 |
Re: PRR K4 1361 restoration to operation
Author: G. Poindexter
Date: 03-04-2020 - 15:43
Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > FRA Part 230
>
> While it's been a while since I participated the
> details of boiler "certification" -- at the time
> the FRA "ruled the roost". Since then the FRA
> adopted many ASME specs and practices into (the
> "new") Part 230, but what's actually in Part 230
> pre-empts everything else when it comes to
> locomotive boilers.
True. FRA refused to change a few of the 1911-era rules
that the rest of the boiler and pressure vessel industry
and regulatory agencies long ago got rid of as overkill,
unrealistic, superseded, etc.
A good example is the FRA-mandated 125% annual hydro test.
The rest of industry long ago went to annual tests at
not over MAWP, reasoning that the safety valves prevent
anything like 125% overpressure from happening. In fact,
the safety valves have to be removed or disabled to even
do this type of test. Question being, how often in regular
service is a boiler going to be running around with all
the safety valves removed or disabled and nobody watching
the steam gauge in the cab?
FRA's reasoning was "We've always done it that way. Why
change now?" A perfect, railroad-like mentality.
My point remains that you can't (or at least shouldn't)
just drag some homeless guy off the street and have him
build you a boiler.
Just try getting something like that insured, for example.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > FRA Part 230
>
> While it's been a while since I participated the
> details of boiler "certification" -- at the time
> the FRA "ruled the roost". Since then the FRA
> adopted many ASME specs and practices into (the
> "new") Part 230, but what's actually in Part 230
> pre-empts everything else when it comes to
> locomotive boilers.
True. FRA refused to change a few of the 1911-era rules
that the rest of the boiler and pressure vessel industry
and regulatory agencies long ago got rid of as overkill,
unrealistic, superseded, etc.
A good example is the FRA-mandated 125% annual hydro test.
The rest of industry long ago went to annual tests at
not over MAWP, reasoning that the safety valves prevent
anything like 125% overpressure from happening. In fact,
the safety valves have to be removed or disabled to even
do this type of test. Question being, how often in regular
service is a boiler going to be running around with all
the safety valves removed or disabled and nobody watching
the steam gauge in the cab?
FRA's reasoning was "We've always done it that way. Why
change now?" A perfect, railroad-like mentality.
My point remains that you can't (or at least shouldn't)
just drag some homeless guy off the street and have him
build you a boiler.
Just try getting something like that insured, for example.
