Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Steam Locomotive Technical Training
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31271		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  PCook [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:21 am ]
Post subject:  Steam Locomotive Technical Training
We have so many experts on steam locomotives participating in RYPN that I just wanted to ask whether there is any organized effort to share and perpetuate your knowledge of steam technology? Have any of you encouraged your organizations to host steam locomotive technical training events? Have any of you taught at one?

PC
Author:  J.David [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Greetings:
In the 1990s, we did a series of "Steam Locomotive Shop Skills Seminars" at the Valley Railroad, and later took the show on the road to Scranton and Owosso.
The first of these was co-sponsored with Railway Preservation News magazine with Mark Smith participating and speaking at the Saturday dinner. Chris Aherns and Steve Zuiderveen helped with the instruction of the participants.
The last SLSSS we did was the best. As a class project we hand flanged a rear tube sheet knuckle patch for the Catskill Mountain Railroad's No.23. Everyone had the opportunity to "heat & beat".
Unfortunately the closer we came to breaking even (important for a for profit business like the Valley), the fewer participants there were.
A better business model might be the "Pawnee Steam School" which is loosely organized and moves annually between various steam tractor shows. The show organizers are all non-profits and all instructors are volunteer.
J.David
Author:  John E. Rimmasch [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
We here at Wasatch Railroad Contractors offer steam training to organizations that need some help with the training, or simply want a new take on some technical matters. Our customers and our programs have become a lot of fun and very successful. We are happy to provide an extensive list of organizations we have helped train. We really do not "train" organizations on how to operate, or what to do on their own railroads. Our training is centered on historic practices and modern technology and sciences related to steam locomotives.

Additionally, as we travel to different shows, we will provide classes at the request of show organizers. For example, this year, we will again be at the Old Threshers show in Iowa, Labor Day weekend displaying steam and also providing classes and explanations. These classes are free and we normally have a good attendance. We will also be at Train Festival in Rock Island the end of July. We do not have a formal class period for this show, but we will offer explanations and hold in-depth discussions as needed.

In respect to "Official Training" that may be required by the FRA or other regulatory agencies, I can tell you, as I have beat this drum to the point that nobody will listen to it anymore; 90% + of the accidents we have had in the US in the past 60 years (in the steam industry) are HUMAN ERROR. Yet, we are still one of, if not the only modern country that does NOT require some type of formalized and or mandated steam training. When compared to countries that require such training, our accident rate is higher than theirs.

One of the reasons that many people do not like to hear me beat this drum is that it would appear that I want the required training as I also teach and "sell" training as an aspect of my business model. I have defended my position countless times: My desire to see a regulated/mandated training program has nothing to do with my business, it has everything to do with the fact that when properly trained, our accident levels go down and, when we consider that we live in a country that bases regulation on accident cycles, why then, when we know that HUMANS are to blame and that future blame equals future regulation, why is that we do not take the matter into our own hands and require the training, before somebody else decides to either get rid of us or make up their own training?! We have new steam rules, we are writing new codes for locomotive boiler construction, yet, we still have no formal motion on the table to build an industry accepted standard for steam training!

I agree with the new code for locomotive boilers, I agree with the new FRA steam rules and the work that ESC does in this respect. I am still dumbfounded at why we have no formal standard for steam training. We (the human aspect) no matter how great our rules are, or how great our new code is, are still to blame for 90% of the failures we endure.

You will find that there are few in the industry willing to "train". There seems to be a fear of liability. I have to opine: If we fear litigation related to training, why don't we spell out the regulation to train? I see little actual cause for liability in the training we provide (as I said, we will not teach you how to run your locomotive, we will simply teach you how it works from a mechanical and scientific standpoint). The Canadians have a great program in this respect.

At any rate, I wish more of us would train. I wish we had a formal standard for training, I wish we could be more open to training and I wish we could share more openly our views and opinions relative to the need for regulated or mandated training before we loose control of the issue.

