I haven't seen any discussion of this issue here on RyPN:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/r ... 10,3426166

Note that 'sourced from a pool company' is not the same thing as using typical pool chemicals in the boiler, which is what some people have already concluded. On the other hand, making a nominally 'environmentally friendly' change, say using calcium thiosulfate rather than sodium thiosulfate or sulfite as a dechlorinator, might have serious consequences for pressure-boiler maintenance.

Can some of our boiler experts weigh in on this topic with their knowledge? There may be some important lessons for the preservation community here.

If nothing else, it speaks to the difficulties of treating water from many different sources over the long term. We're only able to read the first page and see tiny photos, but what I could see looks like oxygen pitting and a bit of scale.

We're dealing with a 0-4-0T that runs probably 24 - 30 days per year now that got 13 years out of a set of tubes before pitting and scale problems called for a tube replacement. It happens........I think there's a discipline involved in which you test the water that goes into the tank, treat it accordingly before it goes into the boiler, test the water that comes out of the boiler and treat it as it goes into the tank and set your blowdown schedule accordingly, and do a draindown / dryout procedure and set up to be able to do a thorough and easy to accomplish washout procedure on a schedule based on scaling tendency after water treatment strategies are in place. It places a professional level of responsibility and accountability on volunteer staffs in many organizations, and means investing in testing, treatment and washout facilities which only pay dividends in the long term when many have short term issues that always seem to take priority.

What I've been able to have explained to me by the providers of the one size fits all treatment program.......hasn't entirely satisfied me yet based on widely variable reports I've heard by those who have used it in service. Your mileage may vary.

Tubes are consumable items in the world of real steam operation. It's the 15 year calendar that encourages us to try our damndest to get 15 years out of a set of tubes so we don't have to pay for tube jobs more than once between mandated removal intervals. There's an economy at work then since those who run steam daily and intensively might not care about changing tubes more frequently so long as it allows for the availability throughout the operating season and they have staffs capable of tube jobs and buy tube stock in bulk to support off season replacements as needed.

Figure out your economic situation, get to know your water's characteristics and how to deal with it as it changes over the year. It isn't just chemistry, but it's a whole system of relative sustainability that varies by the user.

dave

To quote the first post in the linked thread, “other than hearsay”, and “I have heard through the grapevine” are the only comments of substance on the first page (I can’t read further since I don’t subscribe to Trainorders, and why would I want to?).

Steam railroading is hard enough without having to justify every move to a rumor mongering and often malicious peanut gallery.

I find the photos interesting, the commentary and speculation on the Trainorders post less so. The information isn't credible and probably was third or fourth hand. Much like the game of "telephone" information can become distorted.

That being said, there have been some great dissuasions here in the past about water treatment, in particular how your own municipal supply can produce water of varying quality, necessitating different treatment regimens.

What do you do if you are on the road like UP or TVRM? Are there portable testing kits? Do you take other steps, like blowing down more, in order to minimize any potential problems?

Trainorders in the very rectum of railfan information, and, quite frankly, unless the UP steam program releases any information about their so called treatment program, anything I see or hear from the nerd net is little better than a lie. Since any reputable operator of steam should know how to maintain their boilers, what good is this discussion? Since none of my money is involved in the 844, this is none of my business

Whether you like the site or not is immaterial.

If you are able, read a few pages deep into that post and you will find pictures of the boiler packed with mud and scale.

You will also learn that it's less about water treatment than it is in how to operate and maintain a boiler so it doesn't get that way in the first place.

For example, not blowing the boiler down, even occasionally.

And the new way to do a boiler wash: "Kill it, drain it, refill it, and fire it back up."

IMO, there is a great deal for preservationists to learn from this kind of thing. For one thing, it appears the lessons of Gettysburg have been lost on a few people.

A serious build up of scale on the tubes and heating surfaces should have noticeable reduced heat transfer. Operation of the locomotive should have required more fuel. The tubes, smoke box, stack exhaust and superheater tubes should have been running hotter. It would be interesting to hear from someone involved in the operation of 844 to hear if the scale build up did make a noticeable difference in the way the locomotive operated.

I started my thread "Northerns" with a reference to these photos. Think I asked how long they were in 844. Thanks for introducing the specific topic here.

Since the new rules took effect in 2000, I wonder what kinds of new risks have been created. Has spreading the old 48 months service life over 15 years, opened the door to problems that known practices can't prevent over the longer timeframe? Or does the longer period force more stringent adhearance to best practices. Or even if you do best practices to a "T" will oxygen and water just do what they do to steel.

Like it or not, the bulk of what is happening on Train Orders is the truth. I was there, I know. What many of you are reading on Train Orders is not fourth or fifth hand. Many of the people, even hiding behind handles were there or are in direct communication with those who were there. Indeed, there are orchestrated efforts on both sides of the fence playing the field. There is a lot at stake. The law suites against UP are real and they are headed to court. One case was granted a court date just last week, a second is short coming.

The topic at hand and the one that relates to preservation is the way in which we handle our boilers. Needless to say and suffice for this conversation; The new FRA rules and the history behind them (Gettysburg, just as one of many examples) teaches us that one of the primary goals of the ESC (Engineering Standards Committee) was to prevent accidents that could have or would have resulted in direct connection to poor locomotive management. In the case of Gettysburg, or any other "report-able" accident, we all need to keep in mind that the responsible party at the time of the accident was the responsible party for said incident, no exceptions.

As such, the condition of the UP boilers, or the condition of say, Strasburg's boilers is the responsibility of the "owner/operator" at the time of operation and reporting. It is easy, as is blatantly obvious on Train Orders, to pawn problems back to previous "owners or operators" when the reality is; he who signs off on the reports, owns the problem, period. If for example...Durango and Silverton had a major boiler accident tomorrow, one may ponder if they can say, "Well, the D&RGW did or didn't do such and such and this is why such and such happened today." No, this is not a admissible defense and not the truth.

My point is, in a round-about way: If the locomotive(s) that you manage/operate or own end(s) up in the condition that the 844 has ended up in, there is no use passing the buck. The condition, as it is under your control, is YOUR direct responsibility. I can tell you, as I was in the boiler of the 844 within one year of the end of the Steve Lee era (five years of operation since installation of tubes), that I saw and read material specification and identification numbers on the boiler tubes during my last interior boiler inspection. What has happened since is a direct result of locomotive management (call it what you will).

The lesson to all of us in the industry is; Manage your locomotives in the best possible way that you can. If you can't do that, passing the buck is no excuse for not changing your ways and taking corrective action.

I can promise you, the 611 looks nothing like the interior of the 844. The 844 as we have it seen it today posted on Train Orders is a direct result of locomotive management and a poor reflection of the industry as a whole.

Kindly yours,

Does anyone happen to know if the Engineering Standards Committee
ever talked about setting standards for who should be allowed to work
on steam locomotives? If so, what qualifications should a person have
before he or she is allowed to work on a steam locomotive?

Are there any official FRA standards for qualifying people to work
on steam locomotives? IMO, this is extremely important, especially
in light of what has happened to the UP 844.

Having proper standards in place will help prevent future problems
in this industry, IMO.

I know this opens up a huge can of worms, but this is something that
must be dealt with.

there might be some college course somewhere on planetland on steam boilers,
but so much of it you may as well learn in the wild as you go.
No school taught me steam its been lifelong hobby reading, modeling, picking up info here and there and of course forums like this.

844 may need some inspections, but it might be no bad than exterior pitting from rain on metal rusting, sandblast it clean or nail gun your good to go. But 844 has been in continuous service since it was built, so whadya expect. Clean it up, metal add where needed.

Usually these boilers have pretty thick "skins" so they can take some of this, remember they are in motion on the road and have to take some lickin'.

With all due respect, how old this boiler is and how long it's been around is not the issue here. This boilert was completely cleaned out down to bare metal and the entire firebox, all staybolts, both tube sheets and all tubes and flues were replaced with new less than 10 years ago. These very tubes were clean enough 3 years ago that you could still see the mill spec stencils on them. Now, they are encased in hard scale and baked-on mud.

Nor is the rule allowing 1,472 service days (which equates to 48 months of service) between flue removals an issue. Flues can be removed as often as the owner/operator desires. No guns are being held to heads demanding the flues go 15 years between removals. You can yank them out every 6 months if you choose to do so.

Nor is water treatment an issue unless someone is relying on water treatment to take the place of proper blowdown practices and proper boiler wash procedures.

If you consider blowing the boiler down a couple of times every few days to be sufficient, then this is what you can look forward to. One of the photos in that thread shows a flue being removed. Between the surface of that flue and the piles of mud and scale surrounding, it looks more like it's being pulled out of a cement mixer than out of a boiler.

If you consider a proper boiler wash to be a series of "kill the fire, let the pressure drop to zero, pull the mudring washout plugs and let it drain, refill it, and fire it up again" to be proper, then this is also what you have to look forward to, especially if you try to stretch the boiler wash intervals by "creative accounting" for service days. Don't waste time letting it cool down; don't bother pulling the upper and top plugs, and don't bother to wash the top of the crown, the belly, or anything else.

This is boiler mismanagement, gentlemen. Plain and simple. It still goes on out there.

Deal with it.

To answer the question posed in this thread about ESC and establishing standards for personnel and boiler treatment, the short reply is yes it has been discussed. The problem with qualifying people is immense. Our industry is pretty much OJT simply because there is no monetary incentive to establish formal training beyond what is required by law or regulation. Secondly, training does not ensure a proper job. I did not look at the pictures, but from all descriptions this did not happen instantly and someone should have seen the potential problem much earlier. You can lead a horse to water...

Regarding boiler treatment/management, I have no clue how you could possibly codify this. There are so many variables to water treatment and in water itself that trying to identify each set of possible variables and then prescribe the proper procedure is improbable at best. Constant vigilance and an organized record of cause and effect are the two best ways I know of to deal with water issues. One size will never fit all.

There has always been talk of replacing 844's boiler with that of sister 838, stored as a parts source in the roundhouse. I would make the point of leaving the commentary of U.P.'s program to those who are directly involved with locomotive boiler maintenance. Those of us who are "arm chair experts" need to stay out of the discussion loop.

i think the point that person was making is that there absolutely needs to be a formal qualification program, even if that means effectively the death of steam.

It's the classic educational problem. Try hiring a school full of teachers who are lifetime drug free, certifiably not pedophiles, no scandal in their lives whatsoever, have $200,000 worth of college education, and will work for $38,500 a year.