From time to time we hear of park engines being brought back to life and it surprises me that after 40+ years of exposure to the elements, the boiler often remains in fairly good condition. I am wondering what sort of problems (other than a gaping 2-foot hole in the bottom!) make the old boiler of a park engine, or even an operating one, a write-off. Thanks for any input.

one case is when previous repairs were not done to new codes - example - a steam locomotive working for a short line/industrial railroad and they welded between several rivits. While we know the boiler and welds work OK, it's not allowed.

JimLundquist55@yahoo.com

Condemn boilers that are marginally economically feasable to restore to certifiable operating condition or worse (relative to new boiler cost), or those for which any legitimate safety concern exists.

Marginal boilers will cost much more to maintain than better new ones. The old boiler can be preserved for interpretive uses.

FWIW, some highly intensively operated tourist railroads in the UK and Australia replace boilers on a frequent basis, most notably the Ffestiniog and Puffing Billy. Only in this country do we consider it a heroic effort.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Only in this country do we consider it a
> heroic effort.

> Dave

The reason we consider boiler replacement a "heroic effort" is because our country is infested with boiler manufacturers that are generally unfamiliar/unwilling to build a locomotive style boiler(all they want to do is sell package boilers), and they all feel that
an ASME "S" stamp is a vehicle to print money. Those who have built new boilers of late have invested as much into beaurocratic red tape and redundant re-engineering than in actual construction of the boilers themselves. Also, the other countries don't suffer under the expensive cloud of liabilaty concerns and requirements that our increasingly litigious society forces us to labor under.

One manufacturer that specialized in historic boiler construction has had his stamp revoked due to POOR workmanship.

boiler construction requires a great deal of skill and engineering expertise, but it is not near the Druidic Mystery many boiler companies portray it to be.

> The reason we consider boiler replacement a
> "heroic effort" is because our
> country is infested with boiler
> manufacturers that are generally
> unfamiliar/unwilling to build a locomotive
> style boiler(all they want to do is sell
> package boilers), and they all feel that
> an ASME "S" stamp is a vehicle to
> print money.

No reason, especially with the strong dollar, not to make good use of reputable builders in other countries. Perhaps an Australian or British boilermakers might find a good market in the USA if they choose to pursue it.

Believe it or not, the UK is even more regulated than the US so I am sure engineering standards are at least as good if not better, than ASME / FRA. Some translation and inspection may be necessary.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

The ASME and National Board ain't gonna let any kind of new boiler importation happen. Yes foreign boilers are regulated to stringent standards, but those standards (safe as they truly are) aren't the same as ours. As an example, the English were still building a substantial number of lap seam boilers right to the end in shell diameters that the national board would not have allowed.

Remember, our boiler inspection and construcion system is a pressure vessel and insurance industry association that has been given the force of law. US boiler trade guilds (ASME and National Board) aren't going to let anybody else into their territory.

Not necessarily so - we have Chinese and Swedish boilers running now on regulated lines.

Certainly, enginering standards and practices would have to be translated from one code to the other to assure adherence, probably the current codes in Oz and UK are beyond ours. Documenting them using our yardsticks instead of theirs is the challenge.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

"Remember, our boiler inspection and construcion system is a pressure vessel and insurance industry association that has been given the force of law. US boiler trade guilds (ASME and National Board) aren't going to let anybody else into their territory."

Speaking of which, has anyone heard of any progress on the "unified" steel construction code? (which BTW was due out last year) Last I heard, the AWS and API efforts were being frustrated due to foot dragging within the ASME and National Board.

> Condemn boilers that are marginally
> economically feasable to restore to
> certifiable operating condition or worse
> (relative to new boiler cost), or those for
> which any legitimate safety concern exists.

> Marginal boilers will cost much more to
> maintain than better new ones. The old
> boiler can be preserved for interpretive
> uses.

> FWIW, some highly intensively operated
> tourist railroads in the UK and Australia
> replace boilers on a frequent basis, most
> notably the Ffestiniog and Puffing Billy.
> Only in this country do we consider it a
> heroic effort.

> Dave

We should note UK and Australian roads routinely replaced boilers on a mileage basis in the steam era. Perhaps the light axle load required light boilers. US roads replaced boilers only if there were a problem. Sometimes the boilers outlasted the rest of the engine. D&RGW K-37, B&O T-3 and RDG T-1 are examples of old US boilers being reused on otherwise new locomotives.

Electric City Trolley Museum Associa

A comment on a few of the posts. First and I know it was only a comment on rust but the elements usually cause damage on the top of the boiler and not the bottem (2 foot gapping hole). This is due to the asbestos insulation holding water on the barrel for the last 50 years. Second, while weld repairs were limited years ago many are now allowed with the the revised federal regulations on locomotive boilers.

Robert@trainorders.com

Imported, extant locomotives are one thing, imported, replica boilers are another. i don't think that there is going to be a wholesale allowance of overseas built boilers to operate unless the manufacturer gets a stamp from the ASME. The FRA recommends ASME standards,so whose book do you think they are going to follow?

If you talk to steam engineers worldwide, they will all agree that US made boilers are required to be greatly overbuilt compared with the rest of the boiler-building universe.

David Conrad would probably have some relevant input on this. As I recall, the boilers for the 2 (3?) Chinese SY 2-8-2s he imported were basically built to U.S. standards (certain design details such as staybolt spacing were changed from Chinese standard to comply with U.S. standard practice). I believe he investigated having the Tangshan shop ASME certified so that boilers could be imported in quantity. This proved to be prohibitively expensive so the engines that he imported had to be granted individual waivers to be allowed to operate.

I suppose if there was enough market for the product, one of these shops in the UK or elsewhere would go to the trouble to get ASME certified. Another alternative would be to have the individual boiler parts (barrel sections, firebox sections, dome, etc.) manufactured overseas from U.S. materials, and then have them assembled in a U.S. ASME certified shop. This might provide a substantial cost savings.

Good Steaming,
Hugh Odom

> Imported, extant locomotives are one thing,
> imported, replica boilers are another. i
> don't think that there is going to be a
> wholesale allowance of overseas built
> boilers to operate unless the manufacturer
> gets a stamp from the ASME. The FRA
> recommends ASME standards,so whose book do
> you think they are going to follow?

> If you talk to steam engineers worldwide,
> they will all agree that US made boilers are
> required to be greatly overbuilt compared
> with the rest of the boiler-building
> universe.


The Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com