Correct way to read the sight glass

dunnyrail said:
There are in our scale boilers and boilers. Generally it is considered that boilers built for normal 40psi (3 bar) running and tested at double that pressure tend to not blow up. Greater caution is taken with boilers that operate above that and the warnings are very appropriate. In fact annual boiler testing is required as mandated in the 16mm society Boiler Testing Notes. Closer attention is now also given with gas tanks than was the case when I used to carry out Boiler Testing with my local 16mm group prior to year 2000. The notes linked below are well worth a read if you have a live steam locomotive.
Click to expand...
Having been a pressure vessel inspector and tester with BSI authority for vessels up to 6000 psi, though good practice as detailed in the article, it can hardly be called pressure vessel testing, it is just a safety device test.
 
Good set of notes - only thing missing is how the pressure gauge is determined as accurate.

The 7/8" Decauville I purchased had an obvious fault when it arrived (the gauge was stuck on 100psi) but others may not be as obvious.

I check my gauges by connecting a compressed air supply to the boiler which has an accurate gauge on the regulator - I can also test safety valves this way before a steam test (ie: set the air supply to 45psi and see if the safety lifts) - however this does not replace a steam test as detailed in the 16mm Society's notes!

A compressed air connection is also useful for setting valve timing!

And not all small boilers operate at 40psi - my Bowande Falk No.1's boiler is certified for 80psi (safety lifts at 70psi).





Bowande Falk Certificate.jpg

(Just spent almost a week sorting out its valve timing - it now runs properly in both directions).


Cheers,
 
dunnyrail said:
... as mandated in the 16mm society Boiler Testing Notes. ...
Click to expand...

We could get in to a whole swamp of discussing 16mm COMPANY (it has not been a society for many years) boiler testing, including competency of testers, but I'll take issue with "mandated", sorry. In the code, the discretionary word "should" is used FAR too often for my liking, such as "The gauge range should be approximately 1.5 x the pressure of the test,", "Any faults detected should be rectified before increasing the pressure." and "Anything but the slightest movement or distortion observed should be viewed with great suspicion". There are loads of them, and it even says (P2) "‘Shall’ is mandatory, ‘should’ is advisory.". There are many things I should do (eat better, get more exercise, lose weight, etc.) that never happen because nobody has told me - yet - that I MUST.

The Accucraft factory boiler test certificate for my NGG16 says: Working pressure 180psi, Test pressure: 60psi. Not worth the paper...

Thanks to all for the boiler failure stuff.
 
Last edited:
Set your safety for 180psi Tony - light up the engine and stand a long way away...................... :)

This locomotive (T251 - Walkers #276 of 1917) runs a boiler pressure of only 175psi - and is inspected every 12 months by a qualified Government boiler inspector.

20240116_131114.jpg

And it runs a calibrated pressure gauge serviced by an instrument company qualified to certify the accuracy (I have a full size gauge that is certified and can be used with my pump for hydro-static testing of boilers including a boiler like that in T251).

The only advantage of a manufacturer's boiler ticket would be in the case of an insurance claim!
 
Last edited:
David Price said:
Good set of notes - only thing missing is how the pressure gauge is determined as accurate.

The 7/8" Decauville I purchased had an obvious fault when it arrived (the gauge was stuck on 100psi) but others may not be as obvious.

I check my gauges by connecting a compressed air supply to the boiler which has an accurate gauge on the regulator - I can also test safety valves this way before a steam test (ie: set the air supply to 45psi and see if the safety lifts) - however this does not replace a steam test as detailed in the 16mm Society's notes!

A compressed air connection is also useful for setting valve timing!

And not all small boilers operate at 40psi - my Bowande Falk No.1's boiler is certified for 80psi (safety lifts at 70psi).





View attachment 344580

(Just spent almost a week sorting out its valve timing - it now runs properly in both directions).


Cheers,
Click to expand...
We had a calibrated pressure gauge that was tested each year and the loco gauge confirmed to that at hydrolic pressure. No doubt someone will say that water test is not the same but there it is. This could arguably be one of the failures of the current “self testing regime” and I would not disagree with that view. Pressure gauge was tested to ensure that blow off appeared at test pressure 40psi for Roundhouse thus ensuring both were similar. But both can go out of synce over time. Thus a proper test advisable. Whether your view if the 16mm or miniature engineers society falls in line with the listed stuff is up to you, but IMHO is better than nothing.
 
