STEAMERS Steam Engine & Traction Engine Bulletin Board

National Board Meeting

Posted By: Glenn
Date: Monday, 9 February 2004, at 10:54 a.m.

Just recieved the tenative schedule for the National Board 73rd General Meeting in Nashville Tennessee, scheduled to speak is Morris L.Snow he is the chairman of the NBIC task group on historic boilers, the topic is "Potential for Disaster-Historic Boilers" I just wonder what bomb shell is coming next, it may not be looking real good, I hope they post the info later on. Date is May 10th

> STEAMERS Steam Engine & Traction Engine
> Bulletin Board

> National Board Meeting

> Posted By: Glenn
> Date: Monday, 9 February 2004, at 10:54 a.m.

> Just recieved the tenative schedule for the
> National Board 73rd General Meeting in
> Nashville Tennessee, scheduled to speak is
> Morris L.Snow he is the chairman of the NBIC
> task group on historic boilers, the topic is
> "Potential for Disaster-Historic
> Boilers" I just wonder what bomb shell
> is coming next, it may not be looking real
> good, I hope they post the info later on.
> Date is May 10th
How do I find the steamers site

No Message

> I just wonder what bomb shell
> is coming next, it may not be looking real
> good, I hope they post the info later on.
> Date is May 10th

That particular task group has nothing to do with locomotive boilers. It is concerned only with steam traction engines, portable steam boilers (old agricultural and logging power plants), etc.

There is a separate NBIC task force devoted to steam locomotive boilers.

> That particular task group has nothing to do
> with locomotive boilers. It is concerned
> only with steam traction engines, portable
> steam boilers (old agricultural and logging
> power plants), etc.

> There is a separate NBIC task force devoted
> to steam locomotive boilers.

That may well be, but they are after any and ALL old boilers. Heck, most of them can't figure out how a stayed, locomotive style firebox works, and what they are really working toward, is declaring the Firebox boiler obsolete.

PS the site is www.engineads.com

> That may well be, but they are after any and
> ALL old boilers. Heck, most of them can't
> figure out how a stayed, locomotive style
> firebox works, and what they are really
> working toward, is declaring the Firebox
> boiler obsolete.

> PS the site is www.engineads.com

That may well be, but this particular task group has NO jurisdiction over steam locomotive boilers.

I think they are trying to get a handle on some of the junkier traction engines out there and either force them to be fixed properly or parked for good. Neither of which would be a bad thing, IMO.

The NBIC task group that wrote the rules for actual locomotive boilers is still active and has no intention of outlawing or obsoleting them. They already are obsolete, anyway.

"I think they are trying to get a handle on
> some of the junkier traction engines out
> there and either force them to be fixed
> properly or parked for good. Neither of
> which would be a bad thing, IMO."

Indeed.

In the last two sessions of the Michigan legislature, a group of traction-engine operators got gullible legislators with steam-tractor meets in their districts to introduce a bill that would have outlawed the use of ultrasound thickness testing by the state government in inspecting antique boilers. The more recent version of this bill explicitly stated that the results of an ultrasound test were not to be used to determine maximum allowable working pressure, and that the rules written by the tractor group were to be incorporated by reference into state law.

Neither of these bills went anywhere. I don't know if the authors of the bill represent a significant fraction of steam-tractor owners, but this kind of thinking makes me hesitate to take my kids to any more steam-tractor shows, and not stand within shrapnel range if I go alone.

Steam-locomotive operators escaped undue attention after the Medina, Ohio, explosion, but that might not be the case the next time someone launches a Case.

Aarne Frobom

> "I think they are trying to get a
> handle on

> Indeed.

> In the last two sessions of the Michigan
> legislature, a group of traction-engine
> operators got gullible legislators with
> steam-tractor meets in their districts to
> introduce a bill that would have outlawed
> the use of ultrasound thickness testing by
> the state government in inspecting antique
> boilers. The more recent version of this
> bill explicitly stated that the results of
> an ultrasound test were not to be used to
> determine maximum allowable working
> pressure, and that the rules written by the
> tractor group were to be incorporated by
> reference into state law.

> Neither of these bills went anywhere. I
> don't know if the authors of the bill
> represent a significant fraction of
> steam-tractor owners, but this kind of
> thinking makes me hesitate to take my kids
> to any more steam-tractor shows, and not
> stand within shrapnel range if I go alone.

> Steam-locomotive operators escaped undue
> attention after the Medina, Ohio, explosion,
> but that might not be the case the next time
> someone launches a Case.

> Aarne Frobom
This is dumb. If I had a unsafe boiler I would want to be the first to know it.

I know very little about steam traction engines, so I'm curious. Generally speaking, are traction engine boilers safer or less safe than locomotive boilers. Of course, I know that any improperly maintained boiler is unsafe, but I would think that the traction boilers would have to be stronger based on how they are used. For instance, since they operate on the ground and up and down hills, I would think that the water in the boiler would slosh around quite a bit regularly exposing the flues and crown sheet. You simply can't do that with a locomotive. So, are tractor boilers safer than locomotive boilers relatively speaking?

Aarne,

that has got to be among the most irresponsible, inflamatory things I have ever seen on this otherwise intellegent board, and I think you should apologise. Calling fellow preservationists the "bomb lobby" is elitist and destructive.

I maintain steam locomotives to FRA spec AND I own and operate traction engines (all inspected). For you to accuse "tractor operators'as the bomb lobby is not only elitest, but untrue.

I was one of those who led the effort to get such boilers inspected in the state of Texas back in the '80s, and served to help develope a set of reasonable standards. At the time, the state was under the impression that ALL rivited boilers were outlawedby the ASME code, and it took some work to get an engine under inspection; it still does.

