It may be a bit mischievous to open another thread having had two shut down now, but I did just want to say the following-
John,
Thank you, but no worries. No apology necessary from you, believe me.
Andy,
I hope the G3S do set up a sub group to look into boiler schedules, and also that they take up the opportunity to have you involved.
I wrote to the Society in October asking that they consider the G1MRA/ 16mm Assoc approach for Small boilers, and was told the issue would be debated internally, which debate would lead to a discussion piece in the last Newsletter followed by vote at the recent AGM.
When neither appeared, I asked again, to be told the G3S had already decided to maintain the status quo.
The lack of process (or the lack of interest in explaining the process) to get to that decision led to my resignation.
Of course, I fully accept that resignation holds me open to the charge that what the G3S does is now no longer my business, but its actions do, in my humble opinion, have the capacity to influence future insurance requirements on all of us, whether collectively in a group or as individuals. There is a straight line from 'additional requirements' to 'recognised good practice', to 'best practice', to tomorrow's 'mandated insurance requirements'.
Of course I could go directly to MELG as an individual and ask what their rationale concerning boats/ locos was, but I assume influential representative organisations would already have done that before signing up to it- or indeed, pushing back if it didn't fit with their stated aims, and with much more strength than an individual.
So I would still like to understand the G3S position and how it got there, hence my original posts which hoped someone on here would know.
Anyway, best of luck Andy.
John,
Standing by for lockdown!
Yours
Jamie
Jamie,
This matter does need to be thrashed out and in the open.
I now want to see a copy of the G3S policy to see precisely what are the conditions of cover.
It is all very well the G3S providing me with a copy of their certificate of cover for my garden events but that cover is worthless if the conditions are not met and underwriters deny cover for an incident on basis that boiler certificates are invalid/wrongly issued or for some other breach of policy conditions.
John.
I have some knowledge of these matters but would like to make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Society (and have no authority to do so).
First, let us be clear that Jamie's issues with <3BL policy has no connection whatever in my mind to the matter of blow-down valves. They are separate and different issues. The Societies >3BL policy is (and has always been) to adhere to the Southern Fed guidance with respect to boiler testing (G1MRA & 16mm have exactly the same policy for >3BL boilers in practice). It's that simple and I believe there are good, practical reasons for doing so.
The background to the blow-down issue seems to be that last year a Member submitted a large G3 engine (not a Brit I might add) for boiler test and the Boiler Inspector felt he was unable to make that test because he could not blow-down the gauge and test the recovery time (as required in the Green book). The owner queried the guidance (he certainly asked for my view and possibly others too - I don't know).
My personal view was that there was a level of (let's call) 'ambiguity' in the guidance, in so far that some could take it to mean that 'if not fitted' there is no need to test the blow-down valves. This does assume that 11.6 should read "the water level gauge(s) shall be tested (if blow down valves are fitted) " - which it doesn't of course.
However, because of this potential ambiguity, I understand that the SF was contacted and that they made clear that the requirement for >3BL boilers was that water gauge(s) must be fitted and that they must also be tested e.g. they need blow-down valves.
As a result of this, I believe that Kingscale were contacted by the Society and that they immediately stated that an alternative gauge fitting would be provided to any Brit owner who required it and that it could be reto-fitted. I assume that this is what Dave intends to do with his Brit.
So the SF guidance has not changed and the Society simply asked for (and received) clarification of (let's call it) 'interpretation'. It may well be that others were interpreting the guidance in a different way but I cannot speak for them. What is clear is that there can be no further misunderstanding of the SF guidance on this issue going forward.
I hope this helps to clarify the matter. I started this with a disclaimer. I will add another comment (again a personal one). If some of this Forum insist on shooting the 'Messenger', then it will get increasingly hard find any willing Messengers going forward.
Regards,
IanT
Thank you, Ian, for answering part of the great 'blow down valve' mystery!
Do you know if MELG (not just the SF) accept that this is unclear in the code as currently issued, will include the explicit clarification as part of a future revision?
It still leaves two questions open for >3BL boilers on blow-down valves -
1) Why was this point picked up on one particular loco when others which were >3BL and not having a blow-down valve (i.e. at least one 'Brit') not refused a certificate. Lets ignore the legal side for the moment - this is purely a question about consistent application of a common code (that was intended to bring consistency.....)
and
2) Why is there an exemption for model boat boilers <10BL? On what (risk-based) analysis is this justified?
I appreciate that, as the messenger, you may not know the answers to these - I'm not shooting!
Regarding <3BL boilers, there is still ambiguity regarding blow-down valves.
It is clear that <3BL boilers do need to have a water gauge at all (clause 14.1). But if they do, then does it need to have a blow-down valve?
A 'follow what I do have written' type of inspector might say 'yes'. A 'risk-based' type of inspector might say 'no' (on the basis that a water gauge is clearly not considered to be necessary for safe operation, so whether it reads accurately or not does not improve safety).
Regarding water gauges in general, the code has fallen into the trap that afflicted many Railway Group Standards - written based on the common technology at the time without being explict. Clause 6.7 tells us that we must have a water gauge. By inference of it and other clauses, it appears to be assumed that said gauge will be the 'traditional' tube type. Is an electronic gauge allowable, or not? If not, why not?
As above, the messenger probably won't have 'the' answer - but maybe an opinion?
Andy
NOTE : Andy has since confirmed typing error : Statement above should have read "It is clear that <3BL boilers do not need to have a water gauge at all (clause 14.1)."
Edited by Andy B to correct another typo in the final paragraph ('many' was 'may'). Must get some new fingers!