I plead with all of you who are involved in organizations with Steam Locomotives; Please design a training program, please require that your operators attend the training program, please, if you need help with the training....reach out to somebody you trust in the matter and please, by all means, make sure that you record the training! I promise....it will be the lack of training that inevitably closes your doors.....not the accident that killed two people when the locomotive went to the moon. Had we trained properly, the locomotive may have never made it to the moon, the two people may have never died, and the (example) railroad may still be running.....can you see why I see this as such a paramount issue in our industry?

Kindly submitted,
Author:  Robby Peartree [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Dear Rimmasch,
Could you tell me what percentage or the maximum number of cars on a four car train that can have defective brakes and still pass an initial terminal?

Robby Peartree
Author:  Mark Jordan [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Quote:
Dear Rimmasch,
Could you tell me what percentage or the maximum number of cars on a four car train that can have defective brakes and still pass an initial terminal?

Robby Peartree

This is a poor question for this forum topic.

Air brakes and FRA air brake rules are for ALL TYPES of motive power and train makeup, not only related to steam locomotives. Thus, any person who is engaged in engine service on Steam, Diesel, Electric, or Pedal-Powered locomotives has to know this.

I think the topic here is the specialized needs for a steam locomotive and it's operation.
Author:  John E. Rimmasch [ Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Dear Peartree (as it were),

Robby, my good friend, I encourage you to re-read what I wrote. I recall spelling out in detail the fact that I am not in the business of teaching how to operate the train. I teach the mechanical aspects and sciences related to the function of the train (specifically steam locomotives). However, being that you asked me an honest question, which is clearly deserving of an honest answer, I suggest that you look up this question in the CFR. There is an electronic version of the code at a web page named ecfr.

I am most aware of the fact that what was the rule 10 years ago is no longer the rule today. I enforce therefore my position that training is so important. Rules change, situations change and conditions change. If we fail to change with them, we become victums of them.

Thanks for the great question Robby,
Author:  PCook [ Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
When you make the jump from "public information" type presentations, the weekend general information seminar at the museum, into the world of "professional" training (and particularly operator training), you cross the chasm into the world of legal liability too. And that gets very expensive, one of the reasons that so few make that transition. For professional liability insurance to be doing operators training you could be looking at as much as $8K per $1M of coverage, you might need several million of coverage, and the instructor might have to carry that coverage for quite a while after the training. It is a whole different scenario than doing a public information lecture at the museum.

Which is one of the reasons that professional training services are expensive.

PC
Author:  060 Hogger [ Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
While not specifically aimed toward locomotive operation, there are dozens of regionally conducted ' steam schools ' convened by traction and stationary steam preservation groups. I was one of the founders, along with the late Everett Young, of the school held annually at Rough and Tumble http://www.roughandtumble.org. I continue to be one of the instructors, specializing in boiler preventive maintenance and water treatment.

The steam boiler safety, operation and preventive maintenance / preservation aspects are 100 % relevant to locomotives.

I have offered, here on RYPN, a non-commercial cyber course covering the water treatment and preventive maintenance field. While we have had three quarterly issues, admissions are perpetually open. Email me for inclusion.

While I recognize the potential for liability, this is such an esoteric realm of knowledge and practice, that fact based and ' generally regarded as common practice ' training has some standing. Count me in as a supporter for establishing a ' body of knowledge ' clearinghouse and somehow accredited organization for the standardization of training regarding steam equipment, specifically boilers. This should eventually result in the granting of certification of training; A Nationally Recognized steam engineers' license.

The primary difficulty arises in the curriculum area. Who decides what gets included or excluded ? As an example, a similar situation exists in committee presentation to FRA concerning the requirement for water treatment in boilers. The committee recommended in favor of requiring it. Later on, it was vetoed and ' watered down ' as to become meaningless by one or two representatives within the industry, who also have vested interests in boiler repair. Their off-the-record comment being along the lines of, "It would cause a loss of revenue in the boiler repair business".

How do we ensure that curriculum and recommended practice promote the interests of safety and protecting the public, passengers and employees, be they paid or volunteer ?
Author:  Robby Peartree [ Mon May 02, 2011 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Hi All

Federal law has required 100 % operating brakes on a revenue train for many decades and yet several tourist railroads were unaware of this provision in 2004 because an ”expert” apparently who wrote their rule book apparently did not know this. If one is going to miss such an issue of “general knowledge” then what about specifics that can not be as easily checked?