As to the Michigan yahoos that wanted to outlaw ultrasonic testing, they may have had some cause, though I don't hold to it. There was a certain Northeastern BoilerMaker that shall remain nameless that was notorious for doing a free thickness test and reporting the boiler as condemnable in order to sell boilers.

You see where I am going here?

I will say that, yes there are Idiots that own traction engines, but they are few and far between, although Michigan may have a market corner on them. But if you have to pay large $$ to keep an engine inspected on top of $$ that it takes to buy,run and maintain one, you are going to demand a safe engine.

And the traction engine community is responsible for more actual steam engineering schools than the rail preservation community is, and they are very comprehensive, covering operation, maintenance, INSPECTION, ect.. jsut go to one put on by the guys from Pawnee OK, and you will come away with something you didn't know before.

And I will also say this: barring Dan Markoff and Jerry Jacobson, the average traction engine owner has spent alot more of his own money to preserve and operate steam than anyone else here.

John Peyton of Pennsylvania wants concrete in ALL rivited boilers, not just the ones from the farm.

NBIC = National Board Inspection Code (document)
NBBPVI = National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors (organization)

johncb@u.washington.edu

We're getting a little heated here.

Let's stick to commenting on specific proposals, bills, etc. (the proposed Michigan law is fair game) but let's also stay away from overgeneralizing from specifics to stigmitize an entire and complex class of operators.

By the same token, let's also stay away from personally stigmatizing fellow posters. Saying "I strongly disagree" is one thing, that's your right and your strongly held opinion; going on to call a fellow poster "elitist" or "destructive" crosses the line into flaming.

Everybody take a deep breath, let's do a little less stigmatizing all around, and let's get back to the substative points.

eledbetter@rypn.org

Upon reflection, I agree that the headline is unfair to repsonsible operators, but the notion that sheet thickness might not be used to determine MAWP brought out the editorialist in me.

- Aarne Frobom

> This is dumb. If I had a unsafe boiler I
> would want to be the first to know it.

The problem is that some boiler operators have a strange sense of boiler conditions. That is, some just do not believe that a boiler can blow up! Yea, you want to know, but the guy that wants to run his engine and knows he can't afford to "fix" it doesn't, and then potentially can come to believe that the engine doesn't need fixed. "It held the pressure last time I fired it"! I once had a traction engine operator jump down my throat because I said that low water will cause a boiler explosion. This person said that if the sheet pulls away from the stays, that releases the pressure slowely and they you just fix the firebox! He later invited me to come over and see his two traction engines operate. I politly declined the offer, while my thoughts said "no way in He## am I coming near your engines". This person does continue to take his engines to traction shows. The point is that this person has demonstrated that he has a complete lack of understanding of the machine that he is operating. He thinks that the engine won't blow up because he says it wont' blow up.

Problem is, how many people does he take to the grave for his own obstinate ignorance?

Ryan


lima709@usadaily.net

Well generally speaking, they are the same thing. I bow to some of the real authorities on this board, but I think I can lay some ground work.
Any fire tube boiler designed with a firbox and flue arrangement, such as a locomotive, is called a locomotive boiler. If it's on a locomotive, in a stationary setting, or on a traction engine, it makes no difference.
They are all designed to do the same thing: to produce steam. Early designs took some practice before they figured out what worked and what didn't. But for the most part, any boiler built after the turn of the century was pretty much built safe.
The major difference in boilers built for railroads and those built for farms is the engineering behind them.
Boilers built for railroads started heading to more efficent designs. Super heaters, syphon tubes, combustion chambers, alloy steels etc etc. The idea was it could be made fairly advanced because the railroads have huge mechincal departments with well equipt shops that can work on what ever is put inside of it. Also fuel savings were more important to the railroads since all fuels had to be purchased and hauled and counting th sheer number of miles they ran.
Boilers on traction engines were designed with simplicity in mind. the average farmer isn't going to be running his traction engine day and night and he doesn't have the means to put that new firebox in ever 15 or 20 years. He doesn't have a water treatment program and he doesn't car about how much he burns (mostly likely he's fireing on slab wood or straw any way unless he's plowing)He doesn't want to fight leaking felxable staybolts and he really doesn't need them (he proably won't break stays more than every coupla years any way). He's not a scientific or 'proper' fireman. So traction engines ended up with thicker fire boxes (when you take into account the working pressure), larger and simpler clean out holes, less efficent grates, and just a simpler overall design.

The fear of some people is that state agencies don't inspect them as well as the FRA and that some operators don't care for them as well. Most people don't realise it's a two sided coin. I've hear scarry remarks made by people in both groups at one time or another and seen scarry things in both groups. It's really who your around and who you trust. The steam guy you've fired for and crawled over every inch of an engine together is the one you feel safe working with. The guy you met at the show, or at that other railroad, is usually the one you don't trust straight out.
But all in all there have only been 2 serious accidents (at least that I am aware of)in the last coupla years (when you combine the hobby) which I think is a pretty good safety record compaired to years ago.

> I know very little about steam traction
> engines, so I'm curious. Generally speaking,
> are traction engine boilers safer or less
> safe than locomotive boilers. Of course, I
> know that any improperly maintained boiler
> is unsafe, but I would think that the
> traction boilers would have to be stronger
> based on how they are used. For instance,
> since they operate on the ground and up and
> down hills, I would think that the water in
> the boiler would slosh around quite a bit
> regularly exposing the flues and crown
> sheet. You simply can't do that with a
> locomotive. So, are tractor boilers safer
> than locomotive boilers relatively speaking?


btrue@vt.edu