One other comment - having decided to adopt a policy of requiring <3BL boilers to be tested by an appointed tester (rather than a 'buddy' system), I do feel that the G3S committee should make positive efforts to ensure a good geographical spread of boiler testers.
The membership is no longer clustered in the home counties, and one new tester north of Watford gap as announced at the AGM (whilst welcome) is not enough to support the Society's aims.
Another benefit would be to extend those formally involved in discussion on such matters within the Society to canvas a wider input.
This is no disrespect to the existing testers - just a practical reality of widening geographical spread.
Andy
Quote from: IanT on Feb 23 2015 15:18
As a result of this, I believe that Kingscale were contacted by the Society and that they immediately stated that an alternative gauge fitting would be provided to any Brit owner who required it and that it could be reto-fitted. I assume that this is what Dave intends to do with his Brit.
IanT,
You got it in one shot. We did not need the aggro & agonising over regs.
That is why I have self-embargoed my Britannia until advice from Mike Pavie has filtered down.
I await his professional advice & would prefer to await a positive outcome.
As I am a fully paid up G3S & N2.5G Assoc member it does not matter a jot as to who certifies any of our locos.
We do not need to be exclusively G3S or N2.5 G Assoc or even our local friendly ME society.
The Southern Fed cert will rule ok irrespective.
Rules is Rules & my locos will comply whenever the "fix" is secured.
Dave
N2.5, G3S, Local ME Soc
Ian,
Thank you for your reply, and also may I say, for the time you have spent on other public and private replies to me.
You're right, the blowdown issue is separate from my beef concerning over- complication of the <3 bar litre boiler schedule, and I ran the risk of confusion by conflating the two.
However, the issue I have been most keen to understand is the process by which certain requirements have become mandated (or are becoming mandated), the how and why, and there does seem to be a shared characteristic there.
On the face of it, there seems no more logic in differentiating between a boat boiler and a loco boiler (of a certain size) so far as blowdowns are concerned, than there is in applying unnecessary testing requirements to Small boilers.
But, to repeat once again, if there are good reasons for where we are, then fine, I would like to think I'm intelligent enough to understand a reasoned answer, and open- minded enough to accept it.
But I would like to hear the definitive reasons why (and not oblique references to 'laws' which aren't, or insurance requirements which aren't etc, or indeed an implication I was offered- not by you, I hasten to add- that the G1MRA/16mm Assoc schedules were somehow not quite right).
I tried the G3S but they didn't help, I've tried here a couple of times but the conversations seem destined to shoot off in strange but entertaining directions, with my questions generating a lot of heat in return but no light. (There is probably some kind of boiler pun there).
Yours
Jamie
Thank you Ian and Andy.
In view of what has been said, it is necessary to know on what basis the insurance cover has been issued.
If on strict compliance with the blow-down valve requirement of the regs., then many boiler certificates will be invalid for insurance purposes!
Andy, please clarify statement
QuoteIt is clear that <3BL boilers do need to have a water gauge at all (clause 14.1). But if they do, then does it need to have a blow-down valve?
Did you mean to type
not clear ?
I know for a fact that the "Finescale" boiler provided with the GRS 2021 GWR pannier kit does not even have a water gauge! I bought a kit and was surprised to find it had no gauge and then enquired about having one fitted.....I was told it was impractical by two independent sources!
I never built the kit and exchanged it for two electric GRS kits.
It may be that all GRS live steam locos lack water gauges.
Regards,
John.
LONG LIVE MAMOD !
Dave
N2.5inch
VIVA battery electric!!!
John.
I have plenty of 'personal' opinions Andy and have indeed made them known to the appropriate people but I've generally tried to keep my own opinions to myself on here as these matters seem to get quite confused enough without any further help from me. What I do try to do is state/explain the current situation as best I understand it myself.
When I was asked about this particular matter (by another Member) last year - I looked at the Green book and did feel that the guidance could be a little clearer. The only reason for this uncertainty (?) was because Para 6.7 doesn't actually mention blow-down valves. It's a matter of omission in my view.
However, Para 11.6 contains a perfectly clear "Shall be blown down" statement. The Boiler Inspector involved was very clear in his view that this engine needed to be capable of the gauge blow-down test and my advice to the Member was that (ultimately) the Boiler Inspectors decision is always final. A bit like a Football Referee or Cricket Umpire I guess.
As to why the differences, I can only guess that different people had different interpretations of the rules. I can't say any more than that really, as I wasn't involved directly in boiler testing. However, this has now been clarified directly with SF and there is now no room for other interpretations.
I've also had the opportunity to discuss this directly with several BI's (and one of our more experienced engine builders) btw and they were all unanimous in their view that a water gauge that could not be blown down could be very misleading & therefore potentially dangerous. In short, they support the view that water gauges require testing. Personally, I'm very happy to listen to these guys in this respect.
I cannot tell you too much more - much less the "How's, What's & Why's" of any MERG/SF documents with regards to "Boats" but will simply remind people that the G3S Committee (at the time) were just as concerned at the apparent lack of consultation over this as the other small scale organisations.
Finally, I am also aware that this area has been the subject of some debate & consultation recently and (in my view) the Society has not been complacent in these matters. Beyond that I can't really comment at this time.
Regards,
IanT
Quote
'As I am a fully paid up G3S & N2.5G Assoc member it does not matter a jot as to who certifies any of our locos.
We do not need to be exclusively G3S or N2.5 G Assoc or even our local friendly ME society.'
Unquote
Well, that's you ok then.
G1MRA and 16m Assoc are both set up to encourage scenic railwaying (as the G3S also purports to be) but both manage to also support those members such as yourself who need the the extra documentation required by ME clubs for small boilers, without penalising their members who only wish to enjoy scenic railwaying on dedicated scenic tracks.