I believe you will find that 49 CFR part 240 covers a lot on locomotive engineer training including their understanding of the federal code, mechanical inspection and train handing. This part of the code in particular recognizes that the different sections of the code are not just individual sections but very much complementary to one another much like pieces of a puzzle that come together to create a larger picture. It should be remembered that the training requirements in the CFR are only minimum standards and the railroad, the one with the ultimate liability is responsible for the quality of the training. To that end I dare say that there are a lot of people are not familiar with even the minimum. I know of two tourists RR that only began compiling with the power brake laws with respect to initial terminal inspection after 2004 in spite of it being on the books previous to 2004 and required on the training of locomotive engineers.

One thing that some may not be realized is that what happens on one part of a locomotive effect other operations. This is sometimes more dramatically seen on an oil burning locomotive where even the activity of an air compressor can dramatically, affect the draft which interns affects the flame behavior on a spot fire that otherwise was holding pressure as desired. On a solid fuel locomotive the fire will react to the increase air flow almost immediately without the need for instant attention of the fireman.

Let us consider an incident I witnessed while working on a coal burning railroad. There was a discussion of the thickness of the fire. An “expert” coming from a relatively flat railroad was pushing for thin fires and had started a big campaign to force the practices of a flat railroad onto a more mountain railroad. A series of photo shots were scheduled including a photo freight train consisting of which included both AB and K triple valves. When stopping a train on a two plus percent grade can result in both heavy brake applications and the need for a lot of steam at the start. Now remember that with K triple valves once you reach the point of equalization you do not have ANY RESERVE BREAKING FORCE LEFT unlike AB where an emergency brake application will result in additional braking force. So if you have made a 12 lb brake pipe reduction (90 psi on the feed valve) the cars with K triples have used approximately ½ of their braking ability and it will require a recharge before you restore full braking ability on the cars. As you try to move forward the release of the train brakes sets a couple of things in motion. You have to hope your locomotive can hold the train or you have to hold your train set until you start your move forward. If it is the latter then you could run into the situation where the locomotive will need full throttle to both hold the train and begin to move it forward. It is easy to tell in the seat because the pressures on either side of the throttle equalize and the throttle becomes easy to move. In this situation with depleted brake reservoirs it is best to open the throttle wide open. This will either cause the train to move forward or slow and undesired downward decent in the direction opposite of your intended travel. If the locomotive does indeed move forward the first exhaust will be at extremely high pressures resulting in a significant draft on the fire which with a thin fire will create holes.

Further complicating matters was the fireman believing the “flatland expert”, got mad because his fire now had “six holes” so obviously the locomotive was ran “too hard” by some standard not based upon physics. Further complicating matters was the reaction of the fireman to who started yelling at the engineer blaming him for the holes in his fire instead of fixing them exposing the locomotive to even more potential damage. Not once in this exercise did the locomotive slip for even a quarter. I have seen the need for wide open throttle starts on several mountain railroads where the locomotive needs full boiler pressure to start a train on grade. It is interesting to note that historical publications address this situation and it clearly states that the fire must be kept in a condition to handle sudden and dramatic draft changes.

You really have to consider the loads demanded on a boiler to both make sure a boiler is ready and that those people operating it know what it can do. The boiler is apart of a machine and it is the responsibility of all involved that it be maintained to meet any operational needs. Small issues of valve timing can have a great effect on boiler performance. The last thing anybody needs is an “expert” pontificating me how to do something he or she has never faced nor understood in the first place.

Robby Peartree
Author:  Dave [ Tue May 03, 2011 12:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
There is no common seperate rule book that covers the operation of all tourist railroads, but many find the "standard" common carrier rule book a good jumping off point, especially if they are regulated. I've had a part in adapting / writing rules for insular lines, and much is dependent on specific conditions when you are insular and narrow gage.

