Bernard Lamb Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Chatting over the weekend the topic turned to a certain restoration project, not railway, and the problems presented in obtaining the correct material, steel in particular. Let us say that the source found was rather dodgy and best not made too public. A second example has been restored by another group using modern material. I don't wish to start an argument, although I know that is what will happen, about the rights and wrongs of each method. I am firmly in the original where possible at any cost camp. From my old day job I know a bit about the chemical composition and the mechanical properties of steel. That's why I was asked about the reasons for wanting to use old material. It started me wondering what the railway preservation people do. Do they source material from the original period or use modern substitutes? Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 9, 2012 This Report tells us what they ought to do http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/100408_R72010_Hampton_Loade.pdf and recording processes as well as records of materials used should be part of a Railway's ROGS procedures. In a nutshell the material has to be the correct spec for the use to which it will be put with evidence that it is to that spec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 This Report tells us what they ought to do http://www.raib.gov....mpton_Loade.pdf and recording processes as well as records of materials used should be part of a Railway's ROGS procedures. In a nutshell the material has to be the correct spec for the use to which it will be put with evidence that it is to that spec. Thanks for that Mike, Very revealing. Doesn't answer my question but it does point out what a slack outfit there was running a preserved railway at that time. The rules quoted do not just apply to the rail industry. Identification of material as being fit for purpose has to be a critical part of any audit system. For the supplier to start making the springs without having a fully specced drawing is just diabolocical. For the user to accept the situation is in my book getting close to a hanging offence. I used to take part in a series of unofficial round robin tests between two of the major steel producers and two of the big motor trade users. We would carry out blind tests on materials just to check that our equipment and methods were valid. This was a private check in addition to any thing required in the various company and industry formal procedures. It did keep you on you toes. Oh, just for infformation nobody ever got a wrong result. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ringo Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 In preservation, it can be very difficult to obtain steel that is to the original specifications. Therefore modern eqivalents are normally purchased that will give the same properties as the old steel, indeed modern steels are better as they are better produced quality wise with less imperfections. As long as there is evidence kept of what materials are used, and those are kept on the vehicles technical file, and is substantiated by a NoBo/VAB if the vehicle is main line certified then there shouldnt be a problem. However, using steel from an unknown dubious source is just plain daft, especially when there is no traceability of that material in the event of a failure. Cheers R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim V Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Of course all steel made since 1945 is flawed - hence the raiding of "old" steel...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted July 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 15, 2012 Of course all steel made since 1945 is flawed - hence the raiding of "old" steel...... Thanks for that - guess I'd better not go over any modern bridges, into modern steel framed buildings etc., etc., anywhen soon..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriswild Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Of course all steel made since 1945 is flawed - hence the raiding of "old" steel...... ive heard this before, in particular relating to armour-plating? any idea why? cheers, chris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giz Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Small amounts of steel have been sourced from pre-WW11 ships as it is not contaminated by radiation from nuclear testing which renders it unsuitable for radiation sensitive purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonesome_whistle Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Increased atmospheric radioactivity is, I believe, the reason given. It's all totally beyond me and I couldn't tell you whether it's urban myth or reality.. Edit: Oops, beaten to it!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Well you learn something new everyday! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenrithBeacon Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Small amounts of steel have been sourced from pre-WW11 ships as it is not contaminated by radiation from nuclear testing which renders it unsuitable for radiation sensitive purposes: http://en.wikipedia....ackground_steel When BR was scrapping its fleet of steam engines the copper from pre-1945 fireboxes was considered to be more valuable than the later stuff for this very reason. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Just for clarity it should be pointed out that modern steel produced in BOF's and, in particular, EAF's, is of as high, and often higher quality, and certainly more consistently so, than steel produced in the Bessemers and open hearths in use from the 1850's until the 1970's. It is certainly not flawed and is more than suitable for 99.99% of demand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I've read somewhere that modern materials are far purer than the older stuff as more stress is usually expected of modern machines, lighter weight, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castle Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Hi All, When working on 4079 there are certain areas that need to have materials of known provenance. The most obvious is the stuff used in the boiler. ALL of that material is of a known standard and has a traceable history right back to its source. Our insurance company at 81E inspects and certificates down to the cylinder block so that includes the regulator, superheater elements and header and the pipe work to the cylinder block. This traceabillity is also required (especially as a future main line vehicle) on all safety critical systems such as the motion, brakes, structure, etc. Anything that is on the locomotive already from a historical standpoint (ie: has been there since before its preservation) and is proven to be safe (tested with non - destructive means such as magnetic particle or ultrasonic means) is good to use without too much further investigation into materials. What is known affectionately as 'Grandfather Rights' kicks in here, on the basis that it has already been on the mainline in service therefore it is ok to use again. With regard to the types of material and it's individual specifications for replacement parts, the original GWR / BR specification materials may not