|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 13, 2004 16:54:14 GMT
Hi All Ive got 2 questions concerning boilers 1) If youv'e got a steel boiler that has never been used and no paperwork to go with it is it any good? My club boiler inspector says no! 2) Has anyone heard of anything in the new boiler regulations that says when a boiler reaches 10yrs old it has to checked as a boiler only with no cleading and no fittings just as it would for it's original twice working pressure test. Rumour reached me today that at least one club in the country is insisting upon this, claiming it is in the new regulations.
thanks
Andy
|
|
ewal
Part of the e-furniture
Happiness is a good wife & a steam engine.
Posts: 293
|
Post by ewal on Sept 13, 2004 19:09:39 GMT
You need your own track. There are some clubs where the boiler inspectors are well aware of their power & love it. I have no current certificates for my boilers, but they were all built by coded welder boiler makers. When I sold 2 steamers the other day, the purchaser having found out the builder, was quite happy, he said "He built my traction engine boiler" Two more people were interested in "Romulus" They are building their own track.
E.W.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Mason on Sept 14, 2004 8:31:53 GMT
Hi Andy,
|
|
|
Post by Roger Mason on Sept 14, 2004 8:47:10 GMT
Hi Andy,
It seems to me that the requirements for boilers are effectively laid down by the insurance company that issues the insurance. If you do not need insurance then no rules apply. However if there is an accident and anyone makes a claim against you I would suggest that you are in a difficult position.
If you are aiming to get insurance issued through the Southern Federation, then it would be worth your while to get their booklet entitled "Minimum Requirements for the Examination/Testing of Miniature Steam Boilers". If you read this carefully it indicates that steel boilers should "preferably" be to a design accepted by a reputable Insurance Company, and the welding carried out by a suitably qualified welder.
If the boiler does not comply with the above it would seem that the Club's Boiler Inspectors have the authority to satisfy themselves that the boiler is to a reasonable design and if it passes a 2.5 times working pressure hydraulic test (and the steaming test) it could be accepted, the certificate issued and insurance obtained.
Thats how I read the S. Fed. guidelines anyway. I suspect that the Northern Association has similar paperwork. I would be interested to hear of other views.
Cheers,
Roger Mason.
P.S. Sorry about the strange reply above, I cannot get used to not using a 'Tab' key when I want to indent a new paragraph - the result can be a sent message before I am ready!!
|
|
Geoff
Active Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by Geoff on Sept 14, 2004 9:09:01 GMT
Hi Andy,
Can't say anything about steel boilers, but I have a 'new' copper boiler for my 'Maid of Kent', which is getting on for 20 years old! Never been steamed, and professionally made, but I know it has been Hydraulically tested. I have no paperwork, however, but my own club boiler inspector was quite happy to see the boiler, but has asked me to do my own test to see it in fact there are any leaks/weeps, before fitting to the frames for a steam test which he will carry out.
I also have a 'Pansy', which has only had one boiler test, about 14 years ago! When I joined my local club 2 years ago (for the second time!!), I recal the then Chairman stating that the cleading would have to be removed in order to carry out a new boiler test. As our club doesn't run for the public, I'm not too fussed at the present time, but perhaps I ought to be. I just don't fancy stripping the side tanks, cab and everything else, for someone to cast their eye over what I know is a perfectly sound boiler!!
I'd like to know how many times our model boilers have actually failed due to the boiler barrel, or firebox wrapper becoming defective? Any guesses, anyone??
Geoff
|
|
|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 14, 2004 11:30:14 GMT
HI Roger I quite agree with what you are saying. The situation is that a dealer is offering a model for sale with an unused steel boiler, but has no paperwork to go with it. A used boiler I could get tested, but not a new one! This dealer however doesn't think there is a problem with this, hence my question, yet everyone else I speak to including other dealers and my club boiler tester says it is a problem. I had a look at the Southern Fed minimum requirements for boilers last night and in sedction 3 for steel boilers state that any required material certs. shold be provided. But the 'preferable' only applies to the design part doesnt it?
Andy
|
|
|
Post by davidimurray on Sept 14, 2004 18:47:50 GMT
Having been invovled the paperwork and design for a few boilers for full sized locomotives here are some points and an idea of what it takes for a PED approval.
1) Paperwork is essential. ALL materials should be certificated to the required standards - that includes bolts, stay materials, tubes etc. Also ALL involved with the construction should meet the required standards and you should be given copies of their certificates.