Flatland firemen do need to learn the hard way when graduating to mountain railroading - engineers as well. Only bureaucrats and academics seem to be incapable of making the transition. Sounds like you were part of somebody's schooling, hope you didn't miss a good teaching moment.

dave
Author:  Benjamin J True [ Tue May 03, 2011 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Quote:
Federal law has required 100 % operating brakes on a revenue train for many decades


I think you over simplify and confuse the facts by doing so....


Quote:
Sec. 232.103 General requirements for all train brake systems.

..........

(d) One hundred percent of the brakes on a train shall be effective
and operative brakes prior to use or departure from any location where a
Class I brake test is required to be performed on the train pursuant to
Sec. 232.205.
(e) A train shall not move if less than 85 percent of the cars in
that train have operative and effective brakes.



But being able to pull individual facts on demand is not the point training.
Nothing realy replaces the exprince that time provides. I once heard of a 4 mile flat land 10 mph tourist railroad with a total of 2 engines and 4 cars requiring 300 hours of throttle time before qualifing as an engineer.
Does 300 hours of throttle time make an engineer?? No
Does 300 hours of throttle time give more than enough chance to weed out those who never will learn? possibly
Does 300 hours make a very exprinced trainee? More than likely but no training is bullet proof.....
Author:  Robby Peartree [ Tue May 03, 2011 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
To All,

I would like to direct your attention to the fact that my question was about Initial Terminal Air Brake Test or Class I test which both terms are used in the CFR. A class I brake test is essentially the same in CFR 49 parts 232 (freight cars) and 238 (passenger cars). Failure in route is a different matter and is different between the two sections as the freight standard does not apply to passenger trains.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree
Author:  Mike Tillger [ Tue May 03, 2011 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
CFR part 238 more than likely does not apply to most of the people who are involved on RYPN. See Sec. 238.3 (c) (3) below as to why it does not apply.

Sec. 238.3 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part
applies to all:
(1) Railroads that operate intercity or commuter passenger train
service on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad
system of transportation; and
(2) Railroads that provide commuter or other short-haul rail
passenger train service in a metropolitan or suburban area as described
by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1), including public authorities operating passenger
train service.
(b) Railroads that permit to be used or hauled on their lines
passenger equipment subject to this part, in violation of a power brake
provision of this part or a safety appliance provision of this part, are
subject to the power brake and safety appliance provisions of this part
with respect to such operations.
(c) This part does not apply to:
(1) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected
to the general railroad system of transportation;
(2) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation
that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;
(3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on
or off the general railroad system of transportation; or
(4) Circus trains.

Mike Tillger
Author:  P2c3689 [ Wed May 11, 2011 1:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
There are two other important ways to disseminate technical information on steam locomotives that no one has mentioned, which doesn't per se fall under "technical training". They are: 1) Reading reprints of historical reference materials 2) Discussion and correspondence with other people who are knowledgeable. You have to exercise some caution when using #1 in some instances. Sometimes this requires some sort of understanding of the methods, materials, etc. that were used at the time and how they differ from current technology. Just because you read that they did it a certain way in 1923 does not necessarily mean you will be able to perform the work as they describe in the book and achieve the same results that they did.

