Interesting to read about how the standards are fairly loose.

So, now I'm curious about the "lesser grade" tubes that still meet spec. Obviously they're being placed in a boiler somewhere. What kind of boilers are they used in, and why are they acceptable there?

Yes, I understand that a stationary boiler has less stress on it, but does that make the tubes last that much longer? Kelly mentions tube losing their thickness, what causes that? Is it from the water, the flue gases or both? How do other applications not have the same problem you would have on a steam locomotive? Or, if they do have the same problem, then why have the standards been lowered?

I'm far from any kind of expert on metallurgy. I also know that there are few machines of the industrial age that are more of a custom item than a steam locomotive.

That said, I'm sure there are some sizes of tubes that are fairly common among many of the preserved and operating locomotives in this country. Any chance of the owners of those locomotives getting together to place a quantity order for high-quality flues at some kind of a bulk discount? I'm guessing that if the diameter is the same, cutting them for length would not be that big an issue? Just asking.

Also, has anyone in the business talked to steam operators in Europe to see what they are using for replacement boiler part sources? Might be an opportunity to piggyback onto an order from them - at least as far as the batch of steel is concerned. Many of those individual tourist railroads have more operating steam locomotives than a lot of entire states here do. I realize they are using Metric sizes and we are not.

.

You really only have two choices if you want to ensure absolute consistency, get a mill run to your specs and have your lab test it upon arrival before paying - we do this with staybolt material - or you can test each piece. The problem with the second option is what to do with the pieces you don't like other than put them where you can keep an eye on them.

All this makes lay-up procedures and water treatment all the more important.

Hee, hee, hee; Matt, I love your postings!
A couple of quick comments:
I too was at the aforementioned ESC meeting. One of the things I came away with was that the dirty, impure steel seems to hold up the best under our operating conditions. In the old days, the mills "killed" the steel with silicon (dirty). Later on they went to "killing" the steel with aluminium (clean). Early on steel was mostly made from pig iron (clean), now a lot of it is made from scrap (dirty, with a lot of trace elements).
From the chemical test reports which accompanied the tubes that Linn brought in for "show & tell", it was obvious that the tubes which had suffered some of the worst pitting I have ever seen were "clean" steel, while the ones which showed just typical scale, with an occational little pit or two were made from "dirty" steel (probably "auto frag" (automobile fragments) with some chromium, nickle and copper in it.
For years, it has been accepted knowledge that "modern steel" made from scrap wasn't as good as "the old stuff". What an eye opener that session was!
Now my other comment (as I get on my soap box): water treatment. None of these tube would have pitted at all were it not for the fact that they come in contact with water. Why do some outfits have problems with some tubes in a boiler but not other tubes in the same boiler? The same boiler, the same water, same service conditions, same water treatment. But is it the correct water treatment and is the water chemistry being monitored closely enough? In my opinion, unless your water is pretreated (read: softened, de-ionized or some such), a water treatment program must include DAILY testing of the water in EACH boiler inservice for: 1) oxygen, 2)P-alkalinity, 3) TDS(or conductivity) and (if you are really on top of the issue), 4) the proper amount of a scale dispersant or polymer.
Also, in my opinion, it was a real pity that the ESC and FRA did not mandate a water treatment program to be part of the rule when we re-did 49CFR Part 230.
I'll get off my soap box now...
Be well,
J.David

Is it possible to see material reports for tube material and also and explanation of the report showing clean Vs dirty material and how one is more corrosion resistant than the other? If at all possible what should the material report look like for SA178a that would provide the best service.

J. David: I'm a retired analytical chemist, and certainly have the expertise to do the analysis for the various parameters you mentioned. But, my professional experience was related to water soluble polymers that were used as thickeners and gelling agents, not for boiler water treatment.

What would be generally accepted ranges for oxygen (none detected, I would assume, or at least presence of the oxygen scavenger), P-alkalinity, and TDS?

I'm with you, in that I'm surprised that a water treatment program wasn't mandated. It really isn't all that difficult. In addition to the parameters you mentioned, hardness of the incoming water, if you are using a softener, should be checked to make sure you don't exhaust the softener's capacity. With the water quantities used by a steam locomotive, it doesn't take very hard water to use up the capacity of a "home-type" softener in less than a tender-full.