2) All design must be carried out to meet BS2790:1992 in the UK, this is soon to fully become BSEN12953 as part of the harmonised european standards.
3) The design, and it's construction will need to be approved by a 'Notified Body' i.e. the insurance company. At the end of the day these are the guys who carry the big risk, and that's why they are so picky. As long as you give them all the information they want, and it meets their requirements their should be no problem.
4) It's not unreasonable for the inspector to ask to view the boiler 'naked' at various intervals. At the end of the day neither you nor he knows what's actually going on under the cladding until you can see it. A common occurence with steel is that the lagging holds water and leads to corrosion at the bottom of the boiler barrel.
5) Here's and idea of what's involved in a boiler approval(this may change based the category the boiler comes under) :-
a) Description - you must be able to explain what all the bits are, the materials, any bushes etc. THe idea seems to be to prove that you understand the boiler in the bigger piecture b) Details of the design, calculations, operating instructions, maintenance instructions, risk assesments (of construction and use), manufacturing drawings c) Standards - need to provide all material, constructional and staff certificates d) Subcontractors - if any subcontractors are used (may be the person building the boiler for you) then you need a scheme of checking and mkaing sure their work is up to standard e) Details of all the reports and inspections carried out during and after construction.
This may sound like an enormous amount of work - but it's only a paper trail and doesn't really affect the way in which any good boilermaker would construct a boiler except for the big file of paper he should hand you afterwards.
At the end of the day you may think your boiler is steel, but how can you prove it is the right grade for what it is supposed to do. Without the paper trail the inspector cannot verify what the steel is, and as a result an unkown quantity. Bear in mind that even though it may pass a hydraulic test, the use of an incorrect steel could lead to premature failure.
Hope that's some help, personally I'd say that without the paperwork your boiler is only good for private use.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Sept 14, 2004 21:10:43 GMT
There was an excellent article about boilers and the rules pertaining to them, in Model Engineer, in, I think, the early part of last year.
From memory, and I might be wrong here, it is basically illegal for anyone to sell a boiler that does not have all its paperwork, although most seem to ignore that.
As for using it, one would think it safe to ignore the rules on your own property. However, in the event of a serious accident, perhaps to a family member, you could still be held liable, and possibly prosecuted.
I would suggest that it is worth finding out EXACTLY what the rules are beforehand, rather than ignoring them and hoping for the best.
|
|
|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 14, 2004 22:29:33 GMT
Hi Alan What everybody is saying just confirms my thoughts and that is that the boiler is pretty usless. What gets me most is that a dealer is prepared to sell a boiler without knowing for sure what it is made from or wether it was made by a competent welder. The bit about selling boilers with paperwork I believe only applies to pressure vessels made post new regulations. As the vast majority of models where made before they came into being it isnt a problem. Personally I don't want to be near a pressure vessel that isn't safe and I wouldnt let any member of my family near one I wasnt happy with. I appercaite that some people have their own land and are entitled to do what they want but one of the biggest parts of this hobby for me is meeeting new people and seeing their models, just as I like to show my models. So having a model I coudn't take to a rally defeats the object. I'll do some research though and see if I can find anything concrete.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 14, 2004 22:33:20 GMT
HI Dave Thanks for the insite into the big boys world of boilers. It can't be that much difrent though to what you have to do now to get a new design of model boiler approved. I think I will stick with copper and existing designs.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by Roger Mason on Sept 16, 2004 9:12:32 GMT
Hi All,
Whilst not exactly relevant to Andy's problem, I am surprised by the lack of information regarding the designs of new boilers as presented in the model engineering press.
As an example lets take the latest design to be shown in Model Engineer - Neville Evans's "Penrhos Grange". As far as I can see the only concession he makes to calculations is a reference to Keith Wilson's article in April 2002, and he says he does not wish to repeat the calculations in his articles. Quite honestly I do not think that is sufficient. I would expect to see all the calculations repeated, with justification given for all thicknesses, sizes and spacings used.
I speak from the position as a recently appointed Club's Boiler Inspector. When presented with a new boiler to be tested I am supposed to satisfy myself that the design is adequate. Without the justification for the thicknesses used, the spacing of stays and tubes, etc. how am I supposed to do this?
What do others think? I stress that the above is only my opinion, and I have nothing against Neville Evans, nor his design. I am just trying to establish the "ground rules" in my own mind.