And they do it whilst imposing NO additional requirements on such as yourself. It would make not one jot of difference to your boiler schedule or documentation. None. Nil.
So what reason is there to not consider it? At least, to bother to understand the alternative?
If the G3 scale railwaying movement is to expand, it needs to look at organisations who have done well in the same field, and learn from them, doesn't it?.
I can see John's finger hovering over the triple lock button now, but hope this conversation can remain courteous for a bit longer. A triple lock would not be a record I'd be particularly proud of.
Jamie,
None of the previous "locks" was a consequence of anything you have said!
The temperature was raised by others to near boiling point, so I dropped the fire!
As an irrelevant aside (a memory stirred by Dave's mention of Mamod) I recalled an incident at about the age of 14.
One of my friends (whose father just happened to be a Motorman on the London to Brighton run) owned a Mamod stationary engine. One afternoon (in the drawing room of his house in Clapham) we had this Mamod engine running on meths. In the corner, on an armchair, was sitting the cat, watching with great interest.
While oiling the engine, some lube oil fell on the fire and, gosh, did those extra BTUs speed up the engine......so we added a drop more!
By now the oscillating cylinder was going so fast as to be almost invisible .... until the retaining bolt and spring shot across the room along with the cylinder!
The jet of steam stopped just short of the cat's nose....it sat mesmerized for a few seconds, before flying off the chair and out of the room. We found the cylinder but not the bolt or spring.
We were promised (during the Summer hols.) a cab ride from Victoria to Brighton and back (non-stop in a 12-car train of 2 x 6-PAN units) but unfortunately it never came to pass. Those were the days!
John.
John.
Quote from: John Candy on Feb 23 2015 17:08
Andy, please clarify statement Did you mean to type not clear ?
Apologies for my typo.
It should have read "It is clear that <3BL boilers do
not need to have a water gauge at all (clause 14.1). But if they do have a water gauge fitted, then does it need to have a blow-down valve?
"14.1
For the purposes of this Test Code small boilers are defined as those with a pressure-volume product below
3 bar litres.
Examination and test of this type of boiler is applicable if the boiler is fitted with (as a minimum requirement)
a safety valve and a pressure gauge. The boiler may also be fitted with a water level gauge and a mechanical method of pumping water in to the boiler whilst under working pressure."
John - please can you put an edit in my earlier post to correct it or point to this correction.
Andy
OK, so let's agree that the >3BL guidance applies to everyone - regardless of organisation and put that to one side.
As I've intimated, this whole <3BL area has been the subject of some debate within the Society recently and there are quite a range of views held from what I understand.
Having said that I wouldn't give any personal views on these matters, I will comment on several aspects of the G1MRA & 16mm scheme from my own viewpoint. Having looked closely at the "alternate" arrangements from a G3 perspective - I believe that they represent a bit of a 'Curates Egg'. Whilst there's some good, there is also some not so good.
I think the 'Buddy' system is clearly open to abuse (I'm not saying it is being abused - but it's clearly possible) and frankly their documentation system is also pretty poor in this respect.
I said from a "G3" perspective, because we are somewhat different from the other Groups in being much smaller and more thinly spread. So I don't think anyone will argue that it would be good if we could help G3S Members in this respect (e.g. make testing easier geographically) whilst still maintaining any 'systems' integrity. So the problem really becomes one of test coverage and good (e.g. believable) documentation.
So I hope that's generally the kind of solution we can move towards and it doesn't involve any of the "technicalities" or "legalities" that seem to be dogging this discussion.
My belief is that the Society is aware of this need and is trying to move in the right direction. Any near term solution may not be a perfect one but I do think that we can have something that meets most of our members needs and is still credible.
Regards,
IanT
I guess the fact that the buddy system is 'open to abuse' could be a reason not to use it.
The G3S are perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion (assuming they have) but in return I would make a couple of points-
1. Walker Midgley do not require any annual boiler test, and the boiler will still be insured. I repeat that simply to state the starting point.
However, they do 'recommend' an annual inspection, and both G1MRA and 16mm Assoc have taken that, and 'gold plated' it by mandating the recommendation. Personally, I entirely agree with that.
However, unlike G3S, they give advice on how to do it to their members, (mentor and educate) then entrust those members with the responsibility of properly carrying out those inspections.
2. Those two organisations represent many thousand members who collectively own many more thousand boilers, so the evidence must exist out there by now to empirically judge how satisfactory their system is.
Assuming the evidence confirms satisfactory boiler conditions across the 'fleet', then I'm unsure why G3S should have specific concerns about its much smaller membership. Indeed,, the boiler testers should find it even easier to properly implement such a system with tutoring and mentoring to get it going properly. Our experts would be able to maintain a certain oversight (but not direct responsibility) and educate us all, whilst making geographical growth easier.
However, if the evidence now shows an unsatisfactory state of affairs, then no- one should be doing it.
The above post refers to SMALL boilers only.
I got my hands on Issue 100 of the G3S Newsletter yesterday at the boiler test day. On reading it last night (and its a good issue too) there is a section on boiler testing. Pertinent to some of the discussions had earlier in the year I have copied some of the text here (I'm afraid I am not writing the whole article down):
Boilers greater than 3 bar litres.
The Society will continue to use the Southern Federation 'Green Book' Standard (Edition 2012), for hydraulic and annual steam test.
Boilers less than 3 bar litres.
1. Hydraulic Test.
If a boiler has a commercial certificate, or a Southern Federation certificate, for a hydraulic shell test at twice working pressure then a repeat hydraulic test is not required.
