Mr. Austin has started a thread entitled "Lap Seam=BAD", with intent to prove the title. That thread has been discussed to end. Now, Mr. Austin has started this thread, apparently with the same intent? In any case, this thread is of very, very marginal use towards Railroad Preservation at best. I'm of the opinion that this thread does not need to be hashed out any more than it has, because it really doesn't relate to railroad preservation. With due respect towards Mr. Austin, enough is enough.

Mark

We've got a really smart guy with very strong academic and practical credentials laying out a case that one particular design might have inherent problems which evolve in a place that is impossible to visually inspect and note. We have other guys with practical but less academic credentials saying "no problem."

I'd want to make real sure there is no problem with MY boiler specifically.....whether WOLF is being cried or not. That's why I'm asking about how to test for this possibility and how often, not questioning the possibility as a potentially real one. If there is no problem in my boiler, fine.....if there is one I'd rather find out through NDT than in a failure in service.

If the "no problem" case were as well supported as the "problem" scenario, I'd be maybe a little less concerned, but it seems supported by people as ignorant as I am in the hard engineering aspects of the issue. This makes me want to know more and take the belt and suspenders approach to any individual boiler for which I am responsible.

Whether welted or not, punched or drilled holes, the few remaining lap seam boilers in service are aging and growing weaker with every stress cycle (like us all). Unless we can make as strong a case for being less prudent as for being more proactive, we ought to take a harder and closer look at them all with whatever modern NDT technique will let us see inside the seam.

I may not speak caclulus any better than I speak Greek, but it doesn't make everything written in Greek invalid just because I don't understand it.......

dave

Some that claim to speak Greek may be fluent in the language as written, but may not understand the dialect when spoken by a native of Greece. Emperical evidence, not theory, rules, and heat cycling is of much less concern than deterioration from electrolysis, dissolved oxygen, poor chemistry, and host of other factors.

"....and thinking themselves wise, they became fools." the Apostle Paul, letter to the Romans.

The whole of this thread could be the same as putting up a photo of an axel journal being burned off and saying Plain Bearings BAD! Now there are a lot of reasons that roller bearings supplanted and replaced plain bearings, but it wasn't because plain (friction) bearings were inherently bad, but because they required far more maintenance and had operating issues in the wildly fluctuating climate of a national rail system (well that and the labor costs that could be avoided but still). Roller bearing fails (and a whole new technology has developed to predict failures) and researchers keep finding new and interesting reasons why.

Today though, we have the same knee jerk reaction against plain bearings that lap seam boilers have. I suspect some (especially those with an interest in such pressure vessels) would like the problems with the design dealt with in an empircal and logical frame of reference rather than a cultural bias based on easy risk avoidance rather than a full understanding of the whys and wherefores required in keeping lap seams in service.

All I've gleaned from the previous thread was that the boiler section in questions (1) came from a traction engine boiler (2) was detected using a Australian method that would be considered destructive testing in the U.S. (cutting slits in the pressure vessel).

We still lack any information as to the operating circumstances of the boiler and whether this defect would have led to the failure propogating or not (nobody cut out all the rivets and took the joint apart to determine the extent of the crack). We also don't know when the boiler was built or how it was built--only that it has a lap seam. Good science says we need to know more of the variables in order to draw a sound conclusion.

Absent that, this thread and the other as well are just wasted motion.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

I just have to wonder that after having "lap seams-BAD" drummed into my head for years, now I am to throw that all away and embrace the concept that lap seam boilers are not bad. Everything from my copy of an 1898 book on steam engineering to articles in L&RP and previous discussions here on RYPN all say lap seam boilers are prone to cracking, but now some say thats all bunk. I am in doubt, and what does the rules say to do when in doubt?

"When in doubt, the safe course must be taken".

I would like to see M. Austin and others post articles on boiler explosions on a regular basis. We can learn from each of those incidents, even if its nothing more than a reaffirmation of the awesome power these vessels contain.

Here's a way to remove ALL doubt, for Mr Austin and Mr Stationary steam...lets pour concrete in every single thing in the world that boils water, so nothing will suffer an "uncontrolled evaporative event", lets weld all flanged wheels to the rails so they don't roll, so no one can get run over, lets scrap all airtravel so there can be no repeats of 911 or crashes of any kind, eleminate ships so none can sink and the oceas would then not suffer pollution from such a source....as infinitum. While were at it, lets remove all doubt about safety and do NOTHING but breath, except that emits co2, a greenhouse gas....
We are not saying the lap seam crack is bunk, we are saying lap seam cracks in internally fired boilers constructed to a certain standard is bunk. I have a couple of commissions from a couple of pressure vessel inspection institutions, so I am not just a tractor yahoo wanting to play: I believe each boiler should be judged on its merits. A lap seam in good condition, after a thorough inspection is not to be feared and is not inherently dangerous.

