There has been much discussion on the "Is the new boiler for Sierra #3 ASME Certified?" topic regarding who is certified to build boilers and Bob and Stephen have asked some very valid questions that deserve thoughtful and productive answers. I intend to relate what I know later simply because I need time to formulate my response. However, please do not let that stop anybody from posting answers or opinions in the mean time.

This should make for a very interesting conversation. For now I just wanted to get the ball rolling as I do not have the time right now to address this. I hope to get to it in the morning.

Hello Stan:

I will post something on this in a few days.

I am a designer, not a fabricator and I have worked with several fabricators.

Sincerely;

pkurilecz

Anyone can design and build a boiler that will be safe and reliable if they understand the underlying principles of what will attempt to disassemble the boiler once it is put in service and they know how to counteract those forces. That being said, outfits like ASME, NBBI, FRA, and others have come to pass simply because many people have designed and built boilers that were sub-standard and they failed. My observation is that poor design and poor craftsmanship sprout up due to two conditions - incompetence and economics.

Incompetence comes in different forms - oblivious incompetence, well meaning incompetence, and willful incompetence. All of these can and do produce less than satisfactory results and could probably be considered the reason for regulatory bodies that attempt to ferret out and prevent incompetence from preying on the unsuspecting populace. Unfortunately, regulatory bodies are made up of people not all of whom know what they are doing. Additionally in the boiler world these groups have grown out of the industry that builds the boilers. Enter economics.

Ignorance is a subgroup of incompetence and it usually lurks in the halls of the oblivious and well meaning. A fine case in point is the ASME rule that does NOT require telltale holes in staybolts that are attached by full penetration welds. I can only attribute this gem to economics, ignorance, and a phenomenal dose of rationalization. That welded staybolts on the extremities of a waterleg somehow magically don’t bend repeatedly in service like threaded bolts do is a concept that still escapes me.

I guess the short answer to how do you get to be a boiler shop, is that you set yourself up and build a boiler. The issue becomes where can you use that boiler and that is where the regulatory folks step in.

As to a designer who is not a fabricator, that presents different challenges. We are a fabricator with an “S” stamp so if we design something for in-house use, we typically know it is going to be built in accordance with ASME requirements overlayed by some more stringent FRA requirements, and finally overlayed with operational requirements that usually add more restrictions in order to obtain satisfactory reliability. In my opinion, aside from initial competence in design, verification is the most essential element in any design process. Somebody always needs to check your work. It is a pain in the rump but not doing it will lead to problems. Checking someone’s work is miserable duty. You need to verify everything which is tedious and unlike doing the original design, you get very little creative satisfaction. We try to balance this out so that no one person always gets stuck with verification duty.

When designing for someone else to build, the design process will be in accordance with who, how, and to what standard the boiler will be built. A design that will be fabricated by an “S” stamp holder for use within a jurisdiction that requires it generally can go out the door after verification of the design without any further oversight since all the manufacturing verification and oversight is built into the ASME process. This could certainly be the case for other codes and standards as well. If however it is known that a manufacturer who is not certified under some standard is going to build the boiler, further oversight by the designer will be required. When a boiler is intended to be built to a specific standard and by an accepted process and ultimately it is not, that can be an issue.

Ultimately boiler design and fabrication is no different than anything else. You get what you pay for and quality and safety starts at home. The best job always results if a designer checks his ego at the door. I don’t care how much you know, there is always something you don’t know and that is where a system involving many checks and balances throughout the process is the only way to eliminate as many booby traps as possible. You only have to look at the oil bubbling into the Gulf of Mexico to see what short circuiting that process gets you.

Linn,

That is one fine example of a thoughtful and thorough posting. Thank you, Linn.

Having worked with specifications and regulatory bodies for years, I applaud your patient input to this board and the subject at large. Bravo!

Fred Feiertag
retired metallurgist

Linn, I can not agree more with your statement. Thank you. Nathan (NWSB)

Bob owns Bob's Structural Iron (BSI) and is a responsible and knowledgeable designer and fabricator of steel weldments for construction and industry. He employs 2 welders that have been certified by BSI to the requirements of the American Welding Society (AWS) D-1.1 Code and have been licensed by the local Jurisdiction as required for structural welders. Recently, some of Bob's customers have indicated they would like BSI to build them small power boilers for use in various manufacturing processes. Bob realizes his company can make some good money building boilers and decides to pursue an ASME "S" Certificate.

Bob decides to purchase the Sections of the ASME Code he will need to build Code compliant boilers. These include: Sec. I, "Power Boilers"; Sec. II, Parts A-D, "Materials"; Section V, "Nondestructive Examination"; Section IX, "Welding and Brazing Qualifications"; and Section B31.1, "Power Piping". Total capital outlay is $4,115.00.