2. Steam Test.
a) The steam test will be carried out by a Gauge 3 boiler tester and witnessed by a Gauge 3 member. In circumstances where a witness is not available, an 'un-witnessed' test certificate will be accepted by the Gauge 3 Society, but it might not be acceptable to some Model Engineering Societies.
b) The Southern federation certificates will continue to be used as this provides a traceable record, since a copy is held by the boiler tester.
c) It is strongly recommended that the loco pressure gauge is checked for accuracy every 2 years.
d) The boiler shall be steamed at the maximum firing rate using the appropriate fuel.
e) The safety valve(s) shall maintain maximum working boiler pressure and that the pressure does not rise more than 10% above the working pressure (Pw + 10%).
f) If fitted, the correct operation of the water level gauge shall be verified.
g) If fitted, the correct operation if the boiler water feed pump shall be verified.
Gauge 3 Boiler Testing and Testers.
It is recommended that Members have their boilers tested by Gauge 3 Society boiler testers. In principle boiler testing can be done at any ME society following Southern or Northern Federation standards. However, for small boilers Gauge 3 is not complying exactly with the 'Green Book'. We do not require a 2nd hydraulic test and there us a relaxation in testing the pressure gauge every year before the steam test, but we will continue to use Southern Federation certificates.
The six boiler testers are identified by name and it is stated that the boiler testers will endeavour to support the majority of society GTG's.
There is a note from Alan Marsden that adds
Would Members please note that when ordering new locos from commercial or private builders, to ensure that the boiler has a blowdown valve fitted to the water gauge.
If a loco has already been purchased without the blowdown, it can still be tested, but a note will be added to the certificate requesting a blowdown to be fitted a.s.a.p.
Having skim read back through the three threads all relating to this subject, the above answers some of the questions raised, does not cover others and reinforces the remainder.
I hope it proves useful, I'm going back to coach building this afternoon :)
Kind Regards
Steve
A turn up for the books!
While searching for some paperwork (totally unrelated to trains), I came across the (quote) "Southern Federation of Model Engineering Societies Scheme - Certificate of Public Liability Insurance" issued to me by the G3S in May 2014 (signed by Ted Sadler) and on a printed form supplied to the G3S by Walker Midgely Insurance Brokers.
Under the section "Loss or damage resulting from boiler explosion" I quote the following:-
"The insurers shall not be liable for injury or damage caused by boiler or pressure vessel explosion unless.........
d) the boiler or pressure vessel concerned is a small boiler namely that it has a capacity of not more than 3 bar litres or the vessel concerned is a gas tank with a capacity of not more than 250ml when cover shall be in force whether or not a valid thorough examination certificate has been issued".
That has to be the definitive answer to the controversy over small boiler testing ..... unless the G3S has some twisted reason for wanting to impose unnecessary burden upon its members.
John
John,
Exactly. That was the very point of my polite ( I thought) query in the first place. Following the rather hysterical replies to my query on here, I sent that quote to the G3S asking why/how they wanted the more restrictive MELG/SFED boiler schedule when the insurers weren't asking for it.
Still haven't had a definitive answer, but am no longer a member so I guess I don't need one now. I'll just do my own thing with my own insurance - but I will be interested to see whether the insurers themselves raise their requirements for all of us. I suspect they will- Wouldn't you, if your largest customer/ representative body/ self proclaimed flag waver continued to insist on a more onerous schedule than you had been asking for? If so, that would be very irritating to say the least.
(For the record, because I am now in a position to, I was ready to offer my time on behalf of the G3S investigating the issue, but whatever discussions there were within the society didn't even seek opinions let alone help).
The G3S needs to forge its own identity with its own priorities, and fight its own corner. Bit like G1MRA and 16mm Assoc really.
Anyway, sorry but I couldn't resist a reply, and it's very brave of you to bring it up again.
Jamie
Jamie,
I agree this matter does need a proper "airing".
The effect of the certificate being that (regardless of what the G3S may say), if I allow a non-certificated "small boiler" at a G3S GTG and it causes injury or other damage, then IT IS COVERED BY THE POLICY and the insurers (which from the logo on the certificate appear to be Royal Sun Alliance) will have no alternative but to cover the loss.
The contract is of course between the G3S and underwriters of the policy, the underwriters being obliged to cover the losses arising from specified risks (subject to the policy conditions).
The certificate is unambiguous and, since I have been "named" on the certificate, which extends cover under the policy to my GTGs, then I am entitled to rely upon the stated terms.
Were the G3S to argue that they are not liable because they required a boiler certificate, that does not affect my entitlement to rely upon the stated cover and, even if the G3S were to go into liquidation in any consequent litigation, that would still not release the insurers, since the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act would apply.
Regards,
John.
No certification whatsoever is acceptable to the insurer. That's the starting point.
BUT, I readily accept the idea that there is merit in some control. The insurers do for instance, recommend an annual check, and I suggest it would be poor form and potentially awkward not to be seen to have acted on that recommendation.
G1MRA and 16mm Assoc have taken that recommendation and mandated both an annual check and a record of such. That is beyond what the insurers require, but it seems proportionate to me and perfectly acceptable.
What isn't, in my humble opinion, is to go as far as MELG/SFED have, with additional hyd. checks and an annual steam test using only calibrated equipment, and only by nominated inspectors. FOR SMALL BOILERS.
If the insurers were happy, why complicate that much? Aren't they the expert risk assessors? And, as I said, if the leading organisations continue to insist on 'legislation' beyond the insurers requirements, how long before the insurers shrug their shoulders and mandate it. For everyone.
