3801 Boiler

 
  allambee Chief Train Controller

The German boiler is SAFE to use.
Its only a peculiar legislative requirement (influenced by a industry lobby group as a form of protectionism) which prevents its use in NSW as a boiler.
The boiler passed its hydrostatic test, and has a  TÜV Rheinland certificate to operate its designed pressure.
We all live on planet earth, the idiotic NSW legislation should be changed to allow comparable codes from comparable nations such as TÜV Rheinland and ASME (USA) without the onerous paperwork to get the thing compliant here in NSW Australia.
Every Country in the world has standards for boilers, there are ones for stationary boilers of different types, those for use in Steam locomotives have a higher standard, for safety reasons, they are not set for protectionism or some lobby groups, as they have been there basically since the railways here and every where else around the world.
There is no Australian standard for "steam locomotive boilers" there is a standard for boilers which steam locomotive boilers come in under. There is an Australian standard for boilers and pressure vessels. Western Australia, much on those LNG plants use 100% ASME codes for boilers and pressure vessels. If we were to build something here like a LNG plant in NSW it would have to comply with an AS code. Though I'm sure the NSW legislation would be quickly changed to allow ASME codes if Chevron wanted to build something here. There have been instances of the AS codes being used as a form of protectionism by industry lobby groups within NSW who might I also ad can fabricate to TUV standard and ASME codes when it suits them (they proudly display these overseas certificates prominently on the walls of their office).  They get themselves on the committee which reviews and creates these standards to suit their own particular liking. Harmonisation of comparable codes seems to be a be no no for some, they'll make the AS code little different, not too much as to increase the cost, but enough to put off anyone new.  On a global scale Australia is such a small market for boilers and pressure vessels, throwing a legislative requirement of AS codes prevents overseas entrants into the marketplace unless someone wants to occur additional costs of inspection and compliance.
Well!  that's quite illuminating.  There are no standards for steam locomotive boilers.  Well seeing you're the qualified individual you should offer your services and fix everything.
a6et
There is no specific Australian Standard for steam locomotive boilers, there is a Australian standard for boilers and pressure vessels, the opinion its more onerous on the inspection side, but why have a standard when there are more globally accepted standards in use?  I don't see boilers blowing up on a regular basis built to anything other than AS.They had previously approached me after stage #1 disaster, I declined. Easy fix -change the legislation to bring NSW into accepting global standards. That will make my job easier. Use ASME or what ever comparable standard you like. It would have opened the window to more global tenderer's when they originally tendered on the thing.
I'll add one more thing, they attempted to go global with their "tender" because it was thought at the time few here had experience with the design and fabrication of large mainline locomotive boilers.  Problem is they took their tender to a global market where the experience can still be found,  but those with the experience have absolutely no commercial interest (unless you want to pay extra) with our quintessential boiler and welding standards.

Sponsored advertisement

  M636C Minister for Railways

From Trains Magazine Newswire today

SAVANNAH, Ga. — Trains magazine has awarded its $10,000 2016 Preservation Award to the Museum of the American Railroad for the restoration of the last surviving Santa Fe-painted Alco PA diesel locomotive.

The award was announced at the Association of Tourist Railroads & Railway Museums annual meeting in Savannah, Ga., on Nov. 12.

The grant will sponsor the transferring of engineering documents of the carbody, nose, and cab contours to a scalable, digital, three-dimensional format so replacement parts can be fabricated quickly and accurately for Santa Fe No. 59L at Frisco, Texas.

I think that this is what was done by the Tornado group before they obtained their boiler from Germany.

I don't believe this was done for the 3801 boiler.

M636C
  petan Chief Commissioner

Location: Waiting to see a zebra using a zebra crossing!
The side topic of metric / imperial measurements regarding 3801’s boiler reminds me of the plans for the WW2 building of the De Havilland DH Gipsy Major aero engine in Australia. The blueprints were made available in Australia January 1940 but all measurements were metric and Australian shop practice was based on the inch. That meant converting dimensions from metric to imperial. To assist, two De Havilland engineers and prototype Gipsy Major engines were brought to Australia.