Bob begins to familiarize himself with the Code and discovers he needs to contract with an Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA) for the third party inspections his Code activities require. He finds out he can hire his local Jurisdiction (the State or Provence his shop is in) or a company from the ASME list of AIA's. Bob's insurance company has an engineering and inspection arm that offers AIA services so Bob decides to hire them to provide an Authorized Inspector (AI).

Since Bob won’t be building many boilers he does not want to invest in nondestructive testing (NDE) equipment and qualified employees. He decides to contract with his long time vender ACME Testing. ACME's procedures and employees meet all the requirements of the American Society of Nondestructive Testing. Bob writes a letter to the managing examiner at ACME requesting a current and controlled (meaning actively updated by ACME) quality control manual for his review. After reviewing the manual and the qualification records of ACME's employees to confirm ASME Code requirements, Bob writes the ACME manager a letter stating he finds the documents, procedures and qualifications acceptable and will use ACME Testing for all his NDE needs.

For those keeping tabs, an AI usually bills at $100.00-$150.00 per hour for regular time, depending on where in the country you are and NDE companies charge $80.00 to $150.00 per hour plus materials.

Bob has a meeting with his new AI to let him know he wants to get an "S" stamp and to learn some more about what he must do to meet the requirements of the ASME. Bob has written a quality control manual, as required by the Code, that has control protocols for: drawings, designs, specifications and documents; materials; fabrication; correction of non-conformities; welding; NDE; heat treatment; inspections, data reports and stamping; calibration of test instruments; records completion and retention; the AI; and statements of policy, authority and scope of manufacturing activities. Bob's AI explains to him that after BSI pays its fees and submits an application for the "S" certificate, the ASME will schedule a Joint Review, a two day examination of BSI's quality control manual and program, its manufacturing facility, its welders and weld procedures and the overall application of the quality control program. In simple terms, day one is a review of the quality manual and day two is a review to determine if BSI is doing what they say they will.

With a clear understanding of what will be expected from him, Bob fills out the application for an "S" stamp and sends in his fees of $2770.00. The ASME sends him a request for a deposit of $4000.00 to cover the cost of the review. BSI pays the deposit and the ASME schedules the review.

Next post, the Joint Review.

Stay Tuned.

.

A couple of months before the joint review at Bob’s Structural Iron, Bob meets with his Authorized Inspector and the AI’s supervisor at Bob’s shop to go over everything the joint review team leader from the ASME (the team leader could also be from the National Board, sometimes this costs less) will need to review. The AI understands that team leaders don’t go looking for problems. They review the quality manual and the manufacturing environment to satisfy themselves and ultimately the ASME, that the management understands Code requirements and has implemented procedures to meet those requirements. When a team leader finds an error on a weld procedure, he may also want to look at the procedure qualification record and the welder qualification record for similar errors. If material receiving documents are not properly filled out the team leader may want to look at purchase orders and bill of materials. Since this is BSI’s first review, the team leader will probably look at everything.

A big part of the second day of the joint review is the demonstration project. This is a sample project a certificate applicant will be required to do to prove their quality and manufacturing system. Since the Code allows a Certificate applicant to begin construction of Code vessels prior to receiving the Code stamp, Bob decides to use his first boiler for a customer as a demonstration for the joint review. Bob will be able to stamp the boiler and execute the manufacturer’s data report if and when he receives his stamp.

Bob is very good at designing steel structures, but knows little about designing boilers. He reviews Section I very carefully and understands the formulas, but he has no real life experience to guide him. He remembers his neighbor recently retired from being a mechanical engineer for Super-Big-Multinational Company and asked his neighbor, Kate, if she would help him. Kate is not a PE, but has over thirty years of experience designing package boilers for various industries. Bob knows he can hire a consultant to do all his design work, but his company takes the responsibility for the design work he accepts for use for Code activities. Kate takes a look at Bob’s quality control manual and provides drawings, calculations and a bill of materials that meets the requirements of the Code and the quality system. Kate also helps Bob to certify his welders for ASME Code work. The welders make sample welds as required by Section IX of the Code then Bob has the samples tested at a laboratory to determine the physical characteristics of the welded joint. He certifies his procedures as well as his welders.

