Contradiction? Poor definition?

[ejparrott]

Another question for the panel.

One of our members has just taken delivery of a brand new Stafford from Station Road Steam, and checking the Green Book I seem to have a contradiction.

Under 8 Commercially built boilers, 8.2 says '...certificates supplied by a commercial boilermaker can only be regarded as evidence....Before the boiler can be operated it must undergo a further hydraulic test...'.

Both the owner and SRS are happy for this to happen, but Mike at SRS points out article 12.6 viz a viz '...certificates...issued by professional or commercial organisations are acceptable.'.

So which is it? Mike's arguement is that the Stafford is a complete working engine and not just a boiler, so falls under 12.6 and not 8.2. I can understand that point of view, but it is still a commercially built boiler, so I think the code contradicts itself.

I should also add that in no way have I any concern over the boiler or SRS, and I'm certainly not calling anything or anyone in to question. However with the latest firebox incident (see other post), I am taking extra care.

[fostergp6nhp]

If hydraulic and steam tickets are both commercial then what is the issue?

[ejparrott]

8.2 says commercial boilers must be tested to 1.5xWP

[Deleted]

Yes it's very messy, but I would take 12.6 to mean that if a new boiler comes with hydraulic and steam certificates, that's fine. If it only comes with a shell test certificate, you can't steam it unless you carry out your own 1.5x hydraulic first.

This seems odd at first, but then many people buy a new boiler, take it home and start drilling holes in it (for example, to fit the cylinder block on a traction engine). If a new boiler comes with a steam certificate, it's clearly past that stage, so I would say 8.2 doesn't apply.

[jackrae]

I would have thought that the purpose of the 1.5xWP test was to confirm that all the relevant "non-boiler-shell" extras were properly and securely fitted. This surely implies a built up locomotive or traction engine - not a bare boiler. How, then, can a commercially supplied 1.5xWP certificate or a steaming certificate be relevant on a "bare" bought boiler.

[ejparrott]

Apr 6, 2013 22:36:48 GMT @superseven said:

Yes it's very messy, but I would take 12.6 to mean that if a new boiler comes with hydraulic and steam certificates, that's fine. If it only comes with a shell test certificate, you can't steam it unless you carry out your own 1.5x hydraulic first.

This seems odd at first, but then many people buy a new boiler, take it home and start drilling holes in it (for example, to fit the cylinder block on a traction engine). If a new boiler comes with a steam certificate, it's clearly past that stage, so I would say 8.2 doesn't apply.

I'm just awaiting a response from NAME, but I'll go with 12.6 then, and allow running until the end of the commercial certs.

[ejparrott]

NAME says yes its fine to run it.

They also say not to forget that regardless of what certificates may say, boiler inspectors reserve the right to test any boiler if they feel it necessary.

[nonort]

Another case of common sense taking precedent. SRS would not let a boiler out of its works without some form of test with all of the fittings in place and checked for operation. There reputation is on the line and one which can easily be lost buy gossip and scare mongering. I am quite confident that a commercial outfit such as SRS are more than capable of sorting out the paper work for anything they produce. Even down to the birthday of the man who welded the boiler together let alone the manufacture date of the welding rods used. Pleas give these people the grace that having invested a great deal of time and money into this project the common sense which they deserve.

[ejparrott]

Excuse me?

[Boadicea]

Apr 15, 2013 16:51:42 GMT nonort said:

Another case of common sense taking precedent. SRS would not let a boiler out of its works without some form of test with all of the fittings in place and checked for operation. There reputation is on the line and one which can easily be lost buy gossip and scare mongering. I am quite confident that a commercial outfit such as SRS are more than capable of sorting out the paper work for anything they produce. Even down to the birthday of the man who welded the boiler together let alone the manufacture date of the welding rods used. Please give these people the grace that having invested a great deal of time and money into this project the common sense which they deserve.

nonort makes a very good point and is the first to make it. To broaden it a little - many people are doing their best with this and there is the background need to try and align to other regs. All the professional boiler makers I know are responsible people and very responsive to issues affecting their reputation.

Apr 8, 2013 16:14:49 GMT ejparrott said:

NAME says yes its fine to run it.
They also say not to forget that regardless of what certificates may say, boiler inspectors reserve the right to test any boiler if they feel it necessary.

ejp, I am surprised, as a boiler inspector, you were not aware of this. You are representing the club's boiler standards and can test any boiler as above. Sometimes judgement has to be used - this, I think, is something we have lost in the H&S regime and culture developed universally, outside of model engineering. This is mainly due to jobsworths I think.
ejp, in the other thread you finished up testing a boiler to 2X, after referral. You could have made a decision and said you were not happy with the documentation presented and therefore would test to 2X, and stuck by your interpretation. The owner then has the option to use another tester. In short, the regulations can never have all the answers and testers have to make judgements. You cannot just refer everything. You have to have balls.
I say again - the regs are what they are, we need to just get on with it.

[nonort]

I presume that moulton seas end is the only place left with the common sense gene.