Steam & Excursion > How Long Did Boiler Inspections Take?

What I mean is, when a steam locomotive was required to go in for its mandated 1,472 day boiler inspection and recertification, how long would it usually take a railroad's shop to do the job and have the locomotive back out on the road? I know that it would probably vary between a big railroad like the Norfolk & Western verses a smaller railroad like the Durham & Southern, but what would the average be?

Also, if something like a major derailment happened and the locomotive involved was repairable, would the boiler ticket (or Blue Card as I've heard) have to be renewed before it could return to service?

SD80MACfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I mean is, when a steam locomotive was
> required to go in for its mandated 1,472 day
> boiler inspection and recertification, how long
> would it usually take a railroad's shop to do the
> job and have the locomotive back out on the road?
> I know that it would probably vary between a big
> railroad like the Norfolk & Western verses a
> smaller railroad like the Durham & Southern, but
> what would the average be?


First, back in the days of regular steam service, there was no such thing as a "mandated 1472 day boiler inspection and recertification". The 1472 days of service, or 15 years, is only an FRA requirement in the modern era of excursion steam locomotives (developed after the Gettysburg RR mess). Back in the "old days", the ICC required all new, or safe-ended, flues/tubes every 5 years.

Second, most good sized railroad shops/back shops could/would complete the flue/tube replacements, plus other necessary boiler work within a week.

> Also, if something like a major derailment
> happened and the locomotive involved was
> repairable, would the boiler ticket (or Blue Card
> as I've heard) have to be renewed before it could
> return to service?

If you are referring to today's modern era, no, so long as the 1472 days or 15 years requirement had not been past while the locomotive was "out of service" being repaired.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SD80MACfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What I mean is, when a steam locomotive was
> > required to go in for its mandated 1,472 day
> > boiler inspection and recertification, how long
> > would it usually take a railroad's shop to do
> the
> > job and have the locomotive back out on the
> road?
> > I know that it would probably vary between a
> big
> > railroad like the Norfolk & Western verses a
> > smaller railroad like the Durham & Southern,
> but
> > what would the average be?
>
>
> First, back in the days of regular steam service,
> there was no such thing as a "mandated 1472 day
> boiler inspection and recertification". The 1472
> days of service, or 15 years, is only an FRA
> requirement in the modern era of excursion steam
> locomotives (developed after the Gettysburg RR
> mess). Back in the "old days", the ICC required
> all new, or safe-ended, flues/tubes every 5
> years.
>

I was completely unaware of that. I had heard that the 1,472 days was based on the original flue time for steam locomotives. Guess the truth is slowly lost throughout time.

> > Also, if something like a major derailment
> > happened and the locomotive involved was
> > repairable, would the boiler ticket (or Blue
> Card
> > as I've heard) have to be renewed before it
> could
> > return to service?
>
> If you are referring to today's modern era, no, so
> long as the 1472 days or 15 years requirement had
> not been past while the locomotive was "out of
> service" being repaired.

I'm actually referring to the old days. For example, when N&W #611 crashed in the Tug River wreck, was it required to get all new flues or at least have them inspected and recertified before it could operate again? I have been told the repairs due to the wreck were one of its reasons for being preserved which is why I ask.

SD80MACfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was completely unaware of that. I had heard that
> the 1,472 days was based on the original flue time
> for steam locomotives. Guess the truth is slowly
> lost throughout time.
>
It is. It is based on four 368 day “FRA years” of operating days. The new rule allowed for service day calculations, rather than calendar days. The fifteen years to use 1,472 days was negotiated based on the desire to inspect the interior of the boiler at some period of time, and if you read the preamble to the rule, consideration of preserving and practicing the skill sets required to perform the inspections.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-11-17/pdf/99-28610.pdf

TL

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/18 12:56 by TorchLake.

First , the requirement about flue removal has nothing to do with certifying the tubing...
5 years of boiler time, give or take, has to do with interior inspection of the boiler shell.

