Steam & Excursion > I've been confused about this for 50 years..

?Functional purpose of the required removal of flexible-staybolt caps?  

Why is it required for Flannery drilled staybolts?
There are some flexibles that are NOT drilled, ----- what's with that and a proper integrity testing/ method?
Some Flannerys are capped with permanent caps, what exempts them?
Are crown bolts exempted?  

What integrity testing and functionality exams are expected to be used, other than replacing destroyed caps and any associated copper gaskets.  Are you expected to do a full hydro, with the caps off?

Other than tinkering, and feel-good emotions, ------ What safety concern is to be gained from that process?
.
I "get"  that we all are required to do it;  but,  what-on-earth is its practical purpose?

Wes C.

 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/15 17:10 by wcamp1472.

Wes,

I don't believe the FRA, nor the previous ICC, EVER required the removal of flexible staybolt caps, on those staybolts that were drilled.

Flannerys...

Then why do folks do it ---?

W.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flannerys...
>
> Then why do folks do it ---?
>
> W.

I don't think that anybody does, except that idiot in Cheyenne!

      Loved the last answer and expected it too. Fantastic.

The defense rests.

With no intent to defend what is going on,
CFR 49 Sub Section 230.41 Flexable staybolts with caps.
(a) General. Flexible staybots with caps shall have their caps removed during every 5th annual inspection for the purpose of inspecting the bolts for breakage, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Drilled flexible staybolts. For flexible staybots that have telltale holes between 3/16 inch and 7/32 inch in diameter, and which extend the entire lenght of the bolt and into the head not less than one third of the diameter of the head, the steam locomotive owner and/or operator need not remove the staybolt caps if it can be established, by an electrical or other suitable method, that the telltale are open for their entire lenght. Any leakage from these telltale holes during the hydrostatic test indicates that the bolr is broken and must be replaced. Before the steam locomotive is placed in service, the inner ends of all telltale holes shall be closed with a fireproof porous material that will keep the telltle holes free of foreign matter and permit steam and water to exit the telltale hole when the bolt is broken or fractured.
(c) Record Keeping. The removal of flexible staybolt caps and other tests shall be reported on FRA Form No.3. ( see appendix B this part)
(d) Testing at the request of the FRA inspector. Staybolt caps also shall be removed, or any the tests in this section made, whenever the FRA inspector or the steam locomotive owner / operator considers it necessary due to identifiable safety concerns about the condition of staybolts, staybolt caps or staybolt sleeves.

Re: the FRA wording...

[ A note to the wise and to future steam-techs],,,,

Implies the use of a "continuity light device".....
It is important that the firebox end of the bolt be sealed with a high temperature, porous material.

If the holes are obstructed, anywhere and a light probe test cannot be completed, the bolt is considered as a broken bolt, and must be replaced.

W.

>(a) General. Flexible staybots with caps shall have their caps removed during every 5th annual inspection for the purpose of inspecting the bolts for breakage, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

Having worked with flexible stabolt caps (both flush and acorn), I've been wondering aobut this myself.

AND why when I press "preview" does the message composition pane suddenly go completely blank. Never happened before.

Basically means that if the bolts are NOT drilled (also known as "hollow bolts", or bolts with "telltale holes"), the caps MUST come off every fifth annual. Yes, the owner/operator can remove them if he thinks it necessary.   AND if he has a lot of time and money on his hands.  In the case HW refers to,the owner/operator decided the caps were "ugly."  Never mind that they functioned as designed; they were not perfect, and DAMMIT, everything MUST be perfect.  This went through several iterations.  Some of the caps were, in fact, ugly.  However there is nothing in Part 230, ASME or NBIC that even mentions or defines "ugly" caps, much less requires their replacement solely because they don't have a perfect appearance.  If the bolt they cover is inspected/tested as spelled out, and they pass the hydro test on the boiler, they are good to go.  Ugly or not.

Then the story changed to the ugly caps being made of counterfeit material, possibly even ---HORRORS--- Chinese steel or Chinese pot metal!! To make this story fly,all MTR's and invoices on the caps were quickly destroyed, so it could be claimed there was never any record of the material in the first place.  At least one ugly cap was removed and sent to a test lab to "prove" that it was made of some unknown, inferior material.  About what one would expect of the drunken, neglectful, careless, previous crew.

Unfortunately, the test results showed the material was right on the ASTM spec that it was supposed to be. That led to the decision to drill holes in the caps, thus making them unfit for further service, thus justifying the replacement of all those ugly caps with shiny new ones, made of the same material as the ones destroyed. 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/15 19:34 by Realist.

Re the Clowns of Cheyenne...

You can't make this stuff up!

Sooooo, all future Cheyenne rebuilds will be vested with the fancy new caps?
What safety improvement do the new caps provide?
How will the public get to see this great investment of time and money?

I had not expected the drift of my inquiry....
Since when is loco restoration a maniacal Ego-trip for individuals?

Thanks for all the clarifications...

What started me thinking was the work-pics on the C&O 1309....

W.


.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re the Clowns of Cheyenne...
>
> You can't make this stuff up!
>
> Sooooo, all future Cheyenne rebuilds will be vested with the fancy new caps?

Asumming there are any future Cheyenne rebuilds, probably so

> What safety improvement do the new caps provide?

Zero, zilch, zip, nada, none.  In that order.

> How will the public get to see this great investment of time and money?

In the videos and breathless Facebook posts of the True Believers.  Otherwise, they won't.

> I had not expected the drift of my inquiry....

> Since when is loco restoration a maniacal Ego-trip for individuals?

In this particualar episode, sometime around January, 2011.