My source article (referenced below) did not explain why a UK firm gave Australia metric plans yet UK tools and gauges were imperial. But the following URL notes the plans were apparently intended for French use as the measurements were in metric units http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/3582

Article source; Quarry, George. A triumph of Australian Ingenuity, Building the DH Gipsy Major Aero Engine in Australia.  Aviation Heritage, the journal of the Aviation Historical Society of Australia, V35 No4 December 2004, P.154ff
  a6et Minister for Railways

The side topic of metric / imperial measurements regarding 3801’s boiler reminds me of the plans for the WW2 building of the De Havilland DH Gipsy Major aero engine in Australia. The blueprints were made available in Australia January 1940 but all measurements were metric and Australian shop practice was based on the inch. That meant converting dimensions from metric to imperial. To assist, two De Havilland engineers and prototype Gipsy Major engines were brought to Australia.

My source article (referenced below) did not explain why a UK firm gave Australia metric plans yet UK tools and gauges were imperial. But the following URL notes the plans were apparently intended for French use as the measurements were in metric units http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/3582

Article source; Quarry, George. A triumph of Australian Ingenuity, Building the DH Gipsy Major Aero Engine in Australia.  Aviation Heritage, the journal of the Aviation Historical Society of Australia, V35 No4 December 2004, P.154ff
petan
Petan.  A good find, thing is though, aircraft built in that period would have been intended for wider use than just England or the empire, most if not all likely used the British imperial measurements rather than the more widely used Metric as found in Europe and parts of Asia.

Seems that in those days though, they had the sense to bring an engine over here along with the engineers, seems that with the new boiler that something similar would have been a crazy idea, especially as we are now in the modern world of real engineers and modern technological advances.  

Makes you wonder, if anyone from the German factory came over here to inspect the boiler on 3801 so they would have had a bit more first hand knowledge and understanding in regards to the boiler.  Worst case scenario could have been to actually send 01's boiler or the one at Dorrigo over there for them to see what was needed, especially given we were using the imperial measurements when all the boilers were made rather than metric.

But that's actually silly to think along those lines for a boiler that was only a few dollars for dumb governments.
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

Why are people still harping on about a comment I made in regard to modifying the frame to suit the boiler.
Simple - it is a stupid idea.

Whilst I know it was never going to happen, and it would be the last option, I still wanted to make the point that it could have been done anyway, despite all the naysayers saying it can't.
Nobody said it can't; sensible people said that you don't stuff up a second thing to cope with the original fault - you fix the mistake. Your experience with modifying earth moving equipment is not even remotely close to altering a cast steel locomotive frame and all of the ancillary equipment that goes with it.

If you had the last 38 frame in existence and the last 38 boiler that was ever going to be made, and they didn't fit, would you just throw your hands up in the air and walk away, or would you pull your finger out and start making changes?
I'd go and get you to fix it all.Rolling Eyes
Valvegear
So Valvegear , you're smartass then

Then your answer is still that it is too hard because someone else made a mistake and now nobody can fix it.
Well no 38 class for your then
And I will defend my background and anyone else's that has the ability to repair any form of major equipment that the metal components of a steam loco are no different to the metal components of a dragline or shovel. Plenty of heavy cast components that have to work in tangent with fabricated and welded ones.

No point in continuing with a thread that is moot anyway and only attracting idiots
  K160 Minister for Railways

Location: Bendigo
Why are people still harping on about a comment I made in regard to modifying the frame to suit the boiler.
Simple - it is a stupid idea.

Whilst I know it was never going to happen, and it would be the last option, I still wanted to make the point that it could have been done anyway, despite all the naysayers saying it can't.
Nobody said it can't; sensible people said that you don't stuff up a second thing to cope with the original fault - you fix the mistake. Your experience with modifying earth moving equipment is not even remotely close to altering a cast steel locomotive frame and all of the ancillary equipment that goes with it.