Rhos Helyg Loco Works said:
We could get in to a whole swamp of discussing 16mm COMPANY (it has not been a society for many years) boiler testing, including competency of testers, but I'll take issue with "mandated", sorry. In the code, the word discretionary word "should" is used FAR too often for my liking, such as "The gauge range should be approximately 1.5 x the pressure of the test,", "Any faults detected should be rectified before increasing the pressure." and "Anything but the slightest movement or distortion observed should be viewed with great suspicion". There are loads of them, and it even says (P2) "‘Shall’ is mandatory, ‘should’ is advisory.". There are many things I should do (eat better, get more exercise, lose weight, etc.) that never happen because nobody has told me - yet - that I MUST.

The Accucraft factory boiler test certificate for my NGG16 says: Working pressure 180psi, Test pressure: 60psi. Not worth the paper...

Thanks to all for the boiler failure stuff.
Click to expand...
So what do you do for your NGG16?
 
dunnyrail said:
Boiler testing?
Click to expand...
Again, not sure what you mean. Like an MOT test, a new test would invalidate the duff certificate, and after 15 years of use I'm pretty sure it is not going to fail. My nearest Association boiler tester is 70 miles away, I don't trouble him. IF I should need the boiler tested, which I don't, then I have a friendly boiler builder who I see often and will happily do it for me. Unlike the "just has to be living and breathing" Association tester, I know his skills well (40 years of doing it) and trust him implicitly. Incidentally, his certificates are worthless in the eyes of the Association as the test must be Assoc tester using Assoc equipment. The question I always ask is "Who do you want to show the test certificate to?" and direct customers appropriately. We are getting perilously close to that swamp...
 
Last edited:
I am sure a manufacturer's test certificate, dated 2018, is a novel bit of history to be kept with the loco, but is otherwise worthless.

Much like a UK MOT, these things are a 'moment in time'.
More than anything, I think they show an awareness of the risk, and (perhaps) that the owner might know what they are doing?

PhilP.
 
Respectfully disagree Phil.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly sure the certificate from Bownande means the manufacturer accepts responsibility for the manufacturing quality of the product - and if it ever came to legal action over failure of that product the owner who purchased it would not be responsible - provided they had followed safe practice in using the product.

Which is pretty much the crux of all of this discussion - follow safe practice.

Tony's images of the failed Roundhouse boiler and burner could never be attributed to a failure on Roundhouse's behalf - as the owner had clearly not followed safe practice.

Even the new boiler for Tornado would have been certified for use before it saw operation - and if it failed due to poor construction the manufacturer in Germany would have been responsible (as they possibly are for its supposedly poor steaming capabilities along with that of 3801 - but that's another wormhole).
 
dunnyrail said:
Boiler testing?
Click to expand...
As per my previous comments, is the boiler going to be tested iaw PSSR 2000, or just the the association take on testing. Also, is it actually required to be tested, i.e. full hydrostatic testing, including ultrasound of the body, and where is the specification for testing. Spent years doing this, and it is not a case of pressuring to 1.5 times working pressure, you have to test expansion, and then ensure it goes back within the specification.
 
JimmyB said:
As per my previous comments, is the boiler going to be tested iaw PSSR 2000, or just the the association take on testing. Also, is it actually required to be tested, i.e. full hydrostatic testing, including ultrasound of the body, and where is the specification for testing. Spent years doing this, and it is not a case of pressuring to 1.5 times working pressure, you have to test expansion, and then ensure it goes back within the specification.
Click to expand...
Very over the top me feels for the presures we are talking about. Understand those requirements for big time installations possibly even Nuclear Power Stations, a pal of mine used to be a NDT tester for a company that had a big contract at Drax Power Station where the steam is going round at massively higher pressure than we use, that high pressure used to drive whack off giant turbines. Horses for courses.

In the course of my 16mm testing/checks if you will I only had to fail 2 locomotives. One the pressure gauge was totally non working the other a steam leak from what could be called the superheated end (passes through the fire tube after exiting the oil reservoir on Roundhouse Locomotives). Both problems would and should have been noticed by the owners who expected us to be fixers of their problems! We were not in a position to do either of those jobs during a relatively short meeting nor should we have. Both had to reluctantly find a fixer or get a new pressure gauge.

There is clearly a major difference of opinion with regard to this issue, I certainly am not going to revise mine and I suspect neither will the other two major dissenters of my views. So I will rest with agreeing to differ from my and their points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom