Small Boiler test schedules

[John Candy]

I am not getting involved in the minutiae of the boiler testing discussion since I don't have any direct interest in the topic.

However, both the insurance and statutory (legal) positions on pressure vessel testing are quite clear and the G3S has no control over any requirements which a member may unilaterally impose upon visitors to his or her own garden track. Ralph (and any other member) is perfectly entitled to exclude locomotives without a certificate if he/she so wishes.

Similarly, the G3S cannot impose limitations and force a member to exclude non-certificated locomotives if that member is happy to accept them and (provided all the other policy requirements are met) the member is covered by the G3S policy for liabilities which may arise.

I think that concludes this matter.

John.

[jamiepage]

Ian,
As a SF member we use their boiler test codes - and I believe that if you look at what has been agreed between the various MELG organisations (in the form of Orange Book 2) that there has been movement on all sides. It has certainly not just been a matter of adopting the existing 16mm/G1MRA guidelines.


For the record, I see not a single change of any significance for copper boilers between this 'new' code and the previously existing G1/16mm code.
It has been tidied up, new forms, it now includes sensible brass boiler requirements, but is otherwise pretty well identical.
Indeed, as the 16mm Assoc says, no real change.
The big change will occur within Societies that until now have mandated an unnecessary annual test by approved Inspector.

Further, and only since you raised the issue, I disagree that there has never been any question or debate about G3S adopting these codes.
On the contrary, Society officials have variously argued in the fairly recent past that the code in question was unsafe, illegal, or uninsurable. All as wrong then as now, by the way.

I sought no debate, but merely reported what I believed  to be an acceptance by the ME world of the G1/16mm- type code and hence some welcome common sense.

Debate came from a G3S boiler Inspector, who does not wish to recognise a different code for Small Boilers. In fact, has repeated stated he will not.

In spite of reactions on here, I still see it as a good thing for G3 if the new code is adopted, however grudgingly.

Ralph,
I have no idea what you are saying there either, I'm afraid.

[cabbage]

As a host I have a duty of care to my guests. Some of my most enthusiastic guests (for no fault of their own) often have mental ages below 10...

In my first year of GTG I barred steam engines completely. It is my personally belief that the 3BAR litre rule cannot be successfully applied to Gauge '3' locomotives as they are simply too big. The physics of it show that high pressure system is more efficient than a low pressure one. Thus most G3 designs operate in the 5 to 6 BAR region. This would limit the boiler capacity to circa 500ml. I have never had on my tracks a loco with a boiler capacity that small.

I am glad that you are happy running G1 boilers with G3 locos. I will continue to be happy running certified  G3 boilers with G3 locos...

Ralph

[IanT]

I'm afraid I have no control over Ralphs views on these matters but he is very welcome to state them - even if I don't happen to agree with everything he says. I am also one of the Society's BI's and try to provide good/useful information when asked - but neither Ralph nor myself set G3S policy - that is a matter for the Committee and the external organisations they work with. 

The 3BL 'border' is simply a convenient (arbitrary) point to differentiate legally between a 'large' and 'small' boiler. Not in the sense of there being a legal (or technical) requirement - but in the sense of there being a way to define such matters in a court of law. It is therefore essentially something (a definition) agreed between MELG and the Insurer.

When this subject was discussed some time ago by the (then) G3S Boiler Inspectors, there were various reasons for wanting to remain within the SF Codes (apart from continuity & simplicity) - but the most important one [to my mind] was that there was no real practical reason not to do so.

Jamie's key objection (if I recall correctly) was the need to have an Inspector do the annual safety test if someone wanted to run a <3BL at a G3S GTG. However (as we discussed at the time) there is nearly always at least one (often more) BI at our GTGs - so what was the problem in practice? If you don't want to run at a G3S GTG - then you didn't need a BI to do the steam test. Coming to a GTG? - then a courtesy call was all that was required to check if a BI would be present (or to arrange one). I am not aware that this has caused any issues in the past in practice...so why go on about it??

John - Insurance is a funny old business and everyone seems to have a view on it - some may be 'expert' and some are clearly much less qualified.

I'm minded about asking my (former police-officer) friend whether the "Max 40MPH" signs on bends were mandatory. He told me that they were not (nor are any 'triangular' advisory road signs apparently) - so you cannot be charged with speeding around them. But (he smiled when he said this) if you have an accident on that corner (having ignored the advice) you will probably be charged with careless or dangerous driving.

Recently, someone's house burnt down. The Insurance company claims the house has seven bedrooms - the owner had told them there were only five. Public opinion seems to be on the side of the owner but he has still not been paid.

So, people are certainly free to do as they wish (interpret the law, decide what insurance they need, run whatever they want etc)- but in simple terms the G3S asks it's Hosts to ensure that steam engines running at it's (formal) GTGs/Events comply with the SF boiler test codes. In doing so they meet the requirements of Sun Alliance and thus much avoidance of any doubt should there be any sort of problem. I think this makes very good common sense for both the Directors of the G3S and the GTG Hosts themselves. It is something I'd be very keen to insist on if I was in either of these groups.