If you had the last 38 frame in existence and the last 38 boiler that was ever going to be made, and they didn't fit, would you just throw your hands up in the air and walk away, or would you pull your finger out and start making changes?
I'd go and get you to fix it all.Rolling Eyes
So Valvegear , you're smartass then

Then your answer is still that it is too hard because someone else made a mistake and now nobody can fix it.
Well no 38 class for your then
And I will defend my background and anyone else's that has the ability to repair any form of major equipment that the metal components of a steam loco are no different to the metal components of a dragline or shovel. Plenty of heavy cast components that have to work in tangent with fabricated and welded ones.

No point in continuing with a thread that is moot anyway and only attracting idiots
Showtime

I don't get on here much these days and comment. Your last point is rather ironic.

A couple of things:

- A steam loco is not a Dragline. Don't even make that comparison to strengthen your argument on repairs. It sounds kinda dumb to be honest.
- A steam locomotive's frame should never be rebuild to suit a component like the boiler. It is the frame/foundation that everything sits on/under so if it has been built correctly from the get go you don't modify it. I'm no master engineer but hearing people even mentioning this is just bizarre.
- If the boiler had been built correctly from the start they would not have had to resort to using the old one (again). That point seems to be getting lost a bit.

There are other firms besides DB that can make boilers as we know. The new boiler for 3265 was made in Australia and I fail to see why the firm that made it were not used to make the 38 boiler. They would have ended up with one usable boiler, instead of one perhaps cheaper one that turns out doesn't fit.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I have read with interest the discussion on possible dimensional problems caused by converting Imperial measurements to Metric.
It has been suggested that the original drawings were made before the inch was standardized to exactly 25.4 mm, and that this has caused the problem. Given the fact that the difference between the original definition and the current one is equivalent to about one-eighth of an inch in a mile, I cannot see any validity in the argument.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
So Valvegear , you're smartass then

Then your answer is still that it is too hard because someone else made a mistake and now nobody can fix it.

Well no 38 class for your then

And I will defend my background and anyone else's that has the ability to repair any form of major equipment that the metal components of a steam loco are no different to the metal components of a dragline or shovel. Plenty of heavy cast components that have to work in tangent with fabricated and welded ones.

No point in continuing with a thread that is moot anyway and only attracting idiots
Showtime
Please learn to read.

1. My answer was never that it is too hard. I have never said nobody can fix it; I have said that it shouldn't be fixed the way you want it done.
2. Defend your background all you like; I have not criticised it. I have said that draglines and shovels et al do not compare with 3801.
3. Of course fabrications work in combination with castings - this is a very common design feature. Who ever said otherwise? Your car has a fabricated body and a cast engine block.

You may call me whatever you like because your personal opinion of me is of no importance at all. I will continue to avoid personal abuse.
3801 will run again, with a boiler of correct dimensions and adhering to the required design Standard. I am disappointed that there is a monumental delay, but I accept that I will have to wait until the work is done properly. You should do the same.
  theanimal Chief Commissioner

The side topic of metric / imperial measurements regarding 3801’s boiler reminds me of the plans for the WW2 building of the De Havilland DH Gipsy Major aero engine in Australia. The blueprints were made available in Australia January 1940 but all measurements were metric and Australian shop practice was based on the inch. That meant converting dimensions from metric to imperial. To assist, two De Havilland engineers and prototype Gipsy Major engines were brought to Australia.

My source article (referenced below) did not explain why a UK firm gave Australia metric plans yet UK tools and gauges were imperial. But the following URL notes the plans were apparently intended for French use as the measurements were in metric units http://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/3582

Article source; Quarry, George. A triumph of Australian Ingenuity, Building the DH Gipsy Major Aero Engine in Australia.  Aviation Heritage, the journal of the Aviation Historical Society of Australia, V35 No4 December 2004, P.154ff
petan
Reminds me of a book I read about the Lithgow Small Arms Factory in NSW, when it was being set up to manufacture the Lee-Enfield .303, the pommies - rightly or wrongly - thought that Australia would buy all of the manufacturing equipment from them.

