I would start asking for a definition of "an individual competent to conduct the inspection" long before asking to define the word "entire." Still so far this thread is just speculation anyway, all the thread has to offer are some photos alleging that the boiler was under steam and propelling the locomotive on it's own, enough to peak my interest but not enough for me to grab my pitchfork and start marching west.

Perhaps the real issue is that the government is trying to regulate too much to begin with. This reliance on government to solve all of society's ills and to micromanage activity has resulted in the paralyzed society that we now live in.

What harm has been done by the steaming of this locomotive? None that I can see. If something went wrong then there are insurance policies and civil courts to handle that.

Not specifically in regards to this locomotive as we do not know the situation but as a matter off factuality..... If a locomotive were operated, illegally..... forget illegally, even without going through some act of due diligence to accurately and "entirely" ensure that it is safe to hold pressure......forget that, if a steam locomotive is involved in a catastrophic failure or some other incident resulting in loss of life insurance rates will sky rocket and possibly worse. The government does not have to allow steam locomotives to operate.

Regulation is not a bad thing, not in regards to our industry. The rules we follow are not new, we simply have a few modern methods for inspection and have to deal with bringing locomotives out of retirement versus just inspecting them on a 5 year basis.. These rules date to the twenties and as with most railroad rules....were written in blood.

Cheers, Jason

What harm?

Ummm, we can all list the known injuries and fatalities in the last twenty years from incompetent boiler supervision in preservation.

Gettysburg 1278

Steam Tractors in Medina, Ohio

A close call I know personally that I will not share.

And even under quality supervision, accidents happen

UP Challenger flue collapse

Scalding death in cab of 2-8-2T in Northwest

To assert that regulation is fundamentally wrong goes hand in hand with the assertion that you are smarter than everyone else and do not need to be told what to do.

Very funny Jason but someone might interpret "entire" to mean jacket and lagging off and looking things over that way and not un-tubing and going inside. As the latter seems to be the case, it's reasonable to ask if that stems from any actual provisions in the regs or just the accepted interpretation of them. I'm glad the safer course is followed but having not pored over the regs, I never knew whether that was in there or not. Maybe I'm a little surprised that it isn't.

Steve

The regs exist because there is an inexhaustible supply of idiots, some of whom insist on playing around with boilers.

As for insurance, do you think there is a line of insurance companies just waiting for the opportunity to insure an uncertified, non-complying, boiler?? If so, you must also not think that insurance will be harder to get and cost even more for everyone as a result of things like this.

We don't know yet whether these guys played by the rules, ignored the rules, or didn't know about the rules. If it's one of the latter two, then they will deserve what they will get from the FRA and their insurance company (assuming they even have one).

If it's number 1, then more power and congratulations to them.

The rules are very specific. Not only must the lagging and jacket come off, but enough flues have to be removed to allow a full inspection of the interior of the boiler.

If old #97's boiler is large enough that all you have to do is remove a few flues on the outside of each row and the bottom row or two so the skinniest guy on your crew can squeeze inside and do the inspection, that's fine. If it isn't, then all the flues have to come out to make the inspection. The interior inspection is looking for things that cannot be detected from outside the boiler, such as cracks, cracks around rivet holes, wastage, warpage, discoleration, scale buildup, mud burns, and myriad other things.

”Appendix A to Part 230—Inspection Requirements”
1472 Service Day Inspection Requirements; §230.17
1. Removal of boiler flues (as necessary) and cleaning of boiler interior.
2. Removal of jacket and lagging and inspection of boiler interior and exterior.
3. Hydrostatic testing of boiler.
4. Thickness verification (boiler survey) and recomputation and update of steam locomotive specification card, (FRA Form No. 4).

Speculation may run rampant as to what is going on with this engine, but there is no need to speculate about Part 230 rules. Read them for yourself, they are fairly brief as government regulations go.

I don’t know any more about this engine than anybody else, but I sure would like to see a photo with the boiler stripped down, and gridded off for UT testing.

While you're welcome to your political opinion, the "government needs to get out of lives" stuff isn't applicable here. The FRA Regs were written by a team of steam locomotive experts, some of which pop in here from time to time, and held public meetings to do so. I think they still hold those meetings?

