Re: Another K-27 question

SR_Krause Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?

The location, placement, and design of backhead braces on Baldwin locomotives is and has been an issue on several engines going through Form 4 inspections. Your 1630 not the first or only problem child.