[Steam-engine] Unqualified chief state boiler inspector

Rick Rowlands jrrowlands at neo.rr.com
Sat Aug 6 13:06:06 PDT 2005


Is there any appeals process to dispute the inspections of these boiler 
inspectors?  This man obviously does not have any knowlege of firetube 
riveted boilers and is not qualified to inspect them.  He is more hazardous 
than the boilers by not being well versed in the rules and not inspecting 
the boilers correctly.

Just my opinion

Rick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Lorija799 at aol.com>
To: <steam-engine at lists.stationary-engine.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: [Steam-engine] Unqualified chief state boiler inspector


> all,
> I just returned from out of state, where I was afforded the opportunity to
> see an inspection report from the chief state inspector done on a 
> locomotive
> style stayed firebox boiler.  i was informed by the boiler's proprieter 
> (and
> others) that he is openly hostile to firebox boilers, and actively seeks 
> what he
> sees as a solution for the "problem" of "park engines" (which means 
> anything
> that isn't a watertube boiler in a power plant).
>
> To show you what we are up against, he listed as condemnable defects as :
>
> 1.  Flues not welded nor beaded on SMOKEBOX end, even though it was 
> explaned
> that it has historically been railroad practice not to bead the front end 
> of
> tubes in locomotives, and I have never, ever known of welding in of tubes 
> on
> the firebox in as anyones' type of acceptable practice. In fact, the rear 
> tube
> ends weren't welded in, nor had they ever been, as it was a solid fueled
> boiler.   Even though this was explained to him, he ignored it.
>
> 2.  It was the practice of the boiler's maker to countersink/flatten the
> rivit heads on the front tube sheet from the 5o'clock to the 7o'clock 
> position to
> facilitate plug and tube removal.  There was no noticeable wastage or
> corrosion of any type in the area, but he insisted that the rivet heads 
> were wasted,
> despite the fact they were obviously countersunk.  Again, this was 
> explained
> and ignored.
>
> Interestingly, he didn't want the lagging removed, said he didn't "need to
> see it."  He also indicated that the National Board was "working on 
> historic
> boilers", and felt that it was their desire to severely curtail their 
> operation.
>
> As we are going to be working on some stuff inside this jurisdiction, I
> prefer not to publish his name or the state, except to say it is Southern.
>
> Rev Jim Jake Templin
> _______________________________________________
> Steam-engine mailing list
> http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/steam-engine 




More information about the AT mailing list