According to an official report, the steam tractor that recently exploded was indeed in very poor condition. See the following link and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.doli.state.mn.us/boilerohio.html

http://www.doli.state.mn.us/boilerohio.html
runner@i-55.com

The report from Mr Payton has been circulating on the web for some time now. Please note, it was/is not the official report from the investigation. Which to my knowlege has not (as of yet) been issued......

Unfortunately, there are bums in every hobby, and profession. Also, unfortunately, when something like this happens there are people quite willing to paint all with a broad brush. Don't automatically assume that every traction engine is like this one, just as not every lokey and tourist operator is like the one at Gettysburg was. I think you'll find, just like in the RR hobby/biz, that well over 99% of the traction engine owners/operators are consciensious and safety minded. On that note, at least 2 antique machinery clubs, totally unrelated to the people at Medina, have had their liability insurance abruptly cancelled. Other clubs are facing a big jump in their premiums, the innocent are paying for the actions of another. Most owners welcome an inspection program that gives an honest appraisal of their boiler's condition (red tape and legalistic hoops are another matter).

Now, bluntly put, the opinion I have seen in the hobby is; If the owner was not aware of the boiler's condition, then he was a fool. If he WAS aware and operated it anyway, then he was an arrogant fool, or worse. However, almost everyone also realises that boiler did not get in that condition in the single year that the man owned it, either. The one big thing that bothers many about this is that no-one who looked at it at the time of sale, and none of the previous owners (again to my knowlege, poor as it is) have yet to come forward and say "Yes, it was marginal (or worse), and we said so at the time." Perhaps because they are simply afraid of being dragged into all the lawsuits.

Another thing that many people can't help but wonder about is this nearly new, allegedly untampered with safety valve that is reported to have failed to open, even at well above the set pressure during the tests. What caused this?

Lastly, there is another unsettling, curious and somewhat connected thing that has been heard from various sources is there were some efforts made before for the ASME to ban riveted boilers in the past, and there were also efforts made in a certain commonwealth to condemn boilers based solely on age, regardless of condition. A drastic course of action, I would think, but then the inspectors wouldn't have to deal with them. I've heard the name of one of the fellows behind those rather draconian ideas, but I have (ahem) forgotten it. It would be rather unfortunate if this incident gives him the ammunition that was lacking before.

As mentioned, this is NOT the official report, The OFFICIAL report seems to now be at the printers. Akron paper printed this story today.....

The sherriff reportedly contacted many other experts inside the hobby, and from other disciplines, besides John Peyton.
Here is a rather telling comment from the news story:"Peyton's report and the sheriff's are expected to conflict in areas." Um, okay where and how much?

Akron Beacon Journal artical
steamnut@ptd.net

> As mentioned, this is NOT the official
> report, The OFFICIAL report seems to now be
> at the printers. Akron paper printed this
> story today.....

> The sherriff reportedly contacted many other
> experts inside the hobby, and from other
> disciplines, besides John Peyton.
> Here is a rather telling comment from the
> news story:"Peyton's report and the
> sheriff's are expected to conflict in
> areas." Um, okay where and how much?

Are you calling Peyton's ability to use a micrometer into question? What kind of report are you waiting for that will say it's OK to steam up a boiler that has a crown sheet that is .085 inches thick in places(the thickness of a half-dollar coin)? What about a staybolt engagement of 1.5 threads? A slow gauge? A stuck pop valve? These are not exotic observations. You don't have to be a NASA engineer to make Peyton's measurements, and these simple facts tell the tale about the boiler's condition. All the future reports in the world won't justify the operation of such a boiler.

runner@i-55.com

You are right, a boiler in the reported condition of that one should never have been steamed.

So, what DO I question? The ethics, and motives of whoever decided to leak (for lack of a better word) Peyton's report well over a month before the official one was even finished.

What am I waiting on? The complete story, or perhaps, a more complete story... I consider Mr. Peyton's report equivelent to the testimony of an expert witness, no more, no less. The conclusions. though, should always be left to the investigators in the official report.

I do take some issue with Mr Peyton's blanket statement to the effect that if it had been in Pa it would not have been allowed to operate. Even in Mr. Peyton's baliwik there is NO provision under the law for inspecting these engines when used for their original purpose (farming). Yes, they do require state inspection when being publically exhibited as a "hobby boiler". And, as it was on its way to be publically displayed, would have required an inspection. BUT, would one of Mr. Peyton's subordinates have caught and condemned the thing? Depends on two things: 1. The inspector, (a few of them aren't as well versed with old boilers as they could/should be to start with.) and 2. If the engine had been shown elsewhere previously..... Most state inspections are performed at the venue which the engine is to be displayed. (It saves the state money because they don't have to pay the inspectors to drive all over to inspect them seperately, and it allows them to inspect the ones that are brought in from out of state as well) Bluntly put, there simply would NOT have been time enough for Mr Peyton himself to perform any sort of inspection between the time the engine arrived at the fairgrounds and the time the incident occured.