Under harsh water conditions, mostly ‘hard water’ ( containing salts of calcium, etc, ), under pressure, works the calcium atoms into the molecular interstices of the boiler shell—- at any physical joints, riveted seams ( all-welded boilers seriously reduce the number of vulnerable seams) between two over-lapped steel plates.
The steel at the seams can become embrittled by the invasion & migration of the calcium salts, —— chemically altering the shell’s steel from a strong, flexible material, to an embrittled, fragile chemical composition. That easily cracks..

Under constant flexing, due primarily to ‘thermal cycling’ ( multiple fire-up and cool-down cycles) of the steel can cause ( calcium migration) cracks at joints and seams. Typically, riveted, circumferential seams were subject to producing cracks —— from rivet-hole to rivet-hole, forming a zipper- like hazard, subject to massive failures. This was particularly true at the turn of the 19th century and the early 20th century locos —- the era of the tightened ICC boiler inspection requirements. Early boiler steels varied in thickness and in steel uniformity and lack of steel uniform production standards.

The only way to catch steel cracking and embrittlement ( of these older locos) was visual inspection ....thus, tubes and flues had to be removed in order to make a thorough seam inspection, below the boiler waterline. It also required a complete scouring of all the baked on mud and sediment. You had to visually, with diligence and commitment , inspect the entire interior shell of the boiler.

Reason Two for the removal of flues, or not, has to do with the structural difference between the ratio of a cylider’s wall thickness-to-diameter, and the relative strength of the cylinder configuration.

A typical, modern boiler shell can be 100 inches in diameter, and the wall thickness is typically 1- inch.
The ratio is thus, 100-to-0ne... A typical boiler tube wall thickness to its diameter is many times thicker.
A tube wall thickness of 1/8th inch, compared to a tube diameter of 2 inches yields a ratio of 16-to 1...

Thus, tubes are WAY stronger simply by the math involved.... thus, since the tubes are “rolled and expanded” ( using a flue rolling tool) into the holes of the flue sheets, removing the flues destroys a couple of inches on each end....5-years of boiler use, barely affects the the wall thickness of the tubes.
Economical railroad shops recycled the removed flues and tubes by welding new end-pieces on one end of the removed tubes...

The rule was that the applied tube new-piece had to be added to any existing welded ‘repair ring ‘ on the back end of the tube( firebox end) ...thus, each ring represented 5 years if service...Or, 35 years of total tube service-life, (shelf life could extend the age of the flues, while in the Stores Dept.).
The rings resembled rattlesnake tails, with the numerous rings strung together. Typically, RRs scrapped flues that would have required a 7th ring, so that at the time of removal, those with 6 rings would be tossed in the scrap gondola...

The common method of attachment of the safe-end was through ‘friction-welding’ ——- a clamping machine would spin one of the pieces, and force it, while spinning, onto the fixed/stationary tube, the joint rapidly glowed red hot and the two pieces were forced together , and allowed to cool.

The reclaimed flues and tubes were sent to the Stores Department of the Shops, to be reapplied to another boiler. They would be interspersed with all-new flues at time of issue for the next 5-year candidate. The process of applying New ends is called: “ Safe-Ended” tubes, or safe-ending the reclaimed tubing.

SOO, if the tubes were never the weak point, or the requirement for removal, it was the structurally. weaker boiler shell is the area of concern and requirement for thorough shell inspections and repairs.

[Firebox work, to me, is the more critical area to concentrate on ——- with quality workmanship .
.Modern boiler shells are very sound structurally, and boiler failures, involving the boiler shell, are virtually non-existent.
Virtually All boiler failures are the fault of the loco crew to keep the roof of the firebox totally submerged under 3 inches, or more, of water.. tilting while navigating hilly territory, bad, inoperable, water-feeding devices, or ignorant crews result in dropped Crown sheets and low water, boiler failures...there are NO preventive devices that prevent stupidity in water level management...]