Well shock and horror, the equipment was bought from Pratt and Whitney in America. Then the struggle started to get the poms to supply drawings and templates for the militaria  that was to be manufactured. The Aussies thought that although the rifles were being manufactured in different places in England, they were standardised and fully interchangeable. Well this was not the case, with a high degree of hand fitting required.

The book is called (as I remember) "The Enfield Inch" and was for sale at the Small Arms Museum.

I see parallels with the construction of the boiler for 3801.
  The Man in Blue Deputy Commissioner

Location: Trackside in Baiyin NW China!
Reminds me of a book I read about the Lithgow Small Arms Factory in NSW, when it was being set up to manufacture the Lee-Enfield .303, the pommies - rightly or wrongly - thought that Australia would buy all of the manufacturing equipment from them.

Well shock and horror, the equipment was bought from Pratt and Whitney in America. Then the struggle started to get the poms to supply drawings and templates for the militaria  that was to be manufactured. The Aussies thought that although the rifles were being manufactured in different places in England, they were standardised and fully interchangeable. Well this was not the case, with a high degree of hand fitting required.
theanimal
38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
  a6et Minister for Railways

Reminds me of a book I read about the Lithgow Small Arms Factory in NSW, when it was being set up to manufacture the Lee-Enfield .303, the pommies - rightly or wrongly - thought that Australia would buy all of the manufacturing equipment from them.

Well shock and horror, the equipment was bought from Pratt and Whitney in America. Then the struggle started to get the poms to supply drawings and templates for the militaria  that was to be manufactured. The Aussies thought that although the rifles were being manufactured in different places in England, they were standardised and fully interchangeable. Well this was not the case, with a high degree of hand fitting required.
38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
The Man in Blue
The 38's were built by Clyde Engineering 01-05 with many of the parts supplied by the NSWGR from their own workshops, the remaining 25 were built at the NSWGR's workshops at the LES and Cardif, frames aside, which were all manufactured in the U.S. So there was a lot more conformity between the 30 members of the class, exception being the streamliners and non streamlined.
  M636C Minister for Railways

38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
The 38's were built by Clyde Engineering 01-05 with many of the parts supplied by the NSWGR from their own workshops, the remaining 25 were built at the NSWGR's workshops at the LES and Cardif, frames aside, which were all manufactured in the U.S. So there was a lot more conformity between the 30 members of the class, exception being the streamliners and non streamlined.
a6et
And the boilers were interchanged between 38 class on a regular basis, and all of the frames were cast from the same moulds in the same foundry. In fact, one of the original five frames was defective and was replaced from the batch of 25, so 3805 was built on a frame intended for what became the non-streamliners. Fortunately, construction was so slow that that frame could be replaced post WWII.

M636C
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
The Man in Blue
And FS's...
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
A question.   Noting the regulatory requirements set by NSW and also noting that locomotive boilers unlike stationary boilers are specialized "beasts", is there any technical capability and facilities available in NSW or elsewhere that could have produced a new boiler from scratch.  The question is purely one of interest not intended to add fuel to the fire regarding 3801.
  Mufreight Train Controller

Location: North Ipswich
A question.   Noting the regulatory requirements set by NSW and also noting that locomotive boilers unlike stationary boilers are specialized "beasts", is there any technical capability and facilities available in NSW or elsewhere that could have produced a new boiler from scratch.  The question is purely one of interest not intended to add fuel to the fire regarding 3801.
Trainplanner
The Ipswich Railway workshops still have the capability to build a loco boiler from scratch but with the passing of time those with the skills and experience to build the boiler are thinning.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Cheers.  Thanks
  a6et Minister for Railways

38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
The 38's were built by Clyde Engineering 01-05 with many of the parts supplied by the NSWGR from their own workshops, the remaining 25 were built at the NSWGR's workshops at the LES and Cardif, frames aside, which were all manufactured in the U.S. So there was a lot more conformity between the 30 members of the class, exception being the streamliners and non streamlined.
And the boilers were interchanged between 38 class on a regular basis, and all of the frames were cast from the same moulds in the same foundry. In fact, one of the original five frames was defective and was replaced from the batch of 25, so 3805 was built on a frame intended for what became the non-streamliners. Fortunately, construction was so slow that that frame could be replaced post WWII.