Jim Baker

about slow tube thinning, consider a sitting rusting locomotive, the natural elements will pick on the metals and while them away, a burning firebox has many more odd chemicals that eat on the metal, so you need the right metals that resist that, but I don't think that's perfect, which is why you have a retube and re-inspection over periodic time. The Lost Engines N&W 4-8-0's surely went thru all this. If I recall right the railroads could retube/inspect an engine in about 2 weeks time.

I like the discussion here, it shows our.."perfection" ways to make the perfect steel ain't the perfect it seems to be. The "dirty" metal seems to be better for flues.
Looks like I asked a good question.

Short answer is "nope".
Notice tensile and yield are not required for Gr. A & B.

Ok, this may be just way out there, but has anyone installed or tried a sacrificial anode in a loco boiler to see if this would deter any galvanic corrosion in the steel components? Maybe I'm off my rocker here, but basically we have a big boiler of electrolytic solution (water) and steel submersed with varying ions and elements. And, to top it all off, we have a DC electical system running nearby. Does controlling the water PH mitigate this inside the boiler?

Sully

Hi All,

Could someone kindly answer to me why we are only looking at the chemical analysis not looking at the internal stresses in the tubes after the manufacturing process? It would seem to me the manufacturing process could create an internal stress that would affect materials behavior. After all yield, hardness value, and other measurable testable characteristics typically have a lower and upper characteristics/limits. Depending upon a number of factors you could be in any part of the range.

Respectfully,
Robby Peartree

In short response to all of the above,

Actually, at the ESC meeting mentioned here-in a sub-committee was formed, to which I volunteered my efforts to that would in essence gather information related to the following:

1. Can we draw any firm lines that correlate material make-ups to particular defects (not accidents...but material defects) such as excessive pitting, cracking, stress fracturing (same thing as cracking right?) and on and on....

2. Based on all of the boiler work that many of us have done, do we have enough old pieces to test to find out what was in the good materials and there-fore, find a base line in the materials as to what made them good or bad.

3. I personally have begun some very in-depth studies with two major tube and Boiler Plate Manufactures in the US to learn and understand more about the actual process of making tubes and plate and how these processes may or may not effect what we are doing or how the material ultimately performs. The harsh reality is, we are steam locomotive mechanics, not steel makers.....we have a lot to learn about modern steel manufacturing and what happens in the process. It has already been discussed how informative the ESC meeting was related to the lessons we learned from the two very skilled quests of the steel manufacturing industry. It was like a brain candy store....it was great!

Offer to all of you;

Historic Machine Services (Bob), Mark Ray from TVRM and myself are working with others to get old boiler samples tested. I invite any of you watching to send me any old material that you have removed for any reason and I will see to it that the material is tested by a qualified lab to see what the make-up was. We are seeking good and bad material. Here are some PERFECT examples.

Send us a piece of fire box material. Be very specific about where the piece was located, information about the boiler and what precipitated the removal of the piece.

Send us a piece of a rear tube sheet knuckle. This is a common repair. Some knuckles last a long time, others do not. Mechanically we have a number of reasons why.....but could there also be a material specification reason as well?

Send us a portion of a door sheet knuckle, same reason as above.

Send us TUBES. Send us any tube and send us as much information as you can about the tubes.

The reality is, WASATCH is paying for these tests on our own. There is no budget for this project from the ESC, but it is one that I personally feel very strongly about. As such, I am willing to spend a few $'s on the project. If you want to help the process, send us some material and some information.

If you know we are going to be in your area, call us and schedule a meeting with us, we will come pick the material up. Currently I am in CA at the Niles Canyon working on Clover Valley No 4. I would be happy to meet with anybody in the area this weekend. I am happy to take minor material samples home with me.

Shipping Ground Transport (UPS/FEDEX or Carrier)

Wasatch Railroad Contractors
C/O Blake Gadbury
909 East Fox Farm Ave Unit 7
Cheyenne, WY. 82007

or, USPS

Wasatch Railroad Contractors
P.O. Box 20425
Cheyenne, WY. 82003

Contact me directly if you wish to chat out of this forum;

jrimmasch@wrrc.us

Thank you,

John E. Rimmasch

wrrc.us

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the info.

Robby

Kelly,

How did you happen to discover the reduced thickness on the tubes? Could you visually see signs of deterioration during the annual inspection?

Eric Hadder