To reduce frequency for most mainline operator means, effectively, not operating at all. That seems to be the most effective way of eliminating risk, stop operating. None of us want to go this route. So what is next? How about severity? I suppose that there are "levels" of boiler incidents ranging from fusible plugs functioning as designed to the type seen in the Gettysburg incident (again, a mechanical design devised to fail as it did without a total failure) to more infamous explosions railroad experienced during steam's heyday. Can we really rate severity (any incident is potentially fatal.)? Can severity be controlled in a predictable fashion? Fusible plugs would appear to be one of the best ways to somehow limit the severity of a boiler incident. To a certain extent, severity can be controlled. So what way can risk best be reduced? Likelihood can be controlled most of any of the listed elements of the equation. Without reinventing the wheel (super-duper electronic water-adders or fire-droppers), likelihood is most affected by proper training of the crew and monitoring of the locomotive (situational awareness). Adding a reliable warning system (Barco or Nathan low water alarms) also reduces likelihood when a trained crew is involved. Just some food for thought. Don C. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Risk |
What's wrong with automatic boiler safety? The same thing that wrong with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy - THERE IS NO SUCH THING! Apart from that, a fine academic exercise for an engineering thesis, sort of like the Klein Bottle is for topologists. dave |
|
| Author: | co614 [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Risk |
IMHO Dave is exactly correct! There ain't no such thing as AUTOMATIC boiler safety. The time honored extremely well proven answer is a qualified crew-period. Fusible plugs in the crown sheet are a worthy addition to any loco. not so equipped and at some point should probably be made mandatory??? But,the answer to long term safe operation is having a well trained,capable crew. Common sense tells you that that will never change!! Ross Rowland |
|
| Author: | Gary Gray [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What’s wrong with automatic boiler safety? |
John Bohon wrote: All of these electronic devices are going to have to survive and operate flawlessly on a machine that is literally flailing itself to pieces while going down the track. If you want to understand this better try hitting that moving target called a firedoor on say a well worn Southern 630 while she is bouncing and hunting down the track on jointed rail at 35 or 40 MPH. The boiler is being subjected to these rock and roll conditions putting strains on the boiler unknown in stationary boilers. Then there are the extreme levels of dirt comming from the stack, grease and oil flying off the running gear, dust from the coal, and dirt comming up off the right of way. Add to that being thrust through rain, snow, sleet, and whatever else mother nature can throw at a locomotive and you get a world that is not very friendly to devices that work on electricity. John Bohon |
|
| Author: | John Deck [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Risk |
"The time honored extremely well proven answer is a qualified crew-period. Fusible plugs in the crown sheet are a worthy addition to any loco. not so equipped and at some point should probably be made mandatory??? But,the answer to long term safe operation is having a well trained,capable crew. Common sense tells you that that will never change!! " Ross Rowland Thank You Ross. We have been dealing with this problem within the steam traction group for a number of years and it still comes down to the age old problem of human error. If all an operator or engineer/fireman wants to do is run and not pay attention to his boiler then there will be boiler failures. Continued training and testing of crews is the only way to help elimenate problems with unsafe operation. As a traction boiler operator I am amazed at how many traction engineers and locomotive engineers dont have a solid grasp of boiler safety and boiler maintainence. Fusible plugs are great but they need to be checked and replaced on a regular basis due to scale build up. Boiler operators that are properly trained know what to do when they are having low water problems and will make the right decisions. There is not a device made that I am aware of that will replace that or prevent stupid mistakes. John Deck |
|
| Author: | Rovronr [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | When to look over your shoulder |
As a brakeman, there were times when I just 'happened' to look over my shoulder and there was a silently rolling boxcar about five feet away ready to cut me in half. (That's not a metaphor. That means 'kill me dead.') Call it training, call it experience, call it intuitition, or an angel on my shoulder, that ability to just 'know' when I was in danger saved my life on a couple of occasions. That ability grew every time I had a close call, made a little, recoverable mistake, saw somebody else handle a bad situation. The night after I worked my last skate job at the East end of the Proviso hump yard, my replacement fell trying to set a brake for a post and lost both limbs on one side. If he hadn't hung on to his radio and made an instant call for help, he would have bled out right then and there. Real live grownup railroads are extremely dangerous places. The fact that preserved equipment is vintage and infrequently used multiplies that danger exponentially. There is simply no substitute for experience and training when fragile humans are involved with tons of iron. I couldn't agree more with several of your posts insisting on the irreplaceable value of experience. I've seen behavior around museums and steam excursions that still make my skin crawl. Keep looking over that shoulder. Safety First. |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Operator Headspace |
Again I find myself in complete agreement with Brother Rowland's and with Brother Moedinger's (along with several others') comments in both this and the other thread. While automatic safety devices are a great idea and I would not discourage anyone from attempting to design them, I have never seen one which can be installed in the place where it is really needed - THE OPERATOR'S BRAIN. I joined the Army when I started college in 1952 and I spent a good portion of the next 40 years (active and reserve) slurping at the government trough. While we still had horses at University, my first troop unit assignment was to the recon section of a Howbat and I have been around big heavy tracked vehicles ever since. Between the railroad and the Army I have read or written an incredible number of accident reports. I have yet to see a safety device which cannot ultimately be defeated by the creative exercise of inattention and/or sheer stupidity. Our society seems to have forgotten that much of the pre-"Service Economy" blue collar labor was very highly skilled. Railroaders do not learn their jobs overnight or in a few weekends. They may learn the mechanics quickly but the judgment and instinct only come with experience. The comparisons made in the other thread to the nuclear power industry are really quite apt as the plants are in fact big steam boilers. As I recall the vast majority of the major accidents in the field have been because a safety rule was ignored or a safety device was ignored or defeated. No mechanical device will ever replace a properly trained experienced crew. So again – Training and Accountability. GME |
|
| Author: | softwerkslex [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Operator Headspace |
Why do we need automatic stop systems on passenger trains? Shouldn't we just train the crews better to watch the signals? Why do we need fusible plugs? Can't we just train our crews better? The argument for fusible plugs appears to be that some crews will fail to monitor water properly. The argument against electronic monitoring appears to be that crews should be trained to ensure proper water level monitoring. There is an inherent contradiction in these positions. |
|
| Author: | EDM [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Redundancy |
I agree with Ross and Dr. Edwards on training and accountability. But Softwerkle makes me think of the old belt and suspenders idea. We want our crews to look at signals and speedometers, but if for some reason they don't, there are alerters and automatic stop and over-speed devices. With respect to boiler water, attention to the waterglass should be paramount, but having a Barco or Nathan low water alarm and fusible plugs should offer an additional level of protection in case the unthinkable happens. Redundancy is something a good thing; how many hydraulic systems does a commercial aircraft have? Also, in one of these threads, someone pointed out that a Barco may sound too late, the crownsheet may be toasted already. I believe they can be set at different levels, even at a generally conservative half glass of water. Having one set to sound an alarm at a very low level seems to defeat the purpose of having it on the engine. It has been years since I started an injector, but as an electrical controls guy I can appreciate the problems that an automated control system might have starting an injector. How about a piston driven feedwater pump, right off the low water alarm? That seems like it would be easier to engineer than an automatic injector system. Again, though, I'm suggesting an additional level, beyond a trained and experienced engine crew. Experience and judgement can't be automated. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|