M636C
M636C
M. My whole point in the small post.

Question though regarding the company at Goulburn who have task of working 01's boiler.

On their web page they make a point regarding building of boiler  We provide a total package commencing with a condition report on an original heritage item through to the design, drafting, certification and final construction of a new boiler. Boilers can be constructed to a traditional riveted design, fully welded or a combination of both methods to provide a cost effective replica of the original.
Being a relatively young company 27 years, although given the chance with fixing the firebox on 01's boiler, wouldn't they be a candidate to at least see what they could do with the German boiler, (maybe they have done that already) perhaps even to construct new boilers all up if and when needed.

It would certainly seem they have their feet in the door with rail in several areas as it is, having a local company involved in this work could be very well a very good step forward. Given they have access to the whole boiler it would provide an excellent means to get the dimensions correct not just for 38cl boilers but other types as well.
  Salty21 Junior Train Controller

Location: Canberra
38's were built by different builders, so were passenger cars. Parts from (say) Meadowbank cars, often don't fit Ritchie Bros cars and Eveleigh built is different again. I know this to be true of TAM sleepers. There are plenty in preservation, you can see check it out while visiting various museums. It would be smart to check dimensions of new parts with the actual car before manufacture.
The 38's were built by Clyde Engineering 01-05 with many of the parts supplied by the NSWGR from their own workshops, the remaining 25 were built at the NSWGR's workshops at the LES and Cardif, frames aside, which were all manufactured in the U.S. So there was a lot more conformity between the 30 members of the class, exception being the streamliners and non streamlined.
And the boilers were interchanged between 38 class on a regular basis, and all of the frames were cast from the same moulds in the same foundry. In fact, one of the original five frames was defective and was replaced from the batch of 25, so 3805 was built on a frame intended for what became the non-streamliners. Fortunately, construction was so slow that that frame could be replaced post WWII.

M636C
M. My whole point in the small post.

Question though regarding the company at Goulburn who have task of working 01's boiler.

On their web page they make a point regarding building of boiler  We provide a total package commencing with a condition report on an original heritage item through to the design, drafting, certification and final construction of a new boiler. Boilers can be constructed to a traditional riveted design, fully welded or a combination of both methods to provide a cost effective replica of the original.Being a relatively young company 27 years, although given the chance with fixing the firebox on 01's boiler, wouldn't they be a candidate to at least see what they could do with the German boiler, (maybe they have done that already) perhaps even to construct new boilers all up if and when needed.

It would certainly seem they have their feet in the door with rail in several areas as it is, having a local company involved in this work could be very well a very good step forward. Given they have access to the whole boiler it would provide an excellent means to get the dimensions correct not just for 38cl boilers but other types as well.
Well Said !!!
  Shed_Rat Train Controller

Location: 'A' Shop - Swindon Works
There used to be a Australian Standard for Locomotive boilers CB1. When NSW Workcover still had to approve boiler repairs until at least the mid 1990's , they would still refer any repairs to a riveted boiler to be in accordance with the current pressure vessel standard and although it was obsolete CB1 where appropriate.

[img]http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa412/Evilsdude/cb1%20pt3%201957.jpg[/img]
  a6et Minister for Railways

There used to be a Australian Standard for Locomotive boilers CB1. When NSW Workcover still had to approve boiler repairs until at least the mid 1990's , they would still refer any repairs to a riveted boiler to be in accordance with the current pressure vessel standard and although it was obsolete CB1 where appropriate.

