......

Thanks M, this is great stuff.

I see how to make just about every mistake possible; Pg. 107 fig. 55. The only thing they did not do wrong was that they missed cutting into the sheets with the rivet heading/setting tool.

So in the Fig 53, the two sheets fit together ideally, there is no divergence of either sheet after the riveted joint, the hole is perfectly sized, the rivet was perfectly sized and headed and it looks like a perfect joint. It looks like the builder did such a good job of this joint that no one is ever going to improve it with a chisel.

I'd like to see some examples of bad joints improved with by caulking, thats what makes the term "caulking" seem like a magic trick at this point (of my very early boiler education).

Is there ever any real caulk (putty made for boiler seems) introduced into a boiler for any reason? If so, when and where would it be acceptable to use some type of liquid sealant in a boiler seam or tube/flue joint, (other than on threaded joints of course)?

Hello All,

First, substandard conditions within a boiler or any mechanical structure should not be tolerated by any one. It is the view of most people that if someone can not perform their tasks one should not be allowed to continue no matter the task. Furthermore I strongly urge those making decisions about the level of maintenance on their locomotives please consider both the short term and long term cost of any decision. I also feel the need to remind people that the inspection codes that they are under are a minimum standard and not the top standard everyone should try to reach.

On my previous post in this thread in the last paragraph, the intent of my comments was to put the focus on the entire industry and not just any one part. This view of the industry short comings is not only my views but the views of many people who care deeply about railroad history. It is important that we as an industry take a constant critical look at our self to grow. It is very frustrating to hear a former executive describe an organization’s board of directors as “Clueless” or a donor to several organizations lament the fact that people only call him when they need money. Today I am seeing people focusing their contributions in such a manner that they make sure that they focus their donations to lead organizations in a particular direction in the hopes that someone will be able to see where they need to grow. In other cases no donations are made because information from the group is not forth coming and it appears that a secret society has formed that hides any or all information.

Too many people in this industry do not realize the importance of open public communication. Others talk of leaders in our industry almost as if they were gods and quite willing to ignore how they have behaved so bad that others associated with them at some level or time are left with a bitter taste that affects other groups and causes severe tensions between organizations. The problems of communication that I see the ESC and the A.S.M.E. committee are only a small representation of the problem this industry faces. Plain and simple this inability to communicate is driving away potential supporters of projects.

On the subject of A.S.M.E. meeting attendance, I think many would agree that it is hard to plan to attend a meeting even committee members are unsure if a meeting is or is not going to take place. In the thread “ From the TRAIN News Blog (Re: New Locomotive Boiler Code) you will see that I asked for meeting reports but received nothing except the one report by Mr. Rimmash in which you entitled “ESC/ASME/NBIC Meetings NON MEMBER REPORT”. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Rimmash again for that report. But even reporting on the meetings does not cover the emails going between all of the committee members. If things are done in the dark how does this help educate people or allow those who are unable to make the meeting have an understanding of what is currently under discussion?

For Mr. Rimmash

Let us move to the subject of Fillet welded staybolts. When reviewing the post on this subject it appears a couple of subjects may not be understood. In the scientific and engineering world you have to prove your new design or standard. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove it. It is only their responsibility to ask critical questions to allow you to effectively defend your work. As I understand the process the ASME committee has is this committee comes up with a proposed rule change. Other committees review the proposed changes to see how it affects them and then they move it for final approval or it is sent back to the original committee for reconsideration or even rejected because of the affect the change will have on other parts of the code. I would not be surprised that the technical questions that were left unanswered here will come up again in the pier review process. For those of you who do not remember these issues include the concerns from Mr. Matt Austin about a finite analysis of the stress values for “A. 12 thread per inch – USF B. full penetration weld and C. fillet weld” (from the tread “From the TRAIN News Blog (Re: New Locomotive Boiler Code)” Post subject: Fillet Welded Staybolts Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:37 am). In the thread entitled “Technical Questions” (from 2007), the issues of stress risers and Crevice corrosion cracking were raised. These issues need to be studied and new data put forth to create the change you want. If you truly want this change then I suggest you and others provide the materials that are going to be needed to make it a success.

If you have taken personally the criticism of a well meaning but what I and others believe to be a well intentioned but miss guided effort then I am sorry that you have seen it that way. No matter the profession, when professional criticism is clouded by personal feelings progress on moving things forward stops. It is important to have heated non personal, public debate/debate about technology. Public debate helps prevent people from hiding real positions and allows everyone to grow with a better understanding of the issues.


Respectfully

Robby Peartree

Lets just give up on this thread, there are way too many ego's here and its ridiculous, most of us dont even know what postings are being talked about because half of them get removed the are so argumentative.
It does the preservation movement a disservice in the end.

Mike Pannell

Mike, as you note, there are personalities and egos...

At the core are a bunch of well informed, educated, experienced guys who are passionate about the technology.

There are clearly more than one way to make and repair a boiler... new technology is making the decision about what is right more difficult to identify for many of us.

There seem to be a couple of approaches... Matt likes to quote history... John is a modern practitioner... Bobby is an modern intellectual...

They are coming at the same problem from very different places...

As a slightly educated observer... We are watching a very high lever discussion amount very educated practicioners... They are three (and more) talking about the same issues, speaking slightly different languages...

there is a great deal of experience and knowledge being presented.

I have had just enought boiler experience to understand what I don't know.

Your always friendly moderator, Randy

BUMP!

Dear Mr. Pannell,

Do not make the mistake of letting personalities, personal relations, and perceptions get in the way of the facts. The discussion of fillet welded stays while currently a remote possibility with the ASME the reality is that most operations are under the FRA which has allowed locomotive with them to operate in the US. For many people here the discussion is about reducing staybolt failure but in this design something has to be the weakest point and if it is not the staybolt then what is it? What is its nominal life expectancy? How will it fail? What are the consequences of the failure including emergency procedures needed, crew training needed and the results of such a failure not being recognized or handled properly on the rest of the industry?

True preservation of any object should not be for some personal gain but focused on the care and long term health of the artifact itself. It is easy to change this or that and replace this and that but at what point do we one in their efforts to improve an artifact in fact destroys part or all that they claim to preserve?

I have seen ignorance and egos do a lot of damage to organizations. One really needs to not allow ones emotions to get into the decision making process. I have seen too many times someone say something could not happen as it was right before them not because it was not a possibility but because they refused to see it. In the end it hurts us all. If one spends time studying engineering ethics one sees this time and time again. Do not draw conclusions about someone based upon a series of post because in these posts we only see what the author wants us to and people are rarely so black and white.

Respectfully,

Robby Peartree