be around still but modern equivalents are available and there are reference charts that are out there (again boilers especially) that set out what is what. The ORR publication snappily entitled 'The Management Of Steam Locomotive Boilers' has a series of conversion tables in the back of it. For example, the regular boiler plate used by BR was to their grade of 110 which was steel of a tensile strength of 25 -30 tons. The modern specified equivalent is BS No. 1501 151-400A. There are several of the rail regulatory authorities that put out these lists. If you go to the Railway Group Standards website many of them are free to download if you are interested in such things. All the best, Castle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 A similar thread has run on the KESR website following the breaking of some brake rodding components in the last couple of years, also regarding the rebuilding of vehicles. Again, grandfather rights kick in and similar mods have been made to other vehicles which have already been proven in service.. Slightly off-topic but relevant, there was a documentary about the Titanic (one of many I know) which investigated the iron plate used for the hull. It was found that plate of that era was of cheap quality due to the speed at which things had to be built and there was virtually no quality control as we know it today. Hence the iron plates peeld open like a tin of beans and the boat sank quicker than it was designed to. Also, on AEC Routemaster bus engines, they are prone to metal fatigue due to the amount of use they've had over the years; steering ball joints have fractured and so on. So I'd be wary of using old materials! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted July 19, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 19, 2012 Small amounts of steel have been sourced from pre-WW11 ships as it is not contaminated by radiation from nuclear testing which renders it unsuitable for radiation sensitive purposes: http://en.wikipedia....ackground_steel The same source says this Decreasing background radiation World anthropogenic background radiation levels peaked at 0.15 mSv in 1963, the year that the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was enacted. Since then, anthropogenic background radiation has decreased exponentially to 0.005 mSv per year.[3] So is it a significant reason now? Perhaps it is - a bit scary. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/SealedRadioactiveSources/pdfs/handout_scrap.pdf Kevin Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch09/cobalto.html Slightly off-topic but relevant, there was a documentary about the Titanic (one of many I know) which investigated the iron plate used for the hull. It was found that plate of that era was of cheap quality due to the speed at which things had to be built and there was virtually no quality control as we know it today. Hence the iron plates peeled open like a tin of beans and the boat sank quicker than it was designed to. Not just lack of quality control, the manufacture of steel was still very much a craft skill, dependent on the experience and expertise of the furnacemen. Modern process controls and monitoring didn't exist, metallurgical control was poor by todays standards as were the techniques to examine the steel after manufacture. If you want a story about really radioactive steel here's an account of the 'Mexican X-Ray Machine Incident'. http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch09/cobalto.html A search of the web will reveal other incidents of improperly disposed of radioactive materials, a few involving X-Ray machines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzyo Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Slightly off-topic but relevant, there was a documentary about the Titanic (one of many I know) which investigated the iron plate used for the hull. It was found that plate of that era was of cheap quality due to the speed at which things had to be built and there was virtually no quality control as we know it today. Hence the iron plates peeld open like a tin of beans and the boat sank quicker than it was designed to. I think that you maybe wrong on a couple of parts on the build of the Titanic, as she would have been built of steel, not iron plate. The rivets at that time, could have been made of wrought iron, when the big piece of the ship [about 12 ton] was brought to the surface. The metal was checked and found to to be OK. Some of the rivets were found to have a high carbon count, but about right for that time. the lap joint on the hull would have been about 9" per plate on her hull. So the plate would have been about 2" thick at all the joints. OzzyO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Interesting that the rivets should have a higher than expected carbon content. Wrought iron should have a very low carbon content, and it's one material whose quality of manufacture was as good then as when it's manufacture ceased, in this country in 1973. It is the high carbon content which makes iron, as manufactured, weak in tensile strength and why wrought iron, and later steel, are used for most applications where stress is involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Richard E Posted August 12, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 12, 2012 The Titanic steel was, according to analysis, about 10 times more brittle than modern steel and prone to cracking in freezing temperatures so material quality was one of the issues. There are other but as this is a railway forum, not a ship forum this is perhaps heading off topic. Suffice to say that the same issues may well exist with any remaining steel from that period that exists in any rail related environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonB Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I have no details to hand of the chemical composition of the Titanic steel so can't argue with Richard E. however the resistance to impact (brittleness) and resistance to fracture is likely to be governed by (heat)treatment history of the plate production. Modern steelmakers have a greater understanding of the effects of heat (or lack of it) on steel, and steels are now rigorously tested. Or at least they were up to when I retired 13 years ago! Going rather off topic!.......and wandering down memory lane.... One interesting feature of modern steels which I have not seen widely reported or commented upon, is the Copper content in modern steels. Since about 1960 (possibly earlier) the Copper content in steels has drifted upwards, from about 0.15%Cu in the '60s to about 0.40%Cu in the '90s. (info. from my own Laboratory Records). This happened due to the quantity of crushed cars used as feedstock in modern steel making processes, and copper is difficult to remove from the molten steel. This is not necessarily a bad thing as Copper, whilst not seriously affecting other physical properties, tends to improve the corrosion resistance of steel, indeed there is (was?) a steel specification called "Corten" which was claimed to have good corrosion resistant properties due to having 0.5% Cu content. Perhaps rebuilds of locos etc will rust just that bit more slowly! No doubt Arthur will be along to bring me up to date! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.