My question has been answered, and I have learned some things -which is why I posed the question.

The concept would be to increase in-service time between shoppings for boiler work, through the use of "modern" steel for tubes.

Obviously, the subject has been approached. It seems that the dollar cost is the deciding factor.

The subject would surely warrent further study, if steam locomotives were still in common use. I still can't help but wonder, if there would be a way to avoid so much down-time. Keeping an engine in service, rather than in the shop being gutted would surely be a cost-factor.

How many million dollars per new diesel-electric road unit these days ???

Thanks to all those who contributed in the thread above.

> Obviously, the subject has been approached.
> It seems that the dollar cost is the
> deciding factor.

> The subject would surely warrent further
> study, if steam locomotives were still in
> common use. I still can't help but wonder,
> if there would be a way to avoid so much
> down-time. Keeping an engine in service,
> rather than in the shop being gutted would
> surely be a cost-factor.

The basic concept is that of life cycle costing. To compare the cost of two proposals over their lifetimes the analysis takes the purchase (capital cost) price of the machine and adding the present value of the future worth of the cost of operation and maintenance. The proposal with the lowest overall cost is the better one to implement.

This is one of the reasons that the RRs jumped onto diesel units like white on rice. Even though the acquisition costs were higher, the O&M costs were significantly lower.

Unfortunately, the FRA regulations will limit technological improvements. There is no cost advantage to using a material which will give a longer boiler life than 1472 service days and/or 15 years. At that point the flues must be removed in order to conduct an internal inspection. Unless you could do so with a method that does not require flue removal.

I do think that it would be interesting to revisit the design of steam locomotives to see if it would be possible to lower the O&M costs.

Hope that this helps.


UK Heritage Railways

> I do think that it would be interesting to
> revisit the design of steam locomotives to
> see if it would be possible to lower the
> O&M costs.

As has been done in Winterthur, by the late Dr Porta in Latin America and China, Girdlestone and others still at work. Please check out Hugh Odom's ULTIMATE STEAM PAGE for more informaton about their improvements.

Dave


irondave@bellsouth.net

Yes Dave, I am aware of this work. A great deal is directed at the operating costs by improving the draughting characteristics, combustion efficiency and so on.

What I would be interested in is looking at the maintenance portion.

I have tried to obtain copies of the books written by these gentleman, but have been unsuccessful.

Cheers;

PKurilecz

> As has been done in Winterthur, by the late
> Dr Porta in Latin America and China,
> Girdlestone and others still at work. Please
> check out Hugh Odom's ULTIMATE STEAM PAGE
> for more informaton about their
> improvements.

> Dave


UK Heritage Railways

> Unfortunately, the FRA regulations will
> limit technological improvements. There is
> no cost advantage to using a material which
> will give a longer boiler life than 1472
> service days and/or 15 years. At that point
> the flues must be removed in order to
> conduct an internal inspection. Unless you
> could do so with a method that does not
> require flue removal.

If a material could be used that could last alot longer (more than 1473 or 1474 days) would it not be appropriate to re-think those FRA reg's. The leaders of the steam community had alot to do with those new reg's, did they not ?

Suppose that tubes (and boiler barrels, flue-sheets, etc.) could be made from "Martian Moon Metal", that never ever decays under any conditions. I know, I know, it would cost too much to get the metal, even though Mars is closer now . . .

Bottom line:
I just don't like diesels. I run them for a living, and they're powerful and you can m-u two or more for more power (R-R-R !), and they're more efficient and yada-yada.

I'd rather see our RRs powered with American Coal, and I'd prefer to take a T-1 or a Y-6b up Locust Summit any time.

I know, in my dreams. speaking of which . . .

It took close to 50 years to bring the steam locomotive code into relatively modern ASMElike form - now we can weld on unstayed areas just like nuclear power plants, and the other big boys!

One rationalization of the 15 year calendar (as I understand it) is that it is a good idea to visit the inside of your boiler a couple times every lifetime to make sure things in there are as they should be.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I kind of like to know that that pressure vessel I am in close proximity to is going to retain its integrity. There are a couple I won't get near at an annual steam show not too far away.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> It took close to 50 years to bring the steam
> locomotive code into relatively modern
> ASMElike form - now we can weld on unstayed
> areas just like nuclear power plants, and
> the other big boys!

> One rationalization of the 15 year calendar
> (as I understand it) is that it is a good
> idea to visit the inside of your boiler a
> couple times every lifetime to make sure
> things in there are as they should be.

> This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I kind
> of like to know that that pressure vessel I
> am in close proximity to is going to retain
> its integrity. There are a couple I won't
> get near at an annual steam show not too far
> away.

> Dave

I've had prior experience with federal regulators. They make glaciers look as if they were Olympic sprinters. If anything, the new FRA regs are a sensible and rational regulation of an area of commerce and technology.

With respect to internal inspections, most state boiler (stationary) laws require an annual internal inspection.

As for changing the current regulations, there is a process for petitioning an agency for a change in current rules.

As for "martian moon metal", yes, there are materials currently available that would have lower wear rates and higher strengths. I seriously doubt that their use would be cost effective.

Cheers;

PKurilecz

pkurilecz@yahoo.com

I think the root problem here is that too many people get the separate issues of flue removal and boiler interior inspection confused with each other. This is not helped by the misuse of terms, such as "old 97's flue time expired" and others.

The requirment to remove the flues every 1,472 service days or 15 years HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE FLUES THEMSELVES. Nor their condition, nor what they are made out of, nor their life expectancy.