On day one of the joint review, BSI’s inspector drops by in the morning to pick up several copies of BSI’s quality control manual. The manual will be reviewed at a location away from the subject company’s shop. Bob will not be present for this part of the review. The team leader, the AI and his supervisor and in some cases a representative from the Jurisdiction will conduct the manual review. This is meant to foster a scholarly and unbiased approach to reviewing the manual. If the review team finds issues with the manual, the team leader can ask the applicant to make changes or corrections on the day of the onsite review or cancel the review entirely until the applicant creates a Code compliant manual. The latter is reserved for extreme cases.
On the day of the onsite review, the review team and Bob meet at about 9am and begin the process of reviewing the demonstration project and the physical plant. The team looks at the drawings, calculations, traveler, material purchase orders, material receiving inspection reports, weld procedures and any other documents relative to the project BSI’s quality manual and the Code require. Next the team takes a tour of the shop. The team leader asks to see where material is stored, where welding rod and consumables are stored and looks to see that every accommodation the quality manual outlines for meeting Code requirements are indeed in place and being properly utilized. The team leader may want to see a welding demonstration be one of Bob’s certified welders.

At the end of it all Bob had to make a few minor grammatical changes to his manual, but he was informed the team leader would recommend the ASME issue BSI an “S” certificate. Bob knows he will have to maintain this same level of self regulation in concert with his AI’s inspection activities and that he will go through another joint review in three years when his stamp expires. For now, BSI is in the ASME certified boiler construction business.

Go Bob!

Nah, for me this was purely an academic discussion. I have no intention of going into competition with Linn.

Besides which, if I really do want to work on boilers, I'm sure the CMO at Mt Rainier Scenic will be happy to let me help out there. Probably start me out on something fun, like bucking staybolts or rolling tubes.

Nope, I've done enough of that stuff to know I don't want to make a career out of it! :)

Bob Harbison wrote:

"I'm sure the CMO at Mt Rainier Scenic will be happy to let me help out there. Probably start me out on something fun, like bucking staybolts or rolling tubes."

I could sure use the help on the 1472 on the 17. Thanks for volunteering!

______________________

Efstathios I. Pappas, MS
Chief Mechanical Officer
Mt. Rainier Scenic Railroad
soupac@aol.com
209 603 7363

Today I had written my take on the matter. As many of you know, Wasatch is a “Code” shop. We hold both the R and S stamp. I think the “Gods” of steam were unhappy with my post. I was just about to submit it when it was trashed for some reason…..is this a common problem on RYPN?

Short answers and my views.

Linn gave us a great philosophical explanation. There are and were many deep and hidden messages….reading Linn’s post was like watching Star Wars, you have to watch it a hundred times to catch all of the deeper meanings. I will go into none of them except to say….Thank you, Yoda (Linn) for the deeper side of things….I shall continued pondering your ideas and views!

The story about Bob and his desire to start a code shop. From a nuts and bolts view point, spot on. Yes, this is the basic process and yes it works and yes you and or any other person can go down the same path. Best of luck!

However, I think the deeper question here is; Why would anybody in their right mind even go out and subject themselves to this process in the first place? To this question I wish to speak this evening.

I started my working career as a boiler makers apprentice for a school district in my home town. I was raised in Utah, a state that has adopted and enforces the “CODE”. I went from that job to Locomotive Engineer at a local amusement park where I operated 24 inch gauge Crowns for three years and I also restored a 1904, 15 inch gauge live steamer as my High School Metal shop project. To say the least, I was, from a young age surrounded by the “CODE”. There were few CODE shops in Utah. I became and I am still good friends with the owners of these shops.

Point is; through the development of my company, Wasatch Railroad Contractors, it had been a long time goal of mine to obtain stamps and build boilers. After all, I knew about the code, I knew I had a skill and I saw a need in the industry to exploit that skill. With the help of others, I was able to achieve the goal. It has been one of the greatest things I have ever done!

Now, here is the part that will shock all of you the most. I knew, going in to this whole deal that we have those among us that wish to scorn, criticize, mock and belittle the efforts of others. I also knew going into it that I had competition, some good (Strasburg) some bad (others not mentioned and out of business anyway so who cares). I also knew that I was young, ambitious and that through persistence, though I am not perfect, I could make a contribution to the industry. The “pros” outweighed the “cons”. I subjected myself to known criticism from others in exchange for a desire to aid this industry.

Watching the No 3 Boiler discussion, I wish to make a few things VERY clear. I know for certain that the following comments are 100% true, I encourage those who do not sit on my side of the isle not to refute any of these….they are irrefutable. PERIOD.
The project of building the No 3 Boiler had a specific budget. I know of two shops who bid the job that submitted bids much more than the “unrealistic” budget would allow (Wasatch did not bid as we knew the budget would not accept our bid). I know that the customer signed off and accepted the boiler. I know, as I have seen pictures of it running that the FRA has signed off on it and that the operator has produced a viable Form 4. Otherwise, by edict of the California State Law and the Regulations set forth by 49 CFR Part 230, the engine and train (carrying passengers last week) would NOT have operated. Clearly the laws of a state and those of the FEDs have been conformed to. I know that those questioning the boiler have no jurisdiction in the State of CA, I have checked active credentials. I know that unless the FRA tells us (which it is not their duty) that No 3 is unsafe, or can not operate….we have nothing to worry about. I know that if the State of CA, the FEDS or any other regulatory agency had not signed off on the operation of the vessel, it would be parked in some heap of scrap metal. So really, there is no question here!