I'm not advocating filling boilers with concrete either, I am saying that for over a hundred years steam people have had concerns about lap seams. You are not going to reverse those ingrained beliefs overnight. I happen to think what you have to say has a lot of merit, but it will take a while to turn a hundred years of conventional wisdom around.

The concept of posting boiler explosions to bring out discussion about lap seam issues is nothing more than opening up a large can of snakes. Those of us who follow this issue do not want a witch hunt but rather want facts and solid information about what has occured with lap seam failures. We are openminded about what goes on with the lap seam and are willing to look at good discussion regarding on how to do viable NDT on a lap seam boiler. I will refer to the other thread and ask again where are the facts about what was shown in the photo in the first post?

.

I believe Mr. Templin is heavily invested in traction engine boilers, which do use lap seam boilers and may explain his passion for this issue.

But yes Kelly you are right, any lap seam boilered locomotives were drummed out of service years ago by this very issue.

Mr. Templin, myself, and several others do have a sincere interest in the safety of all antique boilers, including lap seam traction engine boilers. This is why we are so passionate, as we want to see the preservation and SAFE operation of same. Kelly is correct as there aren't any locomotives so equipped in service.

In the BIG picture, the sheer number of traction engines operating dwarfs the number of locomotives operating. At the larger shows, it's common to see 50 engines. Nowhere in the USA will you see that number of locomotives in one place, nor in several places, in a year's time.

If there were to be an accident / incident / explosion of a traction engine boiler, locomotive boiler, antique steamboat boiler, or other "antique", then the repurcussions in the eyes of the public and insurance companies would cross traction / railroad / boat / etc. lines. All would suffer. There has already been one traction engine and one locomotive boiler failure in recent times. If an accident becomes known that makes the general public afraid, they won't be buying tickets for any steam train.

Nobody posting here takes this lightly, nor is stupid enough to promote a passion beyond safety. What is being discussed is the possibility and probability that the bad reputation that lap seams have received is due to workmanship issues MORE SO THAN joint design. It is important to remember that all preserved steam no matter what application is directly or indirectly connected to all other preserved steam.

Assumptions...we all know that that means, don't we? I am not heavily invested in anything but an interest in reasonable safety and operating preservation of history. Also, lap seam boilered locomotives were not "drummed out of service by this very issue." The Espee, the Southern, the L&N, and several other railroads that still had some smaller, older power on the roster late in the game operated lap seam boilers, both plain and with a welt plate, right to the end. Both Baldwin and Porter built new, lap seam boilers for locomotives well into the ASME standards age. They have not been "outlawed" by the NBIC nor the FRA, but both have an inspection standard for them.
I have spoken with several unknowing individuals that are patently afraid of any and all rivited boilers, there likely are still inspectors out there that falsely believe that riviting is outlawed. There are also those that want the manditory retirement of all rivited boilers, and a set age of retirement of any vessel after 20 years. Kinda knocks any steam preservation in the head, don't it?

Dan Markoff's narrow gauge Eureka, Baldwin, 1875, has a lap seam boiler. I recall reading a while back, but can't find it to quote, that he faces a quandary; the FRA wants an internal welt installed, which was the old ICC approved retrofit, but the state boiler inspector has ruled that he will no longer certify it if that is done, as it would make visual inspection of the original seam impossible. I have not read anything further, and do not know what decision has been made, but it appears this question is not entirely moot for railway preservation.

.

Kelly,

It took a couple days to get around to searching for the discussion I recall, and I've determined it was most likely on the Narrow Gauge Forum, the link to which I followed is now dead... But I did find reference to a doubler being riveted into the Eureka's boiler.

However, what I recall of the discussion, which must have referred to the time when the original restoration was done in the early 1990s, was that the FRA insisted on the doubler plate, while the Nevada State boiler inspector insisted that if that was done, he would not certify the boiler under state code, because he could no longer inspect the lap seam. I found it interesting that two jurisdictions could come down on opposite sides of this issue.

I don't follow the NG scene, and have no knowledge of which agency is presently certifying the Eureka, if any. Has it been run since the initial 15 years ran out?