The sole reason for the requirement for removal of the flues is to allow the boiler to be entered, cleaned, and the intire enterior surface of the shell throughly inspected by a person. In the vast majority of boilers, it is not humanly possible to get inside the boiler and inspect every inch of the shell with the flues still in place. In many boilers, there is only a space of 5 or 6 inches between the outer rows of flues and the boiler shell.

As the regs clearly state, once the interior boiler inspection has been completed and any necessary repairs have been made, the flues removed must be examined, and unless something is found to warrant them being scrapped (being thin, cracked, etc.) the same flues that came out of the boiler may be cleaned, inspected, new ends welded on (to replace the ends cut off to remove them) and put back in the boiler. As long as the flues are in good condition upon removal, this can be repeated for as many cycles as the locomotive owner or operator wants. Ifg some of the flues do not pass inspection, the ones that do pass can be reused, and enough new ones installed to make up the difference.

This is how railroads did it for about 100 years.
Flues were pulled out and sent to the flue shop, where they were put in a large drum and rattled, to remove the scale and rust. They were inspected, then reclaimed and put back into store stock. Reclaiming took several forms; long flues could be cut shorter (cutting off the firebox end, for example, where fire cracks usually develop) and reused in engines with shorter boilers. Or they could be safe-ended to their original length and reused in the same lenght boiler, or even a longer boiler. Or cut into chunks and used to make pilots.

IOW, it is entirely possible (and in fact is it very likely, if properly cared for and good water treatment and boiler management practices are followed) for one set of flues to be used through 2 or 3 or even more 1,472 day/15-year cycles, just as they were used for several 4-year cycles (which is 1,460 days, BTW) back in the old days. Today, that is potentially 30 or 45 years of service from one set of relatively cheap flues, and maybe even longer.

IMO, that is more than enough longevity to amortize the investment, and is a good argument that more exotic materials are simply not justifiable. Why pay 4 or 5 times more for Martian Moon Dust (and the tools necessary to cut, expand, roll, bead and weld it) when it's STILL going to have to be removed ever 15 years to inspect the boiler shell?

...and I already know what the answer will be .... but, with the development of ultrasonic testing techniques, and I am talking a lot more complicated then shooting a thickness, why is it still necessary to go through all that work for a visual inspection ??? what are the parts that cannot be accessed with UT probes ?

PS: I'm used to seeing mechanized UT probes testing steel cleanliness and quality for submarine ballast tanks, space shuttle launch platform gas cylinders ...finding defects on a micro scale for quite large pieces. The Japanese have mechanized spiders crawling the welds of huge storage tanks etc. etc. etc. Is there some catching up to do to develop techniques or confidence in the systems available or has no one ever approached it from this POV ?

lamontdc@adelphia.net

.... but, with the development of
> ultrasonic testing techniques, and I am
> talking a lot more complicated then shooting
> a thickness, why is it still necessary to go
> through all that work for a visual
> inspection ??? what are the parts that
> cannot be accessed with UT probes ?

First is cost. Second is the skill levels required. But the biggest thing is the wide array of things a competent inspector will be looking for, not just thickness.

He's looking for wastage, cracks, loose or broken rivets, wastage of rivet heads, mud burns, caulking of edges at seams and joints, pitting (and the extent and depth of it), warping, loose seams, and many other things. He will be tapping braces and brace pins and looking for a myriad other things, like reduced thickness of the staybolts just above the point where the bolts enter the sheets.

I know of several boilers that have passed UT grid tests with flying colors but the thorough visual inspections turned up lots of thin places (which were not in the grids where UT readings were taken), and extensive and severe cracking that rendered the boiler unrepairable from a practical and economic standpoint. They might have run it for years and nothing would have happened, or it could have let go on the next trip. As it is, they are going to replace the boiler, which is the only reasonable course of action (aside from retiring the engine), IMO.

Had it not been for the visual, interior inspection, they would have put the flues back in and fired it up, oblivious to what was lurking inside, and basking in the warmth of a UT test that didn't (and couldn't and isn't required to) cover every square inch of the boiler.

Granted, there are some things that could be done by robots or by video borescopes, etc. But, can the average railroad museum or tourist line afford to buy that gear and keep it updated and keep people trained to do it? Or can they afford to bring in contractors with that kind of gear, and who know the differences between a rocket engine and a 100+ year-old locomotive boiler? I know of a couple of railroads that have been badly burned by extremely competent, well-regarded, world-wide testing firms that did UT's on boilers and didn't know what they were doing. (the giveaway was when they reported sheets thicker in some spots than when the boiler was new - IOW, they were reading the thickenss of the metal and of the scale adhering to it.) And again, how does that compare to the $4,000 +/- cost of pulling and replacing the flues every 15 years?

Had FRA put in strict and specific requirements for 3rd party testing and inspection, the howls of pain from the industry would have been something to behold. And there would not be much assurance that the results would be any better than what's being done right now, much cheaper.

AHA ~$4000 every 15 years ain't worth setting up a complicated UT system! One thing we learned with UT is that you don't go in to a new field without extensive training and sample prove up. If you can't tell the difference between steel and scale on a back reflection you aren't set up right ...which would have shown up if they tried a sample. Loose seams would also not pass a signal, never did a rivet but it would be fun to learn. For super critical safety items we could 100% UT about 10 sqft/hr by hand and the auto system would do a 40ft x 26in tank in about 15min. And again this is setup to detect much smaller seams, voids cracks and "dirt" then you will ever be looking for.
HINT: if you are forced into a UT test as a last resort, get the techs some samples so they can get some idea of the proper set up and you will avoid surprises.

lamontdc@adelphia.net