No doubt there will be change, there always is. In fact, there has to be because it's a bit of a mess. But one reason to support an organisation is because you feel it will negotiate in your best interests, and that the outcome will represent their best efforts. MELG absolutely beyond doubt did not do that for SMALL boilers. I believe G1MRA and 16mm Assoc do, and I hope G3S will do the same.
Sorry guys - I am getting a bit tired of this.
Jamie - I think I tried to help you but I get it - you didn't like the initial guidance used by the society and you decided to leave rather than wait and see what might develop. I'm sorry you felt that way but it has to be your decision. However, please don't keep harping on about it (especially since in my opinion you are misguided) - other people might read all this and be needlessly put off Gauge 3.
The revised <3B/L policy (yes - the G3S did address some of the issues) given in the last Newsletter was clear and not that complicated.
For a small boiler - only the initial 2x hydraulic test is required (there are no "additional" hydraulic tests Jamie). The only other requirement is that the pressure gauge should be regularly tested but the new guidance allows this to be done every second year. It's not hard to do and is a sensible precaution - so what's the problem in reality?
I understand why 16mm & G1MRA have the system they do - they have very large memberships (and many locos to administer) so need something less than ideal but actually the smaller size of G3S is an advantage in this respect.
We have enough boiler testers to probably have one in attendance at most (if not all) GTGs. So isn't it better to have someone who might have experience doing the inspection rather than a "Buddy"? What's the problem in practice with using authorised boiler testers?
How many <3B/L engines do the membership currently own? A dozen, maybe tops two dozen (but frankly I'd be surprised - most engines I see at GTGs are >3B/L). In other words maybe one or two small engines per Society Boiler Tester to look at per annum. Does that sound like a problem to you? It doesn't to me.
And why have a different paperwork (from >32B/L) system for a minority of engines and does it matter to people if they get a trackable document (rather than something signed by a mate) even if the requirement is just a very simple steam test? Will members really care what system is used provided it is available and accepted?
As for any insurance requirements (or not) for <3B/L boilers - if you don't need any insurance for <3B/L, then why do 16mm & G1MRA have any boiler checks at all? It makes sense to have a managed system and I think the one settled on by G3S is actually very reasonable given our particular circumstances. So to me - a complete red herring.
Regards,
IanT
Just to clarify Ian's last para. regarding insurance, the G3S policy DOES COVER "small boilers" regardless of whether or not they have a boiler certificate (and the certificate contains no "ifs or "buts" in that regard ... a boiler certificate IS NOT REQUIRED for the policy cover to be in force).
So, if I hold a GTG and decide that "small boilers" without a certificate are acceptable, then the G3S policy will still cover any claims for injury or loss arising from a boiler explosion.
I am only concerned with the legal aspects of liability cover here and am not passing judgment on whether or not testing is a wise policy on safety grounds.
In my view, if your safety valve lifts at the correct pressure and your gauge reads accurately (and I can see no objection to such tests) then that is sufficient to demonstrate discharge of the duty of care within the current law applicable to pressure vessels.
Regards,
John.
And to further clarify your statement John.
If you (or anyone else) hold a private running session in your garden and invite others along - how you manage these sessions will be entirely up to you - as it always has been.
But in terms of a Society "GTG" - then all GTG Hosts (and their guests) are expected to abide by the Society's guidelines in these areas - including boiler certificates.
Regards,
IanT
As the final post on this subject, again in the context of insurance, which stands on its own as a contract, distinct and separate from all other "agreements" between Society/members/others, this is the text of the terms upon which the members are covered.
<quote> I hereby certify that (name of member) is a fully paid up member of this Club/Society and that the Public Liability insurance evidenced by this certificate extends to include modelling and model engineering activities of all and every kind undertaken by him/her anywhere within the Geographical Limits as detailed above".
Incidentally, for members not permanent residents of the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, their cover only applies to their activities within UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man.
So, the cover is for activities of "all and every kind", not just limited to G3S "official" Get-togethers.
On that basis, a "private" Get-together is covered and, as Ian has rightly said, how you organize that is your business.
So, all-in-all, the insurance cover offered is very comprehensive, just what we all need and well worth the (very small) subscription paid to the G3S!
Regards,
John.
IanT, purely for the record.
The eventual and only reply I had from the G3S stated that after internal debate (between whom by the way, when), the G3S had decided to make no change to their boiler requirements. No change. No distinction between large or small boilers. And no attempt to explain how or why that decision had been made.
I repeat, no change.
So I resigned, not because I was miffed by the decision as such, but because there did not seem to have been any process to get there, nor had there been an attempt to explain why or how; and I see no point in supporting an organisation that was generating unnecessary complications without due process or to explain why.
An attitude of 'it's just the way we do things here' is off putting. By the way, I have the time and was prepared to do my bit, but the insular lack of communication put me off rather.
You now say there have been changes made after all? Is that right? Not being a member any more I wouldn't know, but it would be churlish not to applaud that.
However, I disagree with your logic that just because the G3S has a small number of Small boilers, then what now is presumably a third way is the right thing to do. That is designing the system around current quantities of Small boilers, not designing a system to encourage expansion in the future.
To quote you '...and I think the one settled on by G3S is actually very reasonable given our particular circumstances...' Maybe so, but the ambition must be to expand, no? (Unintentional boiler pun there).
Small boilers may currently be in the minority but the G3S should be actively promoting all aspects of the scale. It seems to me there are many potential members out there in the G1 and 16mm worlds who would be tempted by a small G3 loco if the movement made it as easy as possible.