No shadowy bureaucratic dealings here. No government micromanagement. Just regulations that make sense in the modern world to keep Bob, Dave and Steve from blowing themselves up when they decided to fire up Ol' #9 in the park.

Remember, most knowledge of steam locomotives is written in blood somewhere back in time.

I'll be interested to see what ever comes of this case, but until someone involved speaks up its just all of us speculating. And while I don't think we're important enough to warrant an explanation from them, though I hope they'll be kind enough to do so anyway.

No harm at all! Just a blatant and willful violation of federal government regulations and requirements is all. (assuming that the current speculation is true, of course) ;)



Please explain how steaming (steam pressure above atmospheric and a fire in the firebox is what I'm assuming you're referencing) a RETIRED locomotive's boiler is NOT bringing it out of retirement so we may better understand your thought process. Maybe (with your extensive legal background), you've uncovered a promising loophole that will allow such locomotives as the J to return to steam without a boiler survey! After all it is retired, right?



Go right ahead and give them a call then, Bubba! Obviously, you haven't so why not put up or shut up and perhaps put this thread to bed, seeing it was YOUR "novel" concept.



Hallelujah!!


It truly disappoints me that so many on this thread whom I have the utmost respect for are so genuinely accepting of this (alleged) situation. Whether it happened as we've speculated or not the rules set forth by the CFR are there for a reason. The simple suspicion of even slightly deviating from the CFR should throw up a ton more red flags than what already has. Softworks brings up an excellent point regarding such accidents as the 1278 and Medina. As has been said on this forum before, it won't be the bureaucrats that put steam to bed for good, it will be the egregious insurance rates after another major incident. It could take just one more idiot whom, for example, interprets the ruling in his own manner and has a catastrophic failure as a result where someone gets killed that extinguishes the fires once and for all.

That is all,
DC

Well, to bring the discussion back to the DNE 28, SOMEONE decided that it was OK to steam this loco up. Whether they were simply unaware of the provisions of Part 230 (HIGHLY unlikely 12 years after the fact!) or they were aware of the regs and decided that they were not under FRA jurisdiction (MUCH more likely) is really the point here. The local FRA inspector is the one who will be visiting these folks and will set them on the straight and narrow. Whether that will involve a "slap on the wrist" and a "You should have known better! Don't do that again!" or a fine is up to the FRA.

In the meantime WE have had the thrill of seeing a long retired loco seemingly alive and well!

Regulations are in place for reasons such as this alleged incident. Same reson we have a law that make it illegal to murder someone. You have to have some enforcement and penalty to prevent it from happening again.

So the question of what's the harm, then what's the harm in not paying taxes, drunk driving, drug use, and driving without a driver's license.

It's the same thing folks, someone breaks the law they should have to face the penalty.

Scalding death in cab of 2-8-2T in Northwest
This accident would not have been prevented by any boiler examination. It was caused by human error . The man who died was a dear friend of mine who made a fatal error while operating a valve in the cab. I spoke to him on his death bed I can only hope he heard me.i knew him from my first involvement with working on steam.It is however a reminder that we work on equipment that is unforgiving to such. All the more reason that the 1472 requirements, though they may seem onerous are so vital. I can only urge a everyone to never work on equipment without a clear mind and awareness of what is going on around you. Your life and others depend on it. My screen name is in memory of a character he invented as he was a great raconteur as well as a talented musician. His name wasMurt Ferris. He worked on steam since he was a young lad on the Empire State RR Museum's 103 alongside his Dad. I met him at the Valley Railroad in 1971 and we became like brothers. As I still continue working with steam, his memory remains a stark reminder to always be vigilant. I never refer to an engine as a he or she, doing so makes it seem benign or human. They are after all machines with no conscience. Never let your guard down, be safe all.
From the heart, in memory of my friend,
Frederick E. Jordan

His name was Kurt Ferris not Murt (darn small screen)

Would make a great engine for the museum excursion, don't you think? Great rear movement visibility. Low maintenance, light axle load.