What if you could inspect the interior seams of the boiler shell, WITHOUT the removal of ALL of the boiler tubes???
The law allows for that eventuality.... if you can get a thorough seam inspection, of equal, or better integrity, of the shell’s interior...that inspection is just as valid as if ALL-replaced tubes inspection were done.... a skinny boiler seams inspector was worth his weight in gold...

I suspect that in today’s world, the labor costs involved in the safe-ending process exceeds the cost of buying all new flues...thus, many operators buy all new flues. Very thoughtful rebuilders use the partial removal process to save both time and money...a very wise approach..

NKP Boilermaker, Joe Karal , described the boiler flue reclaim process at places like the Conneaut, Ohio backdrop, and similar facilities like Morgan Engineering, of Allainace, Ohio. Morgan provided locomotive rebuilding services for railroad, on a contract basis, for whole fleets of locos.....including Wreck Repairs and 5-Year boilervrepsirs and inspections..... Joe described an old, hollow, former locomotive boiler, on rollers and motor driven to clean the removed flues by tumbling for a day or two together I, the tumbling machine, the flues then were sent to the welding station for reclamation....it was a very NOISY environment..

So, in the current environment of FRA boiler inspection law, the removal of ALL the flues and tubes is an option for boiler crews & 1472-day inspections.
The FRA rule does not require all new flues and tubes, nor all-new superheater tubes....

So, there you have it, the Truth about boiler tubes...the “thin walls” of the boiler shell are the true areas of concern for the 1472 -day boiler inspection requirement.p, NOT the structurally stronger flues & tubes....there are no requirements regarding the inspection of the removed boiler tubes...

That was easy..

W.

Not edited/proofed, yet....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/18 05:27 by wcamp1472.

The actual ICC/FRA requirement was flue removal after 48 months of service. One day of running was a "service month". If the locomotive was not used every month for 48 months, you could add the unused months to the end of the 48 and get more months of service - not to exceed 60 months(5 years of service). After 60 months, you either retubed the boiler or applied for a flue extension.

In this case, you pulled the bottom 2 tubes out of the boiler, made sure all the loose scale was washed out, and waited for the inspector to show up. He looked at the condition of the tubes in both ends of the boiler and inspected the shell through the empty tube hole to determine the amount of scale build up in the barrel. If his inspection revealed no issues, he would give you a year's extension on the flue removal. You then could then button the boiler up, perform an annual hydro test and be in business for another year.

We had one engine on the C&TS that ran for nearly 15 years (10 on extension) before the inspector reluctantly told us we really needed to reflue her next winter. His concerns were mostly that the flue beads in the firebox were starting crack, although nothing had shown any signs of leaking.

Here's a post from a few years back showing a tube shop such as Wes described above.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,3448032

-Larry Doyle

Not being familiar with the Tug River incident, but just speculating. If the hot boiler became suddenly immersed in the cold river water, similar to quenching, I'd expect the boiler/firebox and all to be adversely affected structurally. Maybe this mass of steel, not being affected as to the degree of cold water on a hot cast iron skillet, but certainly stressed, if not cracked in some areas. In the days without x-ray capability, I'd hesitate to risk mine or others lives. Right, wrong or otherwise?

rrman6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not being familiar with the Tug River incident,
> but just speculating. If the hot boiler became
> suddenly immersed in the cold river water, similar
> to quenching, I'd expect the boiler/firebox and
> all to be adversely affected structurally. Maybe
> this mass of steel, not being affected as to the
> degree of cold water on a hot cast iron skillet,
> but certainly stressed, if not cracked in some
> areas. In the days without x-ray capability, I'd
> hesitate to risk mine or others lives. Right,
> wrong or otherwise?

IIRC, the locomotive and tender ended up on the river bank, not in the river.

Wes:

With with the great advance in quality small cameras in recent years, do you think that it might be possible in the foreseeable future to inspect interior boiler seams with minimal tube removal? Perhaps putting a small camera and a "seam scrubber" on a small circular track that could be moved inside the boiler and then run around the track to clean and inspect? Or is that too "Inspector Gadget?"