Cheers,
Roger Mason
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Sept 16, 2004 9:46:42 GMT
Roger, I agree. From an inspectors point of view, you / they should satisfy themselves that the design is sound.
From an individual builders point of view, having built the boiler and taken it along to their club, they would be sorely disappointed if the inspector refused it a certificate on the basis that he didnt know if it was adequate in strenght of materials etc.
In both cases, the insurance and liability issues rear their heads.
In this day and age, when litigation is so common, we cannot afford to be found wanting, and the first step is always to be able to PROVE that a boiler design is sound, and secondly, that that particular boiler is built to the design.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Mason on Sept 16, 2004 9:47:17 GMT
Hi Andy,
Let me reply to some of your points in your posting dated 14 September.
1. You say: I had a look at the Southern Fed minimum requirements for boilers last night and in sedction 3 for steel boilers state that any required material certs. shold be provided. But the 'preferable' only applies to the design part doesnt it? I've had another look and I think you are right, except it says "certificates shall be produced" - this removes any discretion here. However that requirement starts with: "Any required material certificates ..." Who determines which material certificates are required? Possibly an inspector could determine that none were required!!
2. The requirement goes on to say: " ... a check made that the plate/tubes are stamped with the correct numbers. Is this really practicable? I haven't seen any boilers where such marking is visible. Aren't the plates and tubes normally identified, before being cut to size for a new boiler, with a paint/ink identification?
3. This dealer however doesn't think there is a problem with this. In which case invite him to provide the initial test certificate from a suitable insurance company. The payment for this inspection is presumeably open to negotiation.
I don't think that any of this gives you the answer that you want to hear!!
I will be pleased when the Southern Federation and the Northern Association get together and produce a code of practice relating to the design of boilers and a re-write of the testing requirements that take away all these areas of doubt and recognise that not all boilers are for locomotives!
That should open up a hornets nest!!
Cheers,
Roger Mason.
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Sept 16, 2004 22:04:11 GMT
As I understand it, all boilers, large and small, steel or copper, are covered by the Pressure Equipment Directives.
Following a lot of work by a team comprising the model engineering fraternity, some concessions were made that allowed "us" to make our own copper boilers, and to police our own work, via clubs etc.
I dont believe that this extended to steel boilers, and if I am right, that means that ALL steel boilers must be built with certified materials, by code welders, etc, and tested by a professional organisation.
As for old items, I believe that they have to have been in use for several years (before a cut-off date) to be allowed to be used.
Therefore, an old steel boiler, without paperwork is virtually scrap metal.
Also, I believe it is illegal to sell a boiler without the necessary certificate.
Now, all this is from memory. I might be able to find the original references, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 16, 2004 22:36:20 GMT
Hi Roger I don't envy your position at all, but I can sympathise with you. I feel that a lot more information is now neccesary on boiler design not only because of the new regulations but also because people are more aware of what is happening to a boiler when in use and the stresses and strains involved. Martin Evan wrote a book on boiler design that gives calculations for thickness and stay pitches, it might be worth searching a copy out. I seem to remember that when 'Simplex' first appeared a lot of people were not happy with the girder type crown stays and that the crown of the firebox was not connected to the outer wrapper. Many 'Simplex' boilers have been constructed since and to my knowledge there has never been a problem with one. But this hasn't stopped the AMBC, and I hope someone from that part of the world will correct me if I am wrong, banning the design and call for a more traditional approach. What would happen if the original design was submitted today? As someone who is just starting to make a Simplex boiler if I fit traditional stays at a pitch x instead of the approved girders does this then make the boiler a new design which needs completely recalcualating or is it still the old simplex design. How far can you go in modifying a boiler design before it needs re-assesing? Who has the right to say if it is okay or not, come to that who approves the design put forward by Neville Evans? A member of my club recently told me that certain of the Clarkson boiler designs in his opinion where only just safe, yet many of these have been built without problems. As the club boiler inspector you have the right to refuse any boiler design you deem is unfit or unsafe. What is harder to check is the quality of construction, and I have seen so called proffesional boilers that fall short of the mark. The stamping of tube plates and tubes, for a steel boiler it should be done regardless. The numbers stamped into that material are the only method of proving that the boiler in question is made from the correct grade of boiler plate and not mild steel. In fact these numbers allow the material to be traced right back to the manufacturing source. What happens in full size practice Dave? How is material tracability handled? I thought as the boiler inspector you have too inspect the boiler at each stage of construction? This would make it easy to check the numbers. When a friend of mine took delivery of a new traction engine boiler it came with a fairly weighty pack of paperwork, but it was all nessecary to meet the new PED. Boilers made before the new regulations are a different matter and not so easy to check but should still have some means of identification and certs to prove what it is made from. In the same way copper boilers should have a serial number stamped in to them, and the northern Fed are ahead of the Southern Fed in this respect. The Northern Fed system incorporates a club number the working pressure and a boiler number into a serial number, this enables anyone who later buys the model to trace it back to the club that first tested it. Another reason to have the boilers numbered is to check that it has been tested. If I get a model with boiler A tested and then swap if for boiler B, without some form of number you would be none the wiser! In the same way the boiler certs only indentify the engine by its name ,number and colour. What if I repaint and renumber an engine that I have purchased? Without a serial number how would I prove that the boiler had been tested? As an additional thought if every boiler had a unique number that had to be checked at every boiler test would it help prevent the theft of models? I guess the best way of proving a boilers saftey is to kee p every cert it has ever had After all it would be easy to check. Sorry for the rambling thoughts I probably haven't answered any questions here but just raised a whole lot more!
