Re: Another K-27 question

I'm not, but a possibly similar situation: IRM had issues for a long time with Frisco 1630 and the Form 4. The boiler drawing said one thing for # and size of backhead stays, the visible location on the backhead looked different, and the existing Form 4 disagreed with both. In the the last round of boiler work they managed to get deep enough inside with a go/no-go check gauge with the boiler inspector present to actually confirm the measurement of the stays. Turns out, all sources were incorrect. So the pressure reduction she'd been operating under was lifted, since the stays were actually thicker than the old Form 4 indicated. New Form 4, happier shop crew, happier FRA inspector.

SRK

Earl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> One last question to be answered about 464's life
> in California. For some reason the State took
> great exception of something in 464's boiler that
> caused to have the boiler pressure severely
> decreased to somewhere in the 100 lb range. Any
> of KBF guys care to comment on that?