Regards,

IanT

[MikeWilliams]

If I understand tnis correctly ...
Ian is happy because we still operate to SF rules
Jamie is happy because he doesnt (or wont) need certificates
Ralph is happy because he can insist on higher standards in his own garden
And everyone is happy because they are insured (for what I am unclear) whether they hold a G3S meeting or not.

I never thought I see the day.

The end?

Mike

[jamiepage]

Ralph,

I'm unclear whether you see  Small Boilers as unsuitable or unsafe.

You seem to be saying <3 bar litre boilers have no place in G3...because the locos are too big.

Do I understand correctly?

You also seem to be characterising a Small Boiler, even when fully certified to Orange book Vol 2, as being 'uncertified'. Or, at the least, not certified to a level you would entertain. You only recognise the regs for larger boilers (Orange book Vol 1)

Do I understand correctly

Ian,
Jamie's key objection (if I recall correctly) was the need to have an Inspector do the annual safety test if someone wanted to run a <3BL at a G3S GTG. However (as we discussed at the time) there is nearly always at least one (often more) BI at our GTGs - so what was the problem in practice? If you don't want to run at a G3S GTG - then you didn't need a BI to do the steam test. Coming to a GTG? - then a courtesy call was all that was required to check if a BI would be present (or to arrange one). I am not aware that this has caused any issues in the past in practice...so why go on about it??

If you really want to go back over old ground, then yes, you are right. That was indeed my main beef. Compounded by the complete lack of interest in discussing change.
And the line you have just repeated - you weren't aware of any problems then ergo, there wasn't one, so stop bringing it up - was not a very convincing one then either.
It certainly wasn't courteous, that's for sure, and stood in contrast to the positive attitude of other Societies who actively looked to safely mitigate concerns.

However, if G3S are now to adopt the 'new' code and treat Small Boilers in the same way that G1/ 16mm do, then good. As long as it does become policy and not subject to opt out by Inspectors, then G3 activity might increase. 

I certainly hope so.

[jamiepage]

Mike,

Jamie is happy because he doesnt (or wont) need certificates

Well, umm, sort of!
I'm happy I can continue to have properly maintained, unmodded, and fully certificated Small Boilers annually self/ buddy tested, after their initial hydraulics, and have them insured by WM.
Just as similar/ identical boilers have been in 16mm and G1 locos.

Whilst the G3's premier/ only Society insisted on annual inspections by their own Inspectors, a risk must have existed for such a requirement to be picked up and mandated universally for all insurance of these boilers, whether in G3S or not.
Now however, as G3S align with other Small Boiler operators, a line in the sand has hopefully been drawn and with luck the insurance requirements/ boiler codes are now settled for the forseeable future.

[IanT]

Well - everyone has their own perspective Jamie.

This matter was put to those experienced in this area (within the Society) at that time and a consenus was reached. Your views were considered and perhaps it's unfortunate that others didn't agree with you but that's just the way things are sometimes. There were very few small boilered engines back then - and not that many now - although the numbers are starting to grow.

As an aside - there was a boiler presented for 'shell' testing at the recent boiler test day - that had been deliberately kept short (and designd with a low Wp) to bring it under the 3BL level. So the new codes (since 2012) are beginning to affect peoples behaviour in this respect.

Mike - i've never been unhappy! (at least with regards to boiler testing)   :-)

IanT

[jamiepage]

Ian,
I didn't sense any interest in debating anything at all. Certainly the reasons given at the time against change (illegal, unsafe etc etc) were just plain wrong so I hope the concensus wasn't based on those.
And the alternative line that it served those who wanted to attend N2.5GA meets, completely ignored the the interests of those who didn't (including any future members).
They also had to travel to an Inspector for annual G3S testing.
Your opinion above, that there was no 'perceived' real reason to change, is probably accurate. If you don't want to look, you won't find.

But anyway, enough of this ancient history. It's a good news story, isn't it?

All Small Boilers will be treated under the same  lighter touch yet perfectly adequate code, irrespective of Society in the future so hurrah for that.

Maybe G3 SCENIC modelling will benefit. It can't hurt.

[cabbage]

OK Jaime.

You are correct when you state that I do not consider the 3BAR litre rule relavent as the boiler volume and pressure rating require for a G3 loco is larger than this.

I.E. the boiler should not be overstressed in the production of steam and be rugged enough for this purpose.

Therefore I do not believe that Volume 1 is really applicable for G3. Any boiler with a rating less than 3BAR litre I reserve the right to test and certify to protect my guests at a GTG. I insist on the very highest standards I even impose them on myself.

Ralpj

[John Candy]

I now consider this thread to have run its course.

It is down to individual members who own running tracks to determine what they consider safe and not within the ambit of the G3S to dictate terms to members as to what may be permitted upon a member's premises.

If any further matters arise in connection with other  aspects of boiler testing, a new topic/thread should be started.

John.