Both G1MRA and 16mm Assoc have a certification system for small boilers (yes, a certification system) but also have memberships in the thousands, many of whom own multiple live steam locos. Frankly, if that's what G3S aspires to - and it should if it wants to support its manufacturers etc- then it wouldn't hurt to accept that maybe they are doing some things right,
You seem to have no ambition for the G3S to have similar levels of membership, justifying embellished regulation on the basis that the G3S has few members and few Small boilers.
By the way, paperwork wise, both organisations have systems that recognise and cater for both large boilers and additional requirements of some ME clubs.
So, to finish. Unless G3S consider the G1MRA and 16mm Assoc certification systems for Small boilers to be unsafe, why do G3S demand something different.
Is there a reason, bearing in mind the G3S aim of encouraging G3 activity?
Potential new entrants to the scale are much more likely to be put off by that mismatch than they are by my ramblings on here, by the way.
Finally IanT, it would help if you didn't pepper every posting you make with a show of exasperation. It's a bit indulgent if I may say so.
PS I don't understand your last paragraph at all. As you well know, nowhere in these conversations has anyone ever discussed having no insurance. But then as you say, that's a red herring. So why write it?
Well Jamie - if I sound exasperated, perhaps it's because I am.
I'm pretty sure I indicated that changes were in process to you and frankly I don't understand why a little patience wasn't possible?
As to the rest of your views - well I'm afraid that generally I find it pays to live in the present and deal with our current problems. The solution the G3S has put forward is more than good enough for our immediate and foreseeable needs and they are not onerous. If those needs do change, then I assume the available (geographic coverage, manpower etc.) will also expand too, so things will most likely adjust to suit. I've seen quite a bit of change over my time with Gauge 3 and although we have not (yet) achieved world domination, we seem to be ticking along OK.
So I'm sorry you are not happy but perhaps instead of keep telling us why G3 is doomed (and not everyone shares your views) perhaps you could give us a comparison of the practical problems involved in the G3S <3B/L scheme as opposed to the 16mm/G1MRA one that you seem to admire? Because I don't see too many real problems in practice, which it seems to me is what actually matters.
John - one more thought for you. You are in the process of building what looks to be one of the most interesting G3 garden railways in recent times. Hosting even a 'private' event can be quite a busy time for a 'Host' - especially at a popular venue (such as I hope yours will be). Do you really want to be worrying about safety valves and water gauges as people turn up? Wouldn't it be easier to work with G3S and simply ask for current steam/boiler test certificates (and perhaps even arrange for a BT to be there for those who don't currently have one?) - rather than try to do everything yourself?
Regards,
IanT
I think we are all a little bored of this topic now its only you three who discuss and read each others comments thus flaring hte others up.
Mark
Ian,
The reply I had from the G3S - in January, so not long ago really - stated categorically there was to be no change. With respect, I thought that rather trumped a counter indication from you.
As to your next point I completely disagree. To explain-
The G3S seem now to have invented a new system that probably does deal with the present small numbers, won't argue with that if no-one else is.
However, it's role is to promote more activity, not just maintain the status quo, isn't it?
You eloquently made the point yourself that G1MRA and 16mm Assoc have systems that cater - safely- for large numbers of boilers.
So rather than hope that available manpower will increase in the future to satisfy a rising demand under the new G3S scheme, I think the onus is on someone to explain why G3S have adopted a system optimised for small numbers rather than large, rather than on me explaining why I disagree.
However, and gnoring your sarcasm, I will take up your offer of explaining my point of view further..
The G1MRA and 16mm Assoc between them - safely- certify thousands of small boilers. So I would see them as expert, with an extraordinary accumulation of data and experience concerning Small boilers by now.
Their system should therefore be a benchmark UNLESS there is a good, sound and logical reason otherwise.
In practical terms, I can purchase a boiler from Roundhouse, say, and install it in a 16mm chassis, or a G1 chassis, and run immediately. Each year, I will check it, and have a duplicate inspection by a 16mm member or a G1 member. This will be fully recorded. Both societies fully recognise each other's certificates. The boiler has a traceable history.
If I put it in a G3 chassis, I did (you say not now?) need at least one if not two hydraulic checks before use. I do still then need to find a G3 inspector with calibrated equipment annually for a steam test. Has that also changed?
If one takes away the superfluous hydraulic tests- and has the G3S advertised such a significant change? (Good, if it has) - the difference is no doubt manageable with current levels of members and inspectors. But the difference is tangible.
I cannot use a G1 or 16mm member- or inspector- , or another G3 member, even though one may be local to me, even if it's a boiler he is familiar with, and even if they are all covered by the same insurance.
I think the onus is on the author of a restriction (G3S) to explain why a restriction is in place, no matter how small. Or get rid of it.
To align Small boiler policy with the other two scenic organisations would allow access to a large pool of knowledge and make it easier to access annual inspections almost irrespective of membership levels. (Future proofing. Ugh). It would however, not prevent anyone from showing their boiler to an official each year if they wanted to, but nor would it mandate it to those who didn't. It changes nothing for large boilers. It changes nothing for anyone who wants to continue under a more restrictive regime, or who needs to to access an ME track, say.
So I see advantages but no disadvantage. Is there a reason? And I would not characterise the G1/16mm environment as an ill-disciplined mess, would you?
Yes, paperwork probably needs amending, but that is not difficult if everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
So in summary, I agree with you that the G1/16mm systems safely service large numbers of boilers. I agree with you the current G3 third way presumably works with the G3S at its current size.
What I do question is why G3S has invented a new system, one optimised for small numbers rather than large, rather than align more directly with the other operators of similar/ identical Small boilers who operate under the same insurance criteria.