Steve

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rrman6 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not being familiar with the Tug River incident,
> > but just speculating. If the hot boiler became
> > suddenly immersed in the cold river water,
> similar
> > to quenching, I'd expect the boiler/firebox and
> > all to be adversely affected structurally.
> Maybe
> > this mass of steel, not being affected as to
> the
> > degree of cold water on a hot cast iron
> skillet,
> > but certainly stressed, if not cracked in some
> > areas. In the days without x-ray capability,
> I'd
> > hesitate to risk mine or others lives. Right,
> > wrong or otherwise?
>
> IIRC, the locomotive and tender ended up on the
> river bank, not in the river.

That is correct.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

Steve...

I like your way of thinking.

The FRA steam loco rules revision team included allowing advanced inspection techniques, as the technology progresses.
As improved techniques are approved and safety is improved, they will build confidence in more rigorous examinations.

The visual inspection process is fairly crude in its ability to analyze what the actual condition of the riveted seams, actually is.
There may be hidden defects ( like hidden cracks in rivet shanks that are not visible*) that are precursors to future failures, that we just can’t see, as of now.

The science of examining structures for hidden defects, without disassembly is referred to as NDT testing...Non-Destructive Testing.
Such inspection capabilities are always welcomed, and the rules allow for the incorporation of methods that increase the safety of operating boilers.

Ideas like yours, as they become approved by the ASME review process, are always welcomed—- and the imoroved inspections increase our confidence of the predictions for the next 15-year period. Whereas, currently, we could be missing ( hidden) stuff, yet still be in compliance with the rule...
The visual inspection is all we have, right now. And that is concerning.

Current Imaging and recording inspection processes, as employed in medicine, build our confidence in the continued integrity of the seams, and i look forward to such advances being added to boiler inspections .. Maybe miniature robotics is in the future..
Especially if it can “see” through accumulated mud and scale to find dangerous cracking...

Your ideas are the source of developing better techniques, and I for one, welcome your explorations...especially if they make the more rigorous inspection process easier...

Ultrasound analysis is good for the boiler shell; but, riveted-seams inspections could always be improved..

Keep the brain gears cranking..

W.

*( even on exposed/outside rivet heads there can be hidden cracks in rivet shanks....so NKP Boilermaker, Joe Karal, would smack the heads of the exposed rivets with a heavy hammer...trying to break them off...to find weakened rivets....)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/18 05:28 by wcamp1472.

There are several "something elses" at play here that has an impact on the time
need to do a boiler inspection.

Until the new FRA Part 230 went into effect, all that was needed was basically
a visual inspection and some hammer testing of staybolts and rivets.

Now it requires verification of all materials in the boiler and firebox, plus
an ultrasonic thickness test (UT) of the boiler and the firebox sheets. From
the results of this, a new Form 4 must be calculated which will give the MAWP
(Maximum Allowable Working Pressure) of the boiler AS IT SITS. NOT as it was
built.

In the "old days" a new locomotive or a new boiler would get a Form 4 with
supporting calculations when it was built. But it was not required again at
any time during the service life of the locomotive. IOW, one could legally do
a hydro test and fire up and run a 100+ year-old boiler with no further testing
or inspections required, based on nothing more than the original Form 4. EVER!
And you would be shocked at how many did just that. And how many still try to
do just that.

Another thing: In the old days, there would have been dozens of skilled, paid
people working in shifts to do the work. Today it might be 4 or 5 at most,
many of which are volunteers and cannot put in a lot of consecutive 8-hour
days.

Now, to tube and flue removal. The current rules allow for the removal of
"sufficient tubes and flues" to be removed to allow entry to the boiler and
inspection of the entire interior. Yes, on some small boilers, that probably
will be all of them. But on large boilers, that is not the case at all. As
long as somebody who knows what he is looking at and looking for can get in
and look at everything on the shell closely, that complies.

For my money, I want them all out, if for no other reason than to be able to
examine the inside surfaces of both tube sheets.