Locomotive boiler replacement

[doilum]

When was the "10 year ticket" introduced?

Back in the day, how was the milage of locomotives recorded and major rebuilds decided?

As the owner of several Yeadons registars I am aware of the number of boiler changes some locomotives underwent.

[LMS2968]

In BR days and earlier boilers generally had a working life of five years. This could be extended by a year after examination by a senior boiler inspection, and in exceptional circumstance by a further year, also after inspection. This formed the basis of the seven year main line ticket. Off the main line, the ticket became ten years, but cold and hot exams were required. The periods between boiler changes was often less with express engines which, because of their diagrams, accrued higher mileages and more wear to boilers.

 

Shoppings were dependent on the loco condition and the type of overhaul on a 'what was needed' basis. On the LMS, a Black Five would need an Intermediate overhaul at around 55,000 to 65,000 miles, by which time axleboxes, motion and springs would be in poor condition but the boiler serviceable, and a Heavy at about twice that. The were criteria for deciding if a repair was 'Heavy' depending on what needed to be changed. A boiler lift, as an example although there were others, classed the repair as Heavy, but it might be a Heavy Intermediate. A Heavy General replaced or repaired almost everything.

[DCB]

I understand it was just a bureaucratic box ticking exercise from late LMS early BR days.  I believe it was K J Cook  Swindon steam who wrote it was completely pointless as no boilers would get anywhere near 10 years without a lift in ordinary service.  He did mention a King managing 400 000 miles without a boiler lift / change,  they had planned overhauls at78 000 miles, obviously they had piston and valve  examinations at shed between overhauls but GWR practice was for axle re metaling and machining to be done at main works and not between overhauls, unlike the LMS which re metaled and machined axle boxes at depots within a single shift.    The GWR kept mileage records and called locos to works on a mileage basis, (Mother in law worked in the mileage card section at Swindon works)  while the LMS shed masters proposed run down  locos for shopping and the LMS had inspectors who ensured locos were not called to works prematurely, i.e. while they were still able to pull trains, and the LNER were even more desperate to keep locos out of works no matter how badly run down preferring to smash the end out of a cylinder rather than replace some bushings in the valve gear.

Where the 10 year rule kicked in was very low mileage locos, some Compounds, 2Ps etc only came out for the summer service and did very low annual mileage.   There was a batch of Tilbury Tanks at Carlisle which allegedly didn't turn a wheel for years, so the ten year rule gave an excuse to move these locos to works and scrap them.  In 1940 it probably was essential to remove boilers every 10 years  but with ultra sonic testing and Xrays?   Is it still relevant?  

Edited May 12, 2023 by DCB

[Wickham Green too]

You've at least got to remove the boiler from the frames to ultra-sonic or x-ray the lower part of the firebox .......... and trying to interpret the images of a boiler barrel full of limescale-encrusted tubes would be next to impossible.

[Siberian Snooper]

I don't have any dates,  but when I worked in Devonport Dockyard as a boilermaker, boilers required a visual inspection and cold working pressure test at NOT more than 14 months and a wear and waste * examination every 5 years.  Followed by a 1and1/2 times working pressure test followed by a full working pressure steam test to check the safety valves.

 

From what I gathered this regime was in place from before WW2.

 

wear and waste test* remove 10% of the tubes from various nominated areas of the boiler, acid dip the selected tubes, to remove any scale, cut the tubes longitudinally, inspect the tubes for pitting and measure the pits, if the wear or pitting was greater than 10% of the original thickness, then additional tubes would be nominated for further tests to establish whether or not it was localised or more general. Whilst the tubes were out the tube plates would also be inspected and measured. With the same parameters applying.

[jim.snowdon]

57 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I don't have any dates,  but when I worked in Devonport Dockyard as a boilermaker, boilers required a visual inspection and cold working pressure test at NOT more than 14 months and a wear and waste * examination every 5 years.  Followed by a 1and1/2 times working pressure test followed by a full working pressure steam test to check the safety valves.

Beware of differences in regulations for stationary steam plant and locomotives. Even the current regulations ( The Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000) exempt locomotives and other rail borne vehicles.

[Siberian Snooper]

Would you say that a ship born boiler was stationary? And I don't think the navy have had any steam powered ships since the early 2000s, I left in '94.

 

 

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Would you say that a ship born boiler was stationary? And I don't think the navy have had any steam powered ships since the early 2000s, I left in '94.

 

 

Oddly, no. And they’re excluded from the Regulations too.

 

[jjb1970]

Commercial maritime boilers are subject to class rules and survey requirements.

 

Something to keep in mind is that many motor ships have steam systems for things like tank heating. Some of them are big, auxiliary boilers on tankers can be as big as or bigger than many propulsion boilers.

 

 

[rogerzilla]

I believe some railways in problem water areas routinely removed a proportion of tubes just to get all of the scale into a position where it could be removed.  The normal washout plugs and mudhole doors didn't cut it.

[roythebus1]

The K&ESR has recently shown pictures of the inside of the BoB boiler that they have on hire. the KESR uses reverse osmosis water treatment to increase the periods between boiler servicing.

 

It was found the BoB was badly scaled. After a week or two of service on the KESR the water treatment was showing how effective it is. Photos are only on the members website so I can't copy them to here.

[Siberian Snooper]

On 13/05/2023 at 03:00, jjb1970 said:

Commercial maritime boilers are subject to class rules and survey requirements.

 

Something to keep in mind is that many motor ships have steam systems for things like tank heating. Some of them are big, auxiliary boilers on tankers can be as big as or bigger than many propulsion boilers.

 

 

 

One of the last jobs that I got involved with, was replacing the tube plates on the Rover class tankers.

 

 

[5944]

On 14/05/2023 at 23:08, roythebus1 said:

The K&ESR has recently shown pictures of the inside of the BoB boiler that they have on hire. the KESR uses reverse osmosis water treatment to increase the periods between boiler servicing.

 

It was found the BoB was badly scaled. After a week or two of service on the KESR the water treatment was showing how effective it is. Photos are only on the members website so I can't copy them to here.

The Nene Valley have had problems with their water treatment recently. 34081 is currently out of action having big chunks of its thermic syphons replaced (that were only replaced at the last overhaul) due to scale build-up and damage. Hudswell Clarke no. 1800 "Thomas" is also having an overhaul after a few tube failures. When the tubes were removed, big lumps of water treatment was stuck to them! Obviously whatever they were using wasn't dissolving properly and forming solid lumps on the tubes. 

[roythebus1]

From what I've read the KESR treatment has saved an awful lot of work and has extended boiler wash-out intervals. The treatment programme needs careful monitoring though.