What makes the G3S system better? What was wrong with the established alternative?
It is not a sinister question, I would like to understand the answer.
Sorry Mark - please feel free to ignore this thread.
Jamie - I perfectly understand that you have a particular point of view - but strangely enough, so do others.
Because of your feedback, this matter was tabled for discussion by the Committee at their meeting at the end of November. A number of experienced members were asked to convene and discuss the issues raised. They did so and perhaps not surprisingly, there were differences of opinion. However, their recommendations were then sent back to the committee for discussion. Our then Chairman (Ted) announced the key points at the AGM in February. The policy was published in the latest Newsletter. I think the matters you raised received serious consideration and was dealt with quickly.
In summary, your concerns were noted and discussed. Changes have been made. You might not agree with them but that's your right. I have my own views too and they differ slightly from the policy but as I don't feel the current policy will cause any problems in practice, personally I'm happy to accept them. I don't know why you were told there would be no change as clearly the matter was still being discussed at that time.
From my point of view, apart from any private emails to you, I am very certain that on October 26th - I posted on this forum that "The matter has been raised to the Committee for their consideration and I understand that our Boiler Testers will be consulted on the matter and their guidance sought". And that's what happened.
So let me ask you again (and let's be specific) what problems in practice do you envisage you are going to have with getting your Gauge 3 boiler(s) tested - that would not apply equally to the 16mm/G1MRA schemes?
If you don't intend to run at a G3 GTG, then you will not a G3S certificate. If you do want to run at a G3 GTG - then you can most probably get your boiler steam tested there. So what's the problem apart from the fact it's not quite the same as the 16mm/G1MRA scheme?
Regards,
IanT
Ian,
First, I have from the start simply been asking what the other point of view is actually based on? ie what's wrong with the established and mutual G1/16mm scheme? I have not been trying to force my preference. Please don't suggest I have been.
And I can categorically confirm that counter to your personal emails on the subject, (for which I was grateful by the way), the G3S informed me on 6th Feb (not Jan) the subject had been debated and there would be no change. Their email was in response to a second query on my part if you recall, because the G3S had previously told me they would discuss, then put a discussion piece in the newsletter prior to the AGM. When the discussion piece didn't appear, I asked again to be told it's already a done deal.
Again, a done deal, on 6 Feb just before the AGM.
The G3S could not have been clearer. 'The issue had been discussed with the testers and there was unanimous approval for no change'. I still have their correspondence so I'm not having a senior moment here.
Actually, I think you were sent a copy. It was addressed to 'everyone' for some reason.
Again, it's not so much the decision, (their's to make) it was the lack of reason, or explanation of reasons, that irritated enough for me to resign.
The size of difference between the schemes can be debated but the G3S scheme is more restrictive, and you yourself recognise the other scheme demonstrably works well with large membership numbers whilst the G3S system works ok in the present.
To be specific again, and bear in mind I have to guess the detail of the new G3S system, G3S still requires an annual inspection by a nominated inspector with calibrated equipment(?).
A G3S member has to seek out a G3S inspector with calibrated equipment to get an annual test. A G1MRA or 16mm member can seek out a member of either organisation to carry out a duplicate inspection.
That is designing out a certain amount of perfectly viable (ie Insured and safe) flexibility from the system, which should only really be done for good reason surely.
Sure, no issue at present, or, to quote you 'most probably' not, for the handful of affected members- most of whom we could name individually. But in the future with thousands of members and small boilers? (And I can see no real reason why not if the foundations are set. That should be what G3S aspires to).
1) The G1/16mm system is still more than the insurers require so why should it not be acceptable to G3S?
2) The boilers generate a paper trail and an easily checked certificate. John would still have a certificate to check.
3) To adopt an identical system would have opened up the idea of cross certification between scenic organisations.
4) Nothing in the system precludes a member continuing his association with an established tester. (Just keep doing the same)
5) No extra paperwork for anybody.
6) The other two organisations manage the differing requirements of some ME clubs without any additional angst for those affected. (Just keep doing the same).
7) Any co-operation such as cross recognition of boiler certificates may have led to increased co-operation in other areas of mutual interest - for scenic railwaying, not passenger hauling.
So that's it I guess. It seems daft that I could run a particular boiler at a G1 GTG or a 16mm GTG but not at a G3 GTG.
I will (when it's built!) accept G3, G1MRA or 16mm Assoc boiler certs at any GTG on my railway and I will be perfectly content the letter and the spirit of the insurer's requirements will have been met.
Why did the G3S deliberately design out that flexibility? I really would like to know. That really is all I've been trying to understand.
As Ian mentioned, our own Society boiler testers were all firmly in favour of the current Society system. Added to the advice of the Southern Federation, we held several discussions and the Committee was unanimous in keeping our existing rules.
For the sake of completeness, I have cut and pasted the above extract from the correspondence I received on 6 Feb from G3S. It was addressed to 'everyone' so I am not sharing a private correspondence, nor have I selectively cherry picked to influence the message.
That message was not hinting at the possibility of change, nor indeed did it try to explain. Except to express a society decision to follow MELG and to continue treating Small boilers the same as Large, and therefore to only use selected inspectors with calibrated equipment.
In fact, it went on to explain how I could work around the issue by joining a local ME club, ask them to correspond with the G3S and then ask them to do it by proxy.
Does that suggest any open mindedness to you?
Now, confusingly, the email did follow all that by then saying boiler testing was on the AGM agenda 'and if members call for a vote, it will be taken'. It didn't say on what, though. Or what that meant by that, having so clearly just re-stated the policy following committee discussions. What was the vote to be taken on?