> Thanks for all the clarifications...

> What started me thinking was the work-pics on the C&O 1309....

Are they doing that, too??

> W.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/15 00:13 by Realist.

It seems to have been a widespread practice.

Years ago I got to do a survey of the NYC 3001 4-8-2.
Most of its caps were totally gone --- rusted away under the Texas climate and the soggy asbestos blanket.

There were remaining caps that the crew was removing mostly account of common practice by the old NYC RR --- "always did it that way".    Many outfits still continue to remove all the staybolt caps, regardless of the actual "need".

See recent pics of the 1309.  

Yes, there are cases where caps are legitimately removed --- so what's the next step?
Other than looking and tapping, isn't there some up-to-date, NDT, process that might be useful ---- and that would actually give some verification as to the head's 'integrity'?

Thanks for the feedback.

W.

[ there is PROBABLY some way to perform a testing,  but there may be an excessive cost that actually proves nothing about the strongest part of the bolt.  The true high-stress area seems to be the few threads at the firebox end that do the 'holding'... IMHO]

I wonder if the new caps will be chrome, stainless or brushed nickle?   Possibly polished brass with holes in the jacket for them to show through with LED lighting around them.

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the new caps will be chrome, stainless
> or brushed nickle?   Possibly polished brass
> with holes in the jacket for them to show through
> with LED lighting around them.

LED Lighting should be connected to a controller so the colors can flash and change in sync with each movement of the piston.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to have been a widespread practice.

I question that when it comes to hollow bolts.  No railroad, and certainly few
boilermakers, would be doing work like this that is not required.
>
> Years ago I got to do a survey of the NYC 3001
> 4-8-2.
> Most of its caps were totally gone --- rusted away
> under the Texas climate and the soggy asbestos
> blanket.
>
> There were remaining caps that the crew was
> removing mostly account of common practice by the
> old NYC RR --- "always did it that way".  

I'd like to see the written NYC procedures about that.  My guess
would be that since so many of the old caps were obviously in
need of replacement, they pulled the rest just because the thought
it was the thing to do.  Probablty didn't understand the 23(b). 

> Many
> outfits still continue to remove all the staybolt
> caps, regardless of the actual "need".

They don't know any better, or have convinced themselves that going
"the extra mile" will impress FRA and/or the industry.  
>
> See recent pics of the 1309.  
>
> Yes, there are cases where caps are legitimately
> removed --- so what's the next step?
> Other than looking and tapping, isn't there some
> up-to-date, NDT, process that might be useful ----
> and that would actually give some verification as
> to the head's 'integrity'?

"Head" of what?  The bolt?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> W.
>
> [ there is PROBABLY some way to perform a testing,
>  but there may be an excessive cost that actually
> proves nothing about the strongest part of the
> bolt.  The true high-stress area seems to be the
> few threads at the firebox end that do the
> 'holding'... IMHO]

Wes, try this on for size:

Staybolts, their purpose, inspection , etc. are deep mysteries to laymen.

Caps, however, are out there and plainly visible.  If they are rusty or some
boilermaker 70 years ago used a hammer and chisel to tighten one instead of
a wrench, it looks bad to the layman.  As well to some who should know better.

So, an opportunist sees a way to enhance himself with his superiors and the
laymen by replacing all those gnarly-looking yet fully functional caps with all
new shiny ones.

Voila!!  It looks so much better!!  LOOKS being the operative word.

In reality, a lot of time, money in the form of parts and labor, etc. have been
expended, but the machine has not been improved one iota, EXCEPT in it's
outward appearance.   It will not hold 1 pound of pressure more than the old ones
did.  None of the old ones were cracked, broken or missing.

But, if your main concern is appearance (style over substance) and impressing
gullible, impressionable people, you scored big time. 

Caps removal is something the ESC should reevaluate with the FRA.  Stay bolt breakage is a fatigue issue caused by thermally induced stress cycles.  Currently, you have to remove the caps every five calendar years regardless of service days.  The industry was reviewing this test in the latter days but steam died before the rules were changed. Reference the attached article from RME. "205,279 caps removed and only 80 bolts found broken on 440 locomotives".
Likewise the electric test on hollow bolts is due every  5 years which should be moved to a service day number.  If you burn up 1472 service days before 5 years you won't have to remove caps.  How does sitting cold for 5 calendar years cause fatigue cracks?

Hammer Test every 31 days except hollow obstructed staybolts (i.e. behind firebrick, grate bearers, etc.)  What is gained by hammer testing 3200 hollow unobstructed staybolts every 31 days and not 300 obstructed hollow staybolts ever? (Oh, except every annual all the firebrick and grates have to be removed for a hammer test regardless of service days.....Annual Inspection Requirements; § 230.16---3. Testing of all staybolts.)

---

I no longer trust anyone in the UP steam shop.  If Mr. Dickens ever runs a steam engine again, I won't go near it--I fear it might explode, or fall apart.  I will stay far away, and I seriously mean that.

I respect your aversion to what might be indicators of too-risky operations.

However, the 'explosion' thing is more about safe locomotive management, proper water level.
So, the safe operation of the engine is your primary concern.

Part of my enjoyment of steam operations is the deep appreciation of a job well-performed by professionals who manage, operate, and do the training----- while keeping the crew up to date.

 Sloppy, unsafe and thoughtless operations are easily identified ------ be careful in your observations, ask open-ended questions
[ not the 'yes/no'  type],  and be appreciative of direct honesty.  

Set your B/S sensitivity detector on 'High', and. like you say, get your butt out of there as soon as you feel that things aren't right.

Wes C.