 |
Re: More cold water in a hot boiler
Author: Carol L Voss
Date: 05-04-2019 - 19:17
Eric Gonzales Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why am I letting myself get dragged into the troll
> argument. I absolutely LOVE reading armchair
> boiler operators spout off about all their
> supposed knowledge of what's working and what
> isn't.
>
> For those that didn't read a previous post of
> mine, I am not affiliated with UP in any way shape
> or form. I am not even out on the chase, even
> though I would absolutely love to be. Right now,
> I'm at work in Elkhorn Nebraska. My work is as a
> stationary engineer. I'm sure all you trolls know
> exactly what that is, but for those who might have
> just an ounce of humility, let me explain it to
> you... I am a licensed boiler operator. I oversee
> 7 boilers on my shift each night. The license
> that I hold is the 2nd most difficult boiler
> license to obtain in the country, behind New York
> City. In addition, I also work with the steam
> trains at the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo. These
> trains are not toys, but actual working engines.
>
> For all you "experts" what are you using to
> determine whether a locomotive is "working" or
> not? Is it all that pretty smoke that comes out
> of the stack? Go back and read a basic boiler
> operations book. All that smoke means is that
> there is incomplete combustion. Yes, that's
> right, means the fireman isn't doing his job quite
> right. If you're trying to compare pictures from
> when all 25 big boys were in service to now,
> don't. Stop right there. As you know, those
> engines burned coal. While possible, it is harder
> for the fireman to balance his fire perfectly for
> complete combustion (What's that? look it up in a
> boiler operations book) as the coal takes longer
> to burn. Oil on the other hand is much cleaner,
> and easier to make fine tuned adjustments. What
> does the 4014 burn now? Oil.
>
> Are you griping because that diesel sounds like
> it's working hard? Suck it up buttercups. Its
> not unusual to throttle back a steam engine and
> let the diesel do the bulk of the work to save on
> fuel, and especially water. Yes, as much as I'm
> sure all you drooling "experts" probably hate to
> admit it, even the 844 and the 3985 would
> sometimes back off the throttle and let the diesel
> do the work. And UP is not alone on this. the
> 4449, 3751, 261, and others have also done the
> same thing, for the same reason. You think
> obtaining water is a simple thing? Obtaining
> water isn't as simple as just pulling up to a fire
> hydrant, not for the long term health of a boiler.
> EVERY boiler needs to have the water treated for
> softness, the right alkalinity amounts, sulfates,
> etc. If they can save water, they will.
>
> Now, my challenge from an earlier post remains the
> same. For all you "expert" haters out there, why
> don't you quite hiding behind an anonymous handle,
> and actually identify yourself, and exactly what
> your grievance is with the program. I've yet to
> see any credibility from any one of you lousy
> complainers who make the rest of us want to bang
> our heads on the wall. Or, are you too much of a
> "professional" or too much of an "expert" to be
> able to do that and share your knowledge with the
> rest of us, if you have "knowledge" worth sharing?
> Until you have the balls to do so, if all you
> want to do is complain, please, go write in your
> own diary so the rest of us don't have to deal
> with your baggage. Sorry, your baggage missed
> that train.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why am I letting myself get dragged into the troll
> argument. I absolutely LOVE reading armchair
> boiler operators spout off about all their
> supposed knowledge of what's working and what
> isn't.
>
> For those that didn't read a previous post of
> mine, I am not affiliated with UP in any way shape
> or form. I am not even out on the chase, even
> though I would absolutely love to be. Right now,
> I'm at work in Elkhorn Nebraska. My work is as a
> stationary engineer. I'm sure all you trolls know
> exactly what that is, but for those who might have
> just an ounce of humility, let me explain it to
> you... I am a licensed boiler operator. I oversee
> 7 boilers on my shift each night. The license
> that I hold is the 2nd most difficult boiler
> license to obtain in the country, behind New York
> City. In addition, I also work with the steam
> trains at the Omaha Henry Doorly Zoo. These
> trains are not toys, but actual working engines.
>
> For all you "experts" what are you using to
> determine whether a locomotive is "working" or
> not? Is it all that pretty smoke that comes out
> of the stack? Go back and read a basic boiler
> operations book. All that smoke means is that
> there is incomplete combustion. Yes, that's
> right, means the fireman isn't doing his job quite
> right. If you're trying to compare pictures from
> when all 25 big boys were in service to now,
> don't. Stop right there. As you know, those
> engines burned coal. While possible, it is harder
> for the fireman to balance his fire perfectly for
> complete combustion (What's that? look it up in a
> boiler operations book) as the coal takes longer
> to burn. Oil on the other hand is much cleaner,
> and easier to make fine tuned adjustments. What
> does the 4014 burn now? Oil.
>
> Are you griping because that diesel sounds like
> it's working hard? Suck it up buttercups. Its
> not unusual to throttle back a steam engine and
> let the diesel do the bulk of the work to save on
> fuel, and especially water. Yes, as much as I'm
> sure all you drooling "experts" probably hate to
> admit it, even the 844 and the 3985 would
> sometimes back off the throttle and let the diesel
> do the work. And UP is not alone on this. the
> 4449, 3751, 261, and others have also done the
> same thing, for the same reason. You think
> obtaining water is a simple thing? Obtaining
> water isn't as simple as just pulling up to a fire
> hydrant, not for the long term health of a boiler.
> EVERY boiler needs to have the water treated for
> softness, the right alkalinity amounts, sulfates,
> etc. If they can save water, they will.
>
> Now, my challenge from an earlier post remains the
> same. For all you "expert" haters out there, why
> don't you quite hiding behind an anonymous handle,
> and actually identify yourself, and exactly what
> your grievance is with the program. I've yet to
> see any credibility from any one of you lousy
> complainers who make the rest of us want to bang
> our heads on the wall. Or, are you too much of a
> "professional" or too much of an "expert" to be
> able to do that and share your knowledge with the
> rest of us, if you have "knowledge" worth sharing?
> Until you have the balls to do so, if all you
> want to do is complain, please, go write in your
> own diary so the rest of us don't have to deal
> with your baggage. Sorry, your baggage missed
> that train.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