[img]http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa412/Evilsdude/cb1%20pt3%201957.jpg[/img]
Shed_Rat
Shed Rat, how dare you bring that sort of evidence to this thread especially after the expert documentation stating there was no such standards or codes.
  NSWGR 3827 Deputy Commissioner

Location: South of the Border
A question.   Noting the regulatory requirements set by NSW and also noting that locomotive boilers unlike stationary boilers are specialized "beasts", is there any technical capability and facilities available in NSW or elsewhere that could have produced a new boiler from scratch.  The question is purely one of interest not intended to add fuel to the fire regarding 3801.
Trainplanner
There has been at least 3 new Locomotive Boilers built in NSW in recent years.
Check out this link http://puffingbilly.com.au/en/blog/ and look at the post for Friday 24th April 2015 & Tuesday 13th May 2014 will show 2 of them.
  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Showtime's question (about modifying frames) was not unreasonable, however the answer would always be "no". Loco cast steel frames are not usually built with additional metal provided in case someone cannot build a boiler within predetermined tolerances. The boiler is actually cheaper and easier to replace than the frame. The comparison with draglines/shovels is legitimate, however the loco frames have to withstand all sorts of lateral, longitudinal and twisting shocks and stresses, which earthmoving equipment also may have to endure, however the loco stresses occur often and at high speeds.

Subsequent failure of the cast steel on an earthmoving machine would be at far lower speed, and far less likely to result in catastrophic damage to equipment and persons than with a loco.

I doubt any engineer worth employing would contemplate such work to the frames. As mentioned, boilers on a steam loco are considered as a wearing component. And expensive one, but still replaceable.

As to the boiler, mistakes appear to have been made; but more importantly they seem to be getting back on track. Some new people, some professional knowledge; maybe it is best to "move forward" (one of those ghastly modern buzz phrases, but which in this case actually is fair enough). The main thing for us is to see the thing running again; now there's progress, let's celebrate that rather than look for someone to blame for mistakes of years ago.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Showtime's question (about modifying frames) was not unreasonable, however the answer would always be "no". Loco cast steel frames are not usually built with additional metal provided in case someone cannot build a boiler within predetermined tolerances. The boiler is actually cheaper and easier to replace than the frame. The comparison with draglines/shovels is legitimate, however the loco frames have to withstand all sorts of lateral, longitudinal and twisting shocks and stresses, which earthmoving equipment also may have to endure, however the loco stresses occur often and at high speeds.

Subsequent failure of the cast steel on an earthmoving machine would be at far lower speed, and far less likely to result in catastrophic damage to equipment and persons than with a loco.

I doubt any engineer worth employing would contemplate such work to the frames. As mentioned, boilers on a steam loco are considered as a wearing component. And expensive one, but still replaceable.

As to the boiler, mistakes appear to have been made; but more importantly they seem to be getting back on track. Some new people, some professional knowledge; maybe it is best to "move forward" (one of those ghastly modern buzz phrases, but which in this case actually is fair enough). The main thing for us is to see the thing running again; now there's progress, let's celebrate that rather than look for someone to blame for mistakes of years ago.
hbedriver
Agree.
Let's move on and follow progress with the repairs to the 'old' boiler in Australia.
  studdo Station Master

Latest Roundhouse seems to have positive news about repair of 3801's boiler (tab 3819).
  allambee Chief Train Controller

There used to be a Australian Standard for Locomotive boilers CB1. When NSW Workcover still had to approve boiler repairs until at least the mid 1990's , they would still refer any repairs to a riveted boiler to be in accordance with the current pressure vessel standard and although it was obsolete CB1 where appropriate.

[img]http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa412/Evilsdude/cb1%20pt3%201957.jpg[/img]
Shed Rat, how dare you bring that sort of evidence to this thread especially after the expert documentation stating there was no such standards or codes.
a6et
As I said some time ago, there is NO current specific AS standard for steam locomotive boilers, because there is no need for one, same reason why hot riveting is no covered in current structural steel design standards.

There IS a AS Standard for boilers and pressure vessels, which covers things like 01's boiler..

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: