| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5641 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Ken Middlebrook [ Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
In various publications, several organizations have stated financial requirements approaching six figures necessary for bringing their steam locomotive within Part 230 compliance. Assuming the locomotive's boiler requires no major repairs and the organization has a knowledgeable volunteer crew armed with their boiler tools, measuring instruments, and slide rulers, what are the cost drivers for a 1472 day inspection and establishing a form 4? |
|
| Author: | Roger Stabler [ Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
I tend to agree with your thoughts when an all volunteer crew is used I spent about 8 to 10,000 dollers on tubes a decent ndt tester for the survey is around $2500. Lagging about $3000 and new jacket sheet metal about $200 to $400. When I did the ex SP 1233 in 1996 I spent about $40000. with some paid help. With a dedicated volunteer crew the majority of the cost are removed as the materials are not that expensive for a small to midsize locomotive. Machine work can even be done at resonable cost if you shop around. There are other micellaneous cost but I think I could do an engine if the Locomotive is in resonable condition to start with for under $50,000 with a volunteer crew. Volunteer projects tend to move at a much slower pace. The higher cost will get the job done much faster. rstabler@sbcglobal.net |
|
| Author: | C.Wylde [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
Our crown sheet replacement will cost between $65-80K by on outside contractor, retube is $27K outside. Staybolts alone are $20K+. There is great emphasis on the "MUCH" slower when work is volunteer and done in house. In our case, we want the generation of children that visits us to see steam in action before they are drinkin' and datin' age. I think I could do an engine if the > Locomotive is in resonable condition to > start with for under $50,000 with a > volunteer crew. Volunteer projects tend to > move at a much slower pace. The higher cost > will get the job done much faster. wyld@sbcglobal.net |
|
| Author: | Steam REalist [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
> In various publications, several > organizations have stated financial > requirements approaching six figures > necessary for bringing their steam > locomotive within Part 230 compliance. > Assuming the locomotive's boiler requires no > major repairs and the organization has a > knowledgeable volunteer crew armed with > their boiler tools, measuring instruments, > and slide rulers, what are the cost drivers > for a 1472 day inspection and establishing a > form 4? If the boiler is in good condition to start with, the cost is a fraction of 6 figures. If the boiler is not in good condition, it is not the cost of the4 inspection, but the cost of repairs and modifications necessary as revealed by the inspection process that can raise the costs. For many locomotives, the first 1,472-day inspection and calculation fo the new form 4 will be the first really thorough and complete inspection and evaluation the locomotive has had in decades, if not in it's entire service life. The new rule forces operators to examine and address things they never gave much thought to in years past; they usally just yanked the tubes out, gave everything a quick visual once over, put tubes back in, and ran it. Now, they have to actually determine the thickness of things, how much has worn away or wasted away, the results of quickie repairs in the dim past, etc. Some are finding some things out about their boilers for the very first time; in most cases, the news is good. In a few others, the news is not only bad but a bit jarring....a handful of locomotives have been operating for years with boilers at or below the margin. Those are the ones where the costs will be high to put right again. In some cases, Part 230 is being blamed for engines being parked when it's actually other causes. |
|
| Author: | dave [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
There are some pretty scary boilers out there, hopefully the ones that need to be repaired will be discovered and remedied now that we have compliance to force us to take a hard look at what we are operating. Every job will cost what it costs since all are custom. I can see how doing a 4-8-4 with all hired union boilermakers could run into 6 figures, especially if a general overhaul is planned during the down time, and it makes sense to do a general overhual while she is torn down. When better to send off the air pumps for overhaul then when she is down and they are off anyhow? Let's not lose sight of the benefits of Part 230 insofar as the acceptance of rational repair standards and techniques, which for the first time allows us parity with modern ASME code. Now we can weld on our pressure vessels just like everybody else. It is possible that boilers which were condemned under the previous law might now be economically repairable under the new regulations. We no longer lose 30 in service days by lighting up one day a month. I see more benefit than cost in the long term, although there certainly are some short term costs to achieve compliance to be worked through first. Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Randy Gustafson [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
I'm seeing and hearing numbers all over the place myself - it's very locomotive-specific. Everything I see here on this thread rings true based on experience. The only comment I have to add for everybody here is that I'm writing our feasibility pro-formas with a sinking fund line item on the CFR230 provisions for all steam operators. There's a bit of a wide fuzzy link between locomotive size and project cost; say $75k for an average small/medium-size 2-8-0 without a lot of other trouble that isn't directly boiler related - you get like $51 per boiler pressure day that way. Put that times prediced operating days per year (and don't forget you don't get more than 15 calendar years) and you've got a number that properly amortizes the expense. You really SHOULD be physically putting this money away in a dedicated sinking fund someplace, hopefully with enough yield to keep up with inflation. Like somebody else said though, it sure beats the heck out of eating a 60th of 75k for one fireup day in a month! I just want to really encourage people to do this exercise AFTER they do the rebuild to plan for future generations; i.e. do the math. And if that number breaks your budget, you're just cannibalizing your assets. It's just way too easy to hide this in depreciation, which nobody pays any attention to anyway, and bang, you're dead. randygustafson@stoneconsulting.com |
|
| Author: | buddy bob [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
> I tend to agree with your thoughts when an > all volunteer crew is used I spent about 8 > to 10,000 dollers on tubes a decent ndt > tester for the survey is around $2500. > Lagging about $3000 and new jacket sheet > metal about $200 to $400. When I did the ex > SP 1233 in 1996 I spent about $40000. with > some paid help. With a dedicated volunteer > crew the majority of the cost are removed as > the materials are not that expensive for a > small to midsize locomotive. Machine work > can even be done at resonable cost if you > shop around. There are other micellaneous > cost but I think I could do an engine if the > Locomotive is in resonable condition to > start with for under $50,000 with a > volunteer crew. Volunteer projects tend to > move at a much slower pace. The higher cost > will get the job done much faster. I have done a ut on a big boiler for far less than$ 2000. I think some of the prices for patches are a bit hit. I have been asked to put in some more side sheets this summer and i'm sure the cost will be much less than prices gives on this post. this job is out off town. And that includes living cost. staybolt2@netscape.net |
|
| Author: | BobK [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
I agree about the points on cost that B Bob makes. The UT can be done by the owners of the boiler. The device can be rented, borrowed or purchased. Training to correctly use this instrument is a matter of minutes. There is nothing that says that the UT has to be done by a certified shop only that the operator is qualified. Qualify your own people or have the person whom you get the device from give you a short training period. |
|
| Author: | John E. Rimmasch [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
The question was.......Cost Drivers of part 230. May I add a few things to think about. 1. What about the cost of the added air tank for the power reverse? In most cases this device is added. 2. What about the over flow pipe in the tender. In most cases this is added. 3. What about lateral on drive boxes? Something most groups commonly do not look at. 4. What about a tender water level indicating device? 5. What about a second water glass? 6. What about the cost of replacing tube glasses more often? 7. What about added items on the 92 day inspection? 8. What about............... It was my privilege to sit in on a meeting of the Engineering Standards Committee (the group that wrote the rules) last November. It is my hope to return to these meetings later this year. In listening to all of the guys on the committee, I have come to one conclusion; I have not seen proof that the Committee sat around a table and said to themselves or anybody else........."Lets make a rule that will cost any operator at least $150,000.00 if they want to run their engine." This never happened and to this day, I claim that it is not happening. The rules make us a better, safer industry.......if and only if we follow the rules. Last week our Region (region 7 FRA) held a steam conference in Sacramento, California. The agenda was focused on these same issues. Though I will not recap the entire meeting, I will share a conversation I had with Mr. Gary Fairbanks and Mr. George Serbo (Gary is the guy who evaluates your form 4 when sent in to FRA and George is the head of the MP&E department of FRA) My question to the two men at lunch was this; "Where on the form 4 does it ask how much you as an operator spent on the completion of the work to make your engine part 230 compliant? Furthermore, why is it in our industry that we "think" that a $500,000.00 engine is any better than a $50,000.00 engine?" Complaint is complaint RIGHT? Either it is or it is not. The question was......Cost Drivers to Part 230........the answer...............................? > I'm seeing and hearing numbers all over the > place myself - it's very > locomotive-specific. Everything I see here > on this thread rings true based on > experience. The only comment I have to add > for everybody here is that I'm writing our > feasibility pro-formas with a sinking fund > line item on the CFR230 provisions for all > steam operators. There's a bit of a wide > fuzzy link between locomotive size and > project cost; say $75k for an average > small/medium-size 2-8-0 without a lot of > other trouble that isn't directly boiler > related - you get like $51 per boiler > pressure day that way. Put that times > prediced operating days per year (and don't > forget you don't get more than 15 calendar > years) and you've got a number that properly > amortizes the expense. You really SHOULD be > physically putting this money away in a > dedicated sinking fund someplace, hopefully > with enough yield to keep up with inflation. > Like somebody else said though, it sure > beats the heck out of eating a 60th of 75k > for one fireup day in a month! I just want > to really encourage people to do this > exercise AFTER they do the rebuild to plan > for future generations; i.e. do the math. > And if that number breaks your budget, > you're just cannibalizing your assets. It's > just way too easy to hide this in > depreciation, which nobody pays any > attention to anyway, and bang, you're dead. jrimmasch@yahoo.com |
|
| Author: | Steam REalist [ Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
> I agree about the points on cost that B Bob > makes. The UT can be done by the owners of > the boiler. The device can be rented, > borrowed or purchased. Training to correctly > use this instrument is a matter of minutes. > There is nothing that says that the UT has > to be done by a certified shop only that the > operator is qualified. Qualify your own > people or have the person whom you get the > device from give you a short training > period. Yes, it can be done by a member of your crew, and it does not take a certified shop. It does, however, take more than a simple T-mile in the hands of someone who spent "a few minutes" learning which end of it to put against the steel. A good owner will spring for a high-quality UT tester with a scope, and on the hours of training it takes to properly use it and to interpret the scope. A T-mike will show thickness; it won't show how much of that thickness is scale or rust or black oxide or even paint. That is doubly important in areas where you cannot get to both sides of a sheet, such as firebox side sheets, wrapper sheets, and backhead and door sheets. I've seen several of these tests done by eager-beaver volunteers that showed the sheets to be thicker than they were when new. In their excitment, it never dawned on these guys that they were measuring the scale on the steel and the steel itself. When they were finished with hours of dirty, hot, backbreaking work, they didn't know any more about their boiler than before they started. |
|
| Author: | BobK [ Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cost Drivers of Part 230 compliance? |
I guess I over simplified my thought on doing the UT in house. I agree, training must be correct and not a few minutes. The UT tester must be a good machine and not the 19.95 model from Radio Shack. My point was that with proper training and a good machine this can be done in house. Another thought is that instead of paying thousands to have a certified crew come in to do the work, spend a thousand of that money on a proper thickness reader. Buying a good machine will get a factory rep to give a thorough training period as well. Proper prep work on the sheet at the intersection is important as well. These machines generally do not like to read through the scale or rust and will give an erroneous reading either larger or smaller than actual. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|