Isn't it the case that the clock starts ticking when the first tube is rolled in, not the first fireup?

In the case of a new locomotive or a locomotive being brought out of retirement, the initial 15 year period shall begin on the day that the locomotive is placed in service or 365 calendar days after the first flue tube is installed in the locomotive, whichever comes first.

I don't quite understand the logic in this requirement, it seems like it would encourage restorations to do the boiler work last rather than get to the most problematic job before everything else. Is it an issue with corrosion on a sitting locomotive? Opinions?

I get your point, but imagine you did all the work, the boiler is on the frame and it looks great except the internal stuff. Then, you started putting flues in and found you needed to remove the boiler from the frame for something you never could have known about before you got the flues back in there...

Congratulations on this latest success.
Forgive my ignorance, and please, I mean nothing negative by the following questions. I am just curious. What is the reason for firing up at this point in the restoration? Or is it simply a case of showing the flag and keeping everyone engaged?
Thank you, and best wishes to all involved with this project.

A big part of this, though, is that I think the original planning and critical path was made up assuming the locomotive would be finished on its original schedule, before some of the state payment follies and the bearing-brass stealing spree. It would not surprise me that the tube scheduling was done precisely with the 365-day criterion in mind. Things didn't work out that way.

It's not about suspect flues - it's about gaining access to the interior of the boiler to determine the extent of deterioration and wear for recalculating the Form 4 and defining any necessary repairs or alterations to bring it back into compliance for another cycle. Unless the flues you pull have problems, you can safe end them and put them right back in again.

This fire up is to prove the repairs of the pressure vessel that have been performed to this point. This could also show if there are any other items that may need attention before it is put into service. Since the clock is already running for the 15 years, it will not make a difference to the available time. Who knows, maybe the WMSR may have plans to run the engine frequent enough that it will come due for this inspection because of service days rather than the 15 years.

Ed

1309 will be coming into service lettered for "Western Maryland", not "Chesepeake & Ohio". Eventually, 1309 will be lettered/numbered as Western Maryland #960.

Has this been announced by the WMSR? I'm just curious. If it has been, then, apparently, I didn't see that. If they do plan do to this, are they also planning to redesign #1309 (as best as they can) to resemble a Western Maryland M-1a class 2-6-6-2?

I'm not criticizing the WMSR, I am actually criticizing the FRA rule, it doesn't make sense to me, what is it about sitting for 15 years that make the flues suspect? The 1472 days of service rule would seem to be enough to prevent tube failure. I guess it could be to guard against fudging the in service numbers, I can think of operations in the past that would have tried that trick, but not really any now.

Does anybody know of a situation you only learn about when flues are reinstalled? If such happens to you, you might question your ability to competently inspect and repair the boiler in the first place........