I would have to tend to agree with Mr. Rimmasch. Should a technical training person come in and tell you how to come in and perform the daily operation of your line? Probably not, as it is obvious that different lines have different hazards, etc. and as others have mentioned much of this is learned more from experience and observation than anything else. What I do think is appropriate is training of what the required standards are industry wide. For example, how do you perform the calendar day inspection for a steam locomotive as required CFR 49 230.13? Under the current rules, what items are required to be inspected during a 31 day inspection? Versus a 92 day inspection? This is all base information everyone who works on steam locomotives should be aware of. I also think it would be wise to go over in general what the most common scenarios are for boiler failures that are the result of human error and how and why they happen. Also, some training on the standards of steam locomotive running gear would be a good thing too, as with all of the emphasis put on boilers these days, this can be overlooked and can present a significant hazard.
TMH
Author:  Robby Peartree [ Mon May 30, 2011 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Steam Locomotive Technical Training
Dear Dave,
I wanted to put some time into this post so I am sorry about the delay in responding. I think we need to expand on the subject of education. First let me state that in education it takes both a willing student and a knowledgeable willing instructor. If you do not have both you can get some weird results. To that end in some cases I believe the industry suffers from self induced ignorance. Too many people are focused on their favorite “expert” to the point of a form of hero worship where they trust everything they say with out any question or independent study. I have seen some organizations pay dearly for this lack of objective thought and not questioning things when things needed to be questioned. Case in point in a public meeting an “expert” announced that they needed to go to South Africa to study water treatment for steam locomotives. No one questioned why going to South Africa was needed to do this. My other favorite was the statement it takes a CNC machine to cut injector cones. Really? I do not see any CNC machines from the 1800’s. If we do not respond to incompetent statements they continue to grow into fact. Trying to avoid controversy by challenging ideas and perceptions can very well kill us.

Further complicating matters is societies almost preoccupation by just passing minimum standards. Many people seem to teach to a minimum standard and then stop because this goal was achieved. In the long run knowledge is lost and we all suffer. Fewer and fewer people seem to have an understanding of the complexities of our own operations and how they affect one another. Take for example changing a material specification. While changing it may have the effect of making machining or purchase easier the question is not always seem to be asked if the change will affect locomotive performance and life. We very well could be increasing our long term cost to favor a short term gain. As stated several times by a former Road Foreman of Engines of mine, “Keep track of the big picture and the details will work themselves out.” This is true for a lot of cases. Studying just “railroad technology” leaves out a lot of unknown possibilities for solutions. Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge for use by the human race to “advance” our lives. There is a lot outside our industry that could help us improve. Yet in the preservation world that we are in it is not only important to preserve the machine but also the technology/skills that are needed to both created it and maintain it. These skills have been passed by in other industries and no one has them any more.

A source of knowledge that I have benefited from has come from retired employees. Yet time has taken its toll on their ranks and memory. On SP 3420’s water cooler there is a plaque listing the employees by seniority involved with putting the locomotive on display in front of Union Depot in El Paso in 1956. In 1985 the line between those who were still alive and deceased was about half way down the list. Today I find myself working on the oral history of a friend who had over 40 years with various railroads and he never worked around steam until he went to a tourist railroad. To complicate matters the rigid work rules of the union environment created a large number of people with special knowledge and few with general knowledge. Today we need both if our small organizations are going to survive.

One place I have found to be a great treasure trove of information in the old instructional items and internal correspondence of railroad companies. These documents are a direct connection to the past where one can draw out valuable information. Yet I have seen too many times these collections treated without care or concern for there longevity. These documents need to be viewed as a way of the past communicating to us and yet little in railway preservation addresses archival protection of many documents. In the end, Google books may do more to preserve our historic documentation than many of the groups in our preservation field. The way I have seen too many collections neglected indicates both a lack of understanding of how a railroad did its documentation and how it benefits us today.

Perhaps today the greatest impact on our groups are those without bases of fact writing great pieces of historical fiction that are taken as reality and bias ones opinion. I have seen pieces on both operating life of tubes and boilers to operating practices. It seams that so few people actually know enough about operations that they will believe anything. One of my favorites is the “daylight” can not pull freight cars that showed up on a Garden Railway board. At the same time this was posted a friend going through the UTEP library found that every wheel base coming out of the shop seemed to be used in work train service including every SP passenger class of locomotives. Biases and ignorance may very well cause the “friends of Steam’ to kill it. This is particularly true if we chose not to educate people, fail to police our selves, or call someone a news letter editor and then give them no support or worse yet only ridicule results that we contributed to by not guiding in a proper way.

In this business we are more tied together then I think many realize and yet there a significant differences between us. Dealing with a hosts Railroad for your operations or a land lord for storage brings different challenges than an operation that is self contained with locomotive, cars and facilities under one ownership. In the end we did not come out of the same cookie cutter and so the training has to match each situation.


Respectfully,

Robby Peartree
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/