In reading the posts below, the critical issue I think was only breezed upon: What can we do as a group to help ensure realistic project planning.

At least two organizations have found boilers to be much worse than expected, one organization reported a car much worse than expected once the siding was pulled off, etc.

Can we in some way focus on developing a check list or procedure that can then be posted someplace on this site for others to find tomorrow, next week, or ten years from now? We have talked of something similar to this in the past where some of us might be available to help out other organizations.

If NJMT had such a check list, we may have have taken a different approach to our current restoration, perhaps even doing a different locomotive.

Any takers? Although my excel capabilities are bleak, I'd be happy to pull it together with inputs from all of you. I suspect others maybe more qualified though (I have a very little ego!)



http://www.njmt.org
jrmay@njmt.org

A systematic procedure for determining the condition and estimating the cost to restore an artifact (sorry but I did use the A word) would be benifical to many organizations.I suspect that it's already out there in some form.

I think that the attitude change needs to happen on a broader level than just cars and locomotives. every piece of every collection cannot be expected to run. there isn't enough money, or volunteers or justification to do so. The attitude needs to shift from "I want to see this locomotive run" to an "I want to see this museum survive and it's collection preserved." A lot of groups will say they follow the latter but when you read the reports of meetings and the members talking, they are all pushing a personal adgenda out of pride or out of spite. It even happens on the board level. I don't need to give examples of that kind of crap because we've all heard and seen it first hand.

Many boilers were not given the repairs that they deserve under the old 230 because people were looking for loopholes and writting waivers the circumvent the rules to get another year out of the boiler so they could run the engine and well, "work the Johnson bar," you get the idea. In the process all of these locomotives accumulated so much defered maintenance the patches have patches.

The phone rings...

> A systematic procedure for determining the
> condition and estimating the cost to restore
> an artifact (sorry but I did use the A word)
> would be benifical to many organizations.I
> suspect that it's already out there in some
> form.

> I think that the attitude change needs to
> happen on a broader level than just cars and
> locomotives. every piece of every collection
> cannot be expected to run. there isn't
> enough money, or volunteers or justification
> to do so. The attitude needs to shift from
> "I want to see this locomotive
> run" to an "I want to see this
> museum survive and it's collection
> preserved." A lot of groups will say
> they follow the latter but when you read the
> reports of meetings and the members talking,
> they are all pushing a personal adgenda out
> of pride or out of spite. It even happens on
> the board level. I don't need to give
> examples of that kind of crap because we've
> all heard and seen it first hand.

> Many boilers were not given the repairs that
> they deserve under the old 230 because
> people were looking for loopholes and
> writting waivers the circumvent the rules to
> get another year out of the boiler so they
> could run the engine and well, "work
> the Johnson bar," you get the idea. In
> the process all of these locomotives
> accumulated so much defered maintenance the
> patches have patches.

> The phone rings...
I am a big eliver in uting boilers if fra or not. I did one last year the patches had patches and found 5 different thickness of plate in the fire box. Can anyone top that? btw the spots that look bad were not so bad and some places that looked ok were the worst. The tester doesn't lie but sometimes our eyes do. bb

staybolt2@netscape.net

Review Part 230.
Check boiler for cracks.
UT shell and wrapper.
Test metal.
Inspect running gear.
Analyze appliances and kick tires on the tender.
Review Part 230 again.
Develop estimate.
Wait 5 minutes.
Double original estimate.



Wrinnbo@aol.com

I got about 10 minutes into a long involved response before my flying fingers hit some bizarre key and the whole browser disappeared.

Idea: I volunteer to write an article or brief about the process I go through and submit it to RyPN. Maybe include a few dirty / rusty pictures. Other guys should do the same outlining their methodology. Perhaps they can be collected seperately in some dusty corner of the website for review as required?

Hume, good with you or would you prefer not?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

>The tester doesn't lie but sometimes
> our eyes do. bb

Somtimes your eyes are the only things that work when doing boiler inspections. Granted, the UT that was done on a boiler that I am working on now showed some thin spots, BUT today we removed the lower 12 inches of the firebox side sheets and it is amazing how much can be over looked by high tech tests.
Cutting the old parts away almost always reveals what you really didn't want to see. But aren't you glad you did. Now you know that the old 1/2" bolt used to pull the patch sheets in flush, and, was just welded over is no longer in the picture. Nor are the patch welds that don't have anywhere near full penetration. I am. And that was with a 12" section removed.
Bruce

> Hume, good with you or would you prefer not?

Hume's incommunicado in the middle of a move right now. Speaking for RyPN, go for it--that's the kind of content we always wanted, and still want, the most.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> Somtimes your eyes are the only things that
> work when doing boiler inspections. Granted,
> the UT that was done on a boiler that I am
> working on now showed some thin spots, BUT
> today we removed the lower 12 inches of the
> firebox side sheets and it is amazing how
> much can be over looked by high tech tests.

The grid method and setup that I have seen used on boilers nowhere comes close to the ability of UT testing to reveal defects. A good UT Tech can find internal defects in a piece of steel that can only be seen under a microscope after careful sample preparation. If you really wanted to get technical and do a 100% UT you could find much more then you ever wanted to see and drive yourself crazy as well as broke. You might be saying that the UT technique being used needs to be revised.



lamontdc@adelphia.net