Beyond that, One rather interesting rumor is that Mr Peyton has been retained as an expert witness, for the family of the owner, in any lawsuits (reports are that almost all the injured have talked to lawyers as well). I have talked to many people who think this may be part of an attempt to shift as much blame (and perhaps financial liability as well) as they can from the operator to the state of Ohio.

(As a recap: Ohio's boiler law was based on an old one that exempted agricultural equipment from inspection. Historically. the granges and co-ops have fought like crazy to keep the government off the farms. (Most larger clubs their policed their own ranks, and very well, They have thorough inspections performed by a delegation of hobbyists (not just one person). Word was the owner and his son had been asked not to return to one such venue because of the way they handled another engine) )

No one forced the owner to operate the engine that day, or to bring it to the county fair. And few inspection programs would have caught the problem before the engine's maiden show after such a long layup. But two things seem rather certain: the other shoe is yet to drop here, and honest and innocent people will probably end up paying the piper for another man's carelessness.

steamnut@ptd.net

An article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, based on the official police report.
Some new information here.
This little paragraph really caught my attention: "Kovacic, who bought the machine "as is" ... took it to Michigan to be inspected and repaired before he fired it up..."
Whoever the un-named person or company was that did this inspecting and repairing has an awful LOT of explaining to do.


Cleveland Plain Dealer article
steamnut@ptd.net

> So, what DO I question? The ethics, and
> motives of whoever decided to leak (for lack
> of a better word) Peyton's report well over
> a month before the official one was even
> finished.

> I do take some issue with Mr Peyton's
> blanket statement to the effect that if it
> had been in Pa it would not have been
> allowed to operate.

I agree.

I have a friend in Maryland who owns a portable steam engine (a traction engine without the driving gears, or steering) that was recently approved by the state inspector at reduced pressure due to some pitting in the barrel found with U.T. per MD requirements.

A few weeks ago, he took his engine up to PA to a large show with dozens of traction engines. In talking to the PA owners, he was shocked to find that none of them had had any UT surveys done on their boilers. They told him that it wasn't required in PA. He said that he became nervous to be among these other boilers, some running at 150 PSI, knowing what he knows about his own boiler.

With no UT requirement in PA, their inspectors are without a prime tool to determine the safety of an old boiler. Maybe the Case boiler's crown would have betrayed its condition to a visual inspection, maybe not. I have personally UTed and visually inspected a boiler whose plates were 1/2 of their original thickness, and I am here to tell you that the plate in question was as smooth as a bady's butt, inside and out. It looked brand new.

I am very happy to not be under inspection from the state of PA, because I doubt that they know what they are talking about.

> I agree.

> I have a friend in Maryland who owns a
> portable steam engine (a traction engine
> without the driving gears, or steering) that
> was recently approved by the state inspector
> at reduced pressure due to some pitting in
> the barrel found with U.T. per MD
> requirements.

> A few weeks ago, he took his engine up to PA
> to a large show with dozens of traction
> engines. In talking to the PA owners, he was
> shocked to find that none of them had had
> any UT surveys done on their boilers. They
> told him that it wasn't required in PA. He
> said that he became nervous to be among
> these other boilers, some running at 150
> PSI, knowing what he knows about his own
> boiler.

> With no UT requirement in PA, their
> inspectors are without a prime tool to
> determine the safety of an old boiler. Maybe
> the Case boiler's crown would have betrayed
> its condition to a visual inspection, maybe
> not. I have personally UTed and visually
> inspected a boiler whose plates were 1/2 of
> their original thickness, and I am here to
> tell you that the plate in question was as
> smooth as a bady's butt, inside and out. It
> looked brand new.

> I am very happy to not be under inspection
> from the state of PA, because I doubt that
> they know what they are talking about.
It just goes to show you need to know what you are doing. I have a small vertical boiler and it looks real good but I don't plan to fire it until the inspector looks it over. A good inspector is your friend! A steam tractor was just sold at auction near me, I heard that one of the potential buyers had a UT done before the sale. I would have one done before sinking a lot of money in a boiler, as repairs can be done but they cost $$$


2rivers@upstel.net