THIS IS FOR THE MECHANICS IN THE FIELD ONLY
Here is one that bothers me.
49 CFR part 230.62 If I administer the proper water treatment and have a base line for thickness, my dry pipe will last for many, many years. But if I have to go in the boiler every year and grind metal off of it to get a good U/T reading, then I am the one destroying the dry pipe by making it thinner. Let's say once every fifth annual would be a good time to check the thickness of a dry pipe. The rule of every annual is way too much. Anybody with me on this?

First thing is that the new CFR part 230 is a good set of rules. You want to go back to five years on your boiler then be my guest.

The metal is not to be ground away when you do your UT. If your water chemistry is correct you shouldn't have scale or not much. Now to get to base metal try a power rotary wire brush, the aggressive kind. this will get you right down to metal so the UT will give you a good reading

Reqardless of water treatment program, moisture is always present inside the drypipe. This is where the loss of metal will mostly be. As another post has indicated if water treatment is working there should not be scale build up requiring grinding of new sampling spots. A power wire brush or sanding pad will suffice to clean the metal. There are also devices for determining metal thickness where the surface is not clean, however clean is good!

HMSC
HISTMACHRY@AOL.COM

> First thing is that the new CFR part 230 is
> a good set of rules. You want to go back to
> five years on your boiler then be my guest.

> The metal is not to be ground away when you
> do your UT. If your water chemistry is
> correct you shouldn't have scale or not
> much. Now to get to base metal try a power
> rotary wire brush, the aggressive kind. this
> will get you right down to metal so the UT
> will give you a good reading
I don'r grind when doing a ut. Polish it with a fine disk say 180 grit or more. You can get them in auto parts stores. I use a 3"dia. for most jobs as they last longer than 2" ones. btw you can get a rubber mount and disk from msc.

Bob Yuill's Historic Machinery Services page is excellent. Yuill is among the best in the steam field and the high quality his work speaks for itself. He comes highly reccomended for contract steam work. You will get quality results from Yuill and he is worth every dime. No, Bob did not *pay* me to endorse his work, either!! Kerry

> Reqardless of water treatment program,
> moisture is always present inside the
> drypipe. This is where the loss of metal
> will mostly be. As another post has
> indicated if water treatment is working
> there should not be scale build up requiring
> grinding of new sampling spots. A power wire
> brush or sanding pad will suffice to clean
> the metal. There are also devices for
> determining metal thickness where the
> surface is not clean, however clean is good!

Also, don't test the same spot every time do a random selection of test locations so any metal removal that does happen isn't cumualitive.

pdalleska@stuhrmuseum.org

>If you read the in-depth artical leading up the new rules there were some very good reasons for having dry pipes tested every year. A number of locomotive run-a-ways could have been prevented had the dry pipes been even visualy inspected.

I agree that grinding a pipe takes matiral off and I agree also that using a form of cleaning of the pipe before testing is the best way to test. I have however found in doing the math that if a dry pipe is in good condition and if the water program is good and if a testing method is used that does not remove material from the pipe that a good dry pipe should last a long time.

Where I do agree with the rule is that if something is found that makes the pipe marginal or even leads one to think that the pipe is too thin, it should be changed. Much a do has been given to how difficult it is to change a dry pipe....I do not agree, they are simple and even easy. I end with this thought. Is it not easier to change a dry pipe that "may" be in question than it is to clean up a locomotive that ran away and possibly killed somebody in the process.

The rules make us safe as an industry......no support on changing the rule!

John E. Rimmasch
CMO/OC Steam Department

Also, don't test the same spot every time do
> a random selection of test locations so any
> metal removal that does happen isn't
> cumualitive.


http://www.ocsteam.com
JERimmasch@oc.com

> Where I do agree with the rule is that if
When was the last time a locomotive walked on anybody from a dry pipe failure?
And if there has been one recently did the crew ever do an internal?

> The rules make us safe as an
> industry......no support on changing the
> rule!

> John E. Rimmasch
> CMO/OC Steam Department

> Also, don't test the same spot every time do

> First thing is that the new CFR part 230 is
> a good set of rules. You want to go back to
> five years on your boiler then be my guest.

I simply posted a question about one rule. I didn't put forth that the new rules should be thrown out as obviously how you read between the lines. If your dry pipe is good to begin with and your water treatment is good then a test every year is a bit much. I don't waiver the rules, the book is just a very skimpy guideline. If thats all you are doing is following the book then you are not doing enough. Just because the FRA says it is safe is not just cause to assume it is.

> When was the last time a locomotive walked
> on anybody from a dry pipe failure?
> And if there has been one recently did the
> crew ever do an internal?

exSR 4501 had a dry pipe failure at speed on the road in the 1970's, which resulted in total loss of control of the throttle. The crew had to put on both injectors, kill the fire, open the cylinder cocks, center the reverser and bring the train to a stop by emergency air. It was not funny.

While it might seem silly to assume the dry pipe is getting thin, it's just a silly to assume that it is not getting thin. These things do wear out, and water treatment programs do have problems. The only way to know is to test the thing. There is no room for assumptions.

> When was the last time a locomotive walked
> on anybody from a dry pipe failure?
> And if there has been one recently did the
> crew ever do an internal?
Yes they do fail! In the 1960 I was working on a 2-8-0 with a leake throttle. We tested the dry pipe and it was ok . We could not make the throttle tight. So I put the valves on center and hooked up a fire hose to a fire plug and turned on the water with the throttle clamped shut. Water came out between the boot leg and the pipe. The pipe was paper thin at that place. Of course it was not possible to ut. the pipe inside the boot leg. It looked ok but ready to break off. That would interesting under steam. bb