Rather a comment to Jamestown. Good work. I hope it came in at the budget price, I am glad it is running and please continue to subject yourself to the FRA and the State as applicable. To me…..end of game!

Now, my parting comment; Any boiler maker worth his salt, when finishing any boiler of that size will have “issues” that come up in the finishing process. Further, any good boiler maker will “patch” things up until he has found all of the problems that need to be fixed before releasing the boiler.

In respect to the photos posted by our good friend and warrior Matt A, truthfully, we have no idea when these photos were taken. We have no idea what condition and state of construction the boiler was in. We have no idea what “scab” patches were applied in the “diagnostic stage” before final finish, we have no idea what was fixed and what was not, yet we sit and criticize what we see. What we see if a new boiler under construction in some stage of the process to which we have no idea.

Now, to clear the air. ALCO produced 100% perfect boilers right of the box, right? NO WAY! Baldwin surely produced 100% perfect boilers right of the box…..right? NO WAY. OK, my personal favorite, LIMA, they produced 100% perfect boilers, no repairs needed and no leaks…ever, and they were riveted boilers! The problem is, I am yet to find this boiler, I have no idea who owned it and I am yet to actually find it in some museum. I am left to question if it ever happened at LIMA either.

The short reality is; There is no perfect boiler. There are those among us willing to criticize, not build this industry. There is today, no perfect boiler, there never will be. I knew all of this coming into the game and yet….I believe that our industry needs new boilers. I believe that we will see in our life time nearly all historic boilers replaced new. I believe that Wasatch is on the cutting edge of making this happen. I believe that we need not criticize what we do not know. ( You can not know, what you do not know, until you know it. L.D. Porta) I believe that there is a place for modern, proven technology in the historic steam world!

Mike Lewis will be posting a picture tomorrow of how we have put our money where our mouth is. Take a look;

Respectfully submitted,

John E. Rimmasch
Wasatch Railroad Contractors

http://www.wrrc.us

I try not to get political in my posts. I feel this site is a good place to relay technical information and, in the case of the Bob story, I was able to inform and exercise a little creativity.

Mistakes happen in shops that build one-of-a-kind products like locomotive boilers, but that should happen so rarely that when it does, the management, quality control and shop supervisors should feel compelled to analyze what went wrong and take steps to see the mistake never happens again. If the company I work for were to build a 5% Chrome vessel for high temperature and high pressure service (1200psi @ 900°F) or a Monel hydrogen fluoride reactor tower and we discovered a mistake was made in something as minor as an improperly processed material receiver everything stops until the issue is resolved and all departments are satisfied the quality of the project has not been compromised. Following the completion of the project, we have a post mortem to discuss how to avoid similar problems in the future. Quality matters, industry demands it. Any shop putting products into the stream of commerce has a professional and moral obligation to produce articles of the highest possible quality. Even an ASME stamp only guarantees a minimum standard.

Well......not exactly, as we have seen photographic evidence and historical rcords to prove - and I'm not referring to the 3 here. It SHOULD if all concerned know how to do their jobs well and care enough to do so, but a few boat anchors did get stamped and slip through the cracks.

Post mortems are also very good for determining why things did well, or how to make successful things better. Particularly, in events, if you run a successful one, take a day or two to rest and reflect, then hold a brainstorming session to see what caused the most difficulty and figure out how to make it less difficult in the future. We can always make anything easier, better and more profitable.

dave

Absolutely!

John mentioned that I would post examples showing how Wasatch Railroad Contractors (WRC) has placed it's money where it's mouth is. Here they are:


You will notice, if you look closely that one of these pictures includes not six, but seven (7) 15-inch live steamers, all circa 1900-1911. (See if you can find the seventh...) All of these are in various stages of getting new boilers at WRC.

That is not all. We have on order for other customers four (4) vertical boat boilers and look at this:

This is the (old) boiler from Swanton Pacific Railroad No. 1913. The new boiler, expected out by the end of the year, will replace this original.

So that's:

• 7 boilers for 15-inch gauge Cagneys,
• 4 boat boilers (with 2 more on order),
• 1 19-inch gauge boiler, and
• additional customers talking to us about replacing boilers for entire locomotive fleets

Is there a need for new boilers and CODE shops? I think JohnE made a good call!