In all honesty, there is not going to be a shortage of articles about lap seam boiler failures from a period of time when ALL boilers were built as lap seams............

I suspect that Mr. Austin has had a very bad experience with a lap seam boiler and that this has colored his view of their very existence. It would be nice to know what his thesis is in this regard. Failing to account for all other potentials of boiler failure (never a mention of operator error, or at least the actual investigation findings) is a simplistic out.

So, rather than putting up these articles that take us nowhere, please tell us the real story of your concerns with this particular boiler design.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

I second said motion.

There are a couple people that show up at every farmer's market I attend, attempting to pass out copies of a newspaper whose agenda is somewhere, as near as I can tell, between Karl Marx and the I.W.W. ("Wobblies"). Finally, today, I got up the nerve to go up to them and propose "Okay. I'll accept and read your paper with an open mind, but in trade would you be willing to read a copy of The Limbaugh Letter if and when I procure a copy? Or maybe this copy of Reason Magazine?"

Their reactions indicated that their minds were closed. As I suspected.

I have no reason to favor or disparage the concept of lap-seam boilers, but the more I hear "propaganda" against them, the more I'm left asking, in response, what the pros are.

It is never the known but the unknown in engineering that scares me the most as I do not know how to overcome those issues. If individuals do not want to educate ourselves on the issues of our machines then the “Friends of Steam Locomotion” will do more to put it into perminite retirement than any “Adversary” could. The Ohio tractor explosion showed a lot about inadequate maintenance and if something were to happen today I am not sure what the political environment would produce but it would seem to me that a few reminders of historic events is not always a bad thing as it should remind us as to what the purpose of periodic inspections are. Education is a valuable tool and if someone chooses to ignore a lesson then who is the dummy the teacher or the student?

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree

The reason most state boiler codes either prohibit or are very restrictive of unreiforced riveted longitudial lap seams in barrel courses was because of the problems with longitudial cracks developing inside the joint. These cracks were hid so the crack could develope until the joint failed causing explosions. One of the methods developed to inspect this area was to cut a V-notch between the rivets so the the hidden area of the opposite plate can be inspected. I have seen a few lap seam boilers inspected this way it does not effect the tightness if properly caulked
or strength of the joint.
I once worked on a very old lap seam boiler we were inspecting for possible operation and had a X-ray company come out and inspect if we could Gama-ray the lap seams and look for this type of longitudial cracks. The operator told me that because of the films being on top of the rivits it would be difficult to get good films But if the film was positioned without the rivets we could get a good job. Never did it. project was stop for other problems.
Has anyone had experance with shooting lap seam joints and looking for cracks with good results?
Dennis Daugherty

So here's another question.

Why care?

How many operational, or potentially operable (and by this I mean that are actually in progress, have funding, staffing and an operations plan) lap seam boilered locomotives are out there?

Bytes are cheap, but even they can be wasted arguing a point in a discussion that doesn't really need to exist.

Dennis: I think there is a way to fully x-ray a lap seam. It should take two shots, one of the two plates, and the second under the rivet heads. The result is an underexposed rivet area on the first, and an overexposed plate area on the second. The A.S.M.E. Code section V should offer some details as to how this is done. Matt A., have you done this, and can you provide any insights?.

Ed: While there may be few operable lap seam locomotives, there are a lot of lap seam steam tractors out there. A serious mishap to one could have very bad regulatory impacts on all obsolete boilers.

Would Shear Wave be appropriate?

dave

Virginia uses shear wave. To date, no lap seam cracks have been found.

There are a at least three narrow gauge Porter 0-4-0's active in the west which have lap seam boilers. I suspect there are other, similar small engines, outside of FRA's regulatory oversight with similar boilers. Appearently there are steam tractors out there too.

What is the situation with 2' gauge equipment? I would suspect some of the real Maine equipment is old enough to be lap seam?

Of the 5 surviving Maine 2' locomotives, the 4 that ended up at Edaville (Monson 3 & 4, B&H 7 & 8) all got new boilers in the late 1950s from Dixon machine works in Rhode Island. (Edaville #5, from the Louisiana plantation, was also reguaged and reboilered around the same time.) As far as I know, the original boilers were scrapped. I do not know if any of them were lap-seam.

The 5th, WW&F #9 (ex KC #4, exx SR&RL #6) retained its original 1891 lap-seam boiler until its rebuild was started by the WW&F museum. Maine state law prohibits use of lap seam boilers, so a new boiler has been constructed. The original boiler is being preserved as a museum artifact and will be displayed to illustrate its need for replacement, etc. (In fact, I understand that the old boiler was just painted 2 weekends ago.)

Incidentally, the new boilers on all the Edaville equipment are now starting to fail inspections, due to a faulty construction method used around the firebox. This was discovered (and is being addressed) during the ongoing restorations of Monson #3 and B&H #7. Monson #4 (and B&H #8) will need this repair before they can steam again. WW&F #10 (ex Edaville #5, not an original 2-footer) is in better shape (since it was not used as frequently as the other locomotives) but will eventually need this issue addressed as well.

I am absolutely shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that a boiler built in the modern era of ASME Codes, caluculations and stamps would fall victom to faulty construction techniques. It is also a sad coincidence that the faulty boiler would have been built in Rhode Island, a state with a bad reputation in that area.

I can assure you all that there shouldn't be any shortage of large diameter, externally fired lap seam boiler failures at the joint in the 1900 time frame. What there is a shortage of is small diameter, internally fired failures from this cause.

Question: how does one check for cracks in a butt strap?(sound of breaking wind in the churchhouse)

So then it sounds like this isn't a huge pressing issue in the railroad preservation community, right?

Safe to say there are < 6 locomotives in the country?

I'm not saying that these issues aren't potentially problematic, especially given the steam tractor spillover effect, but it just seems that this is an issue that is generating a lot of heat and light here, and bringing people to the boil, when it's really not something worth getting THAT worked up about.

I've come to really appreciate RYPN, but I'd hate to see people get upset and ruin the vibe over something that's really not of much consequence.

I don't think we can quantify the number of locomotives as under 6. There are many more tractors, stationary boilers etc, however, and the legislative brush paints a very broad swath should a failure happen in any venue. I wouldn't assume a lap seam tractor boiler failure wouldn't have consequences on riveted butt strap seam locomotive boilers as well. Lawmakers don't know the difference or care.

I think the undercurrent you sense is one about a mathematical approach supplanting an empirical approach in application to real life operations. Most of us out in the field have been dealing with things "like we have always done it" with maybe some nice new tools like ultrasound that let us "see" better but make decisions based on old school empirical criteria. I'm that way....and in my case, because a lot of the math is kind of opaque to me, and I have an intuitive, unnumerical geometric "feel" for stress rather than a quantifiable way of understanding it that has gotten me by pretty well for over half a century.

I have done Form 4 calculations but it isn't naturally easy for me, and I got qualified help and had my work checked by guys with the right initials after their names. It brought me to better understanding of the calculated way of considering stresses and reactions, so I have an open mind about not discounting the mathematical stuff I don't grok and take it as seriously as I do the stuff I'm more comfortable with.

I'm seeing what looks like supported evidence that maybe we need to take different or more frequent looks at lap seams to assure our ability to know - not just believe - they are reliably safe. What I haven't seen is a proposal with supporting documentation showing what that new approach might rationally be.

Broad unsupported statements and questioning motivations rather than information are not strategies that get us closer to rational comprehension of the specific situation, but easier to do than the math. Can we find a rationally supportable lap seam verification procedure that satisfies both camps?

dave