So there seemed little point in attending, having been told so clearly that the decision had been made. And bearing in mind some of the hysterics on here at the time which made it quite clear there was no appetite for discussion.
So I left the society, to do my own thing.
I am you may appreciate. a little bemused you now say a significant change was made at the AGM to a new, unique, system.
Unfortunately Jamie - I suspect that 6th Feb communication you are referring to, might be an email from myself. The view that I gave you at that time was my understanding of the (then current) situation, based on an earlier private conversation and some 'internal' emails I'd been party to. You asked me a straight question and I told you what I thought to be the situation but I also pointed out that I was not privy to everything being discussed.
Quite clearly the matter had not been fully decided because further consultation and discussion did occur after that date. I can only apologise for any confusion caused and all I can plead is that I was trying to help (even though in retrospect it quite clearly didn't)
To avoid any doubt, I personally don't disagree with some of the points you make about the 16mm/G1MRA arrangements. However, the Society operates a consensus and there are some members who have different views on this subject. The Committee is obliged to consider their views too - and I'm sure they tried to achieve a workable compromise. I can see both points of view and broadly I am quite happy to take a pragmatic view. I really do not believe this issue is going to cause too many problems in practice for the membership.
I do think that Gauge '3' has quite a lot of challenges in front of it but I doubt this is one of them. However, this is a public Forum and I think it's very easy to give a completely wrong impression to anyone 'lurking' and trying to find out more about G3. I'm afraid it is all too easy to give a pretty poor view of G3 here sometimes - when the actual experience is very different (much more positive) in my view.
So, it appears I was instrumental in your decision to resign and I can only apologise as I certainly had no intent to mislead. I do seem to recall (somewhere) strongly recommending that you come along to the AGM and talk to the Committee (and the other members involved in this area) and listen to their views on this. I'm sorry that you didn't have the opportunity to do so - you might disagree with some of them but they are quite rational in their views.
As Mark is probably doubly bored with this thread by now - perhaps we should let the matter rest. If you want to talk about this privately - then I'd be quite happy to do so.
Regards,
IanT
OK - it seems there was something else sent. I don't know the answer then in that case.
Regards,
IanT
Ian,
You're right, it didn't come from you, it was an official response from the G3S. It quite clearly shut down the possibility for change by re- affirming their intention to continue treating Small boilers the same as Large.
Again, I was grateful for your communications, but I took the society message as the statement of policy.
My frustration was in not having been given a valid reason to reject my proposal- by valid, I mean I had variously been told it's illegal (it's not),the insurers wouldn't allow it (wrong), it's dangerous (really?). Still haven't.
I would have been very happy to address those points of view and present a more fleshed out report, (which could have been rejected I accept) but as you see from the response, and the clamour on here, there was clearly no appetite for any change.
I have to say that sort of attitude ( and I am not pointing the finger at you here, you have stood up and debated), is likely to do G3 a lot more harm than the witterings of a solitary old fool.
G3 should be capitalising on its unique position sat as it is between smaller scale scenic railwaying and larger scale engineering. It will benefit immensely if it learns to look inquisitively in both directions and I firmly believe G1 and 16mm Assoc are doing Small boilers right. Look at the membership numbers.
For small locos, I believe the engineering norms of G1 and 16mm are probably more appropriate than Martin Evan's type norms. But G3S needs to provide the environment in which that sort of thing can prosper. (Nothing to stop the super detailed masterpiece as well, though of course).
I would love to see Ian's superb newsletter full of small articles on say an electric water gauge, a small boiler design, simplified reversible valve gear etc, just as G1MRA mag. does.
Finally, if there are any lurkers watching, don't be put off G3 by my ramblings. It comes from a great desire in seeing G3 develop and prosper because it really is an excellent scale. So stop lurking and dive in. Buy a wagon kit or something.
Chaps I am a moderator and just logged on to read to find the large number of posts on this thread today. The large number of posts is to be welcomed (oh that we had more on some other subjects!) but some of the comments are a little too personal. The last ones seemed to suggest some tacit agreements, but please take care not to be carried away in the heat of the moment and post personal or insulting comments, or they will be deleted.
Our new Chairman has been made aware of the correspondence, is a boiler tester, a capable steam engineer, a 16mm enthusiast (so well aware of <3Bar) and I suspect will be speaking with some individuals about their concerns.
Thank you.
Mike
Gosh.... I went to Cambridge for the afternoon and return to find another half-dozen posts.
Mike has seen these messages ahead of me and has drawn a line on etiquette, so please observe or the thread may be locked.
Mark, this may not be of interest to you but there are others who are following it (but are not posting messages) and have concerns about boiler testing.
While out I received a private email from a prominent member (who having read this thread) is asking for advice on the insurance coverage issue.
John
Hi John
I am aware of the requirements for the saftey of the boilers. I do drive and help to maintain the locos at Moors Valley Railway(7 1/4" railway).
I was just concerned there was a lot of heated messages flying back and forth and it winds everyone up.
I felt that the discussion was rapidly becoming counter productive.
Mark
Mark,
Yes, the exchanges were getting rather "heated" but I was out at Cambridge for much of the day and it seems Mike was not available either until late afternoon.
I had hoped that my confirming that "small boilers" without test certificates are covered by the insurance policy (even though the G3S is reluctant to accept ones without certificates at "official" G3S gatherings) would have been the final word on the matter.
The issue, however, seems to have developed into the wider question of the manner in which the G3S conducts business.
In view of this, I consider this particular thread to have run its course and am locking it.
If the policy/conduct of the G3S is to be discussed, than a new topic should be commenced.
John.