Andy
|
|
|
Post by greasemonkey on Sept 16, 2004 22:48:53 GMT
HI Alan I agree with what you are saying and hence the original reason for this thread! The boiler in question is pre new regulations BUT has never been used, and that is where the problem starts. If it had been used it would it would be possible to get it re-tested. I know of one Proffesional Boiler Inspector who would be happy to do so provided it passed hydraulic, ultrasonic and visual inspections etc. However because there isn't ANY paperwork and it has never been used and therefore no providence he can't. Trying to get someone else to understand this though is the problem, they just say we can test it ourselves!! They presumably dont understand the new regulations.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Sept 17, 2004 4:18:21 GMT
I reckon that you might as well call it scrap. A pity, as it might otherwise be a good boiler.
There might possibly be some way round the rules, but finding it would probably be tricky, and if anything DID go wrong, you would face severe problems, so it isnt worth it in the end.
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeRay on Sept 17, 2004 18:31:45 GMT
As far as modifying Martin Evans boiler to incorporate conventional stays this is by definition a new design. There is no documented evidence for its safety. Although many might consider it safer to make the change the fact is that there it is not the design as published and unless the builder substantiates the changes there is nothing to underwrite the safety of the boiler. As far as published designs are concerned surely if the design is published in a public place then the designer and publisher of the design are probably responsible for ensuring its safety, and would be legally liable if the design was shown to be the cause of an accident. I am sure this is too simlistic a statement because in this day and age common sense has gone out of the window. Builders, as opposed to designers may not have the ability to carry out the stressing calculations involved, and should be able to rely on the designer for this.
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Sept 17, 2004 21:30:04 GMT
I think another related problem is the changes that have taken place since designs were published, or in other parts of the world.
I know that many of Martin Evans designs arent reckoned to be satisfactory in Australia, for example.
As for LBSC's boilers, whilst they may have been OK at that time, do they comply with todays thinking? As far as his standard construction method* goes, no.
(*That was to caulk seams with soft solder.)
What about the Greenly designs, or others of that era?
It does, or could, become a problem. The only good thing is that at present it is down to model engineers to solve, and not an official body.
|
|
|
Post by davidimurray on Sept 18, 2004 14:56:07 GMT
Firstly in reply to people :-
1) There is really no difference between the boilers of full size and miniature engine. The key point here is the amount of energy stored. PED consists of a number of categories - if I remeber correctly these take the volume of the vessel into account.
2) Material traceability can be a pain. At the end of the day we get our boilers built by reputable suppliers. As a result we require to see examples of their work, commonly just a trip to their works. Once a boiler has been built the manufacturer signs a declaration to say that all the material used is in accordance with the certificates and mark the certificates to say what is used where.
Roger - I'm not involved in clubs/societies except through my work on the big un's. From the model engineers I've spoken to a number of them simply see the boiler regualtions as something that gets in the way of their fun and don't realise that it's actually protecting them from a potential big barrel of trouble.
I'd be interested to know exactly what your schedule of inspection is for a boiler. In my head I have an idea of what I'd do - it would be interesting to compare
Cheers
Dave
|
|