Found the above image at Lewis Bolt and Nut Co. They've been making fasteners for the railroads since 1927. Looking at the threads, they appear to be cut rather than rolled (rolled threads are stronger than cut threads) and where the threads stop at the shank looks like a weak spot.
Comments from professional bolt makers welcome.
Norm
Per their web site it is hot headed. This is like forging but done in one strike. The heated material is held in a die that forms the threads and shank and struck by a die that forms the head, all in one operation. Very common for cheap low strength fasteners.
http://www.pandrol.com/wp-content/uploads/Track_Report_11.pdf
Apparently Pandrol has better salesmen than website people. The link describes a "cast swaged shoulder". There is no such animal. Then it describes the process where heated metal is struck by a die. That is not casting, where molten metal is poured into a mold to freeze nor is it swaging which is a cold forming process. That describes forging or hot heading. Further research shows the bottom of one of these plates and it is dead smooth, slick as a babies butt. That allows the plate to move on the tie. Plates that I am familiar with had a diamond pattern embossed on the bottom to grip the tie when weight is applied. I think pandrol and anyone who bought this song and dance has screwed up badly.
Can I point out that Norm just screwed the whole thread?
Sorry.. I couldn't resist any longer.
Norm48327
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Good one Zug.
Does anyone know whether these bolts are installed with a torque limiting wrench? It strikes me that they could be overstressed on installation if too much (Value to be determined) torque was applied and the point of failure would be at the top of the threads. This could increase corosion at the stress point. And the fact that the plates have no ridges would increase the horizontal forces impressed on the bolt causing the failures.
UC Bearcat Guy: Almost all are installed with pneumatic production machines with torque limiters or later on out of face with a hand drill with the torque limiter. (really no difference hydraulic/ electric/pneumatic for what has to handle that big a screw - and with a production gang and that machinery required...)... adzpads or something similar is almost standard with those types of pandrol plates or McKay/DE-Clip plates (as if hairpin spikes weren't already enough of a headache, this comes along)
Lewis has plants in Minneapolis and La Junta, and the stuff is machine cut. The next fun and games may well be to see if the necking problem is tied to the US made coach screws or the foreign made (largely Chinese) screws looking at the Q/C marks on the three quarters of the drive head. UPRR is probably dragging out purchase orders and supporting required test results from the independent Q/C certified labs looking for a pattern.
Electroliner 1935 Good one Zug. Does anyone know whether these bolts are installed with a torque limiting wrench? It strikes me that they could be overstressed on installation if too much (Value to be determined) torque was applied and the point of failure would be at the top of the threads. This could increase corosion at the stress point. And the fact that the plates have no ridges would increase the horizontal forces impressed on the bolt causing the failures.
While one would not want to overtighten these it must be remembered that it is a steel screw in WOOD tie. Excess tension would just strip the wood threads. Tension, or tightness, if that makes more sense to you, is not an issue. The tie plates are moving laterally , not up and down. This ain't rocket surgery. The railroads used tie plates with the embossed bottom for at least 50 years and suddenly Pandrol has "improved" them by being flat and slick?
It's hardly just Pandrol plates. many new tie plates manufactured after about 1995, including plain old cut spike plates are flat bottomed (no ridge created during rolling, unless the railroad specifies) . Largely done to avoid the problems with rail cant and adverse tie abrasion. Adz-Pads / abrasion pads are typically placed under the tie plate for the same reason, to avoid adzing a trough in the top of the tie.
Thanks for the reply MC. Now I have to ask, "what would you rather have in this situation, adverse tie abrasion or lateral movement?".
The lag screw stress is lateral shear combined with bending. Over-tightening the screws without stripping the threads would add a preload stress of axial tension in the screw shank, increasing toward the head.
That preload stress would add to the dynamic stress of a passing train. However, I don’t see any mention of that being a factor in the CN Fabyan Bridge wreck. Nor is there any mention of lag screws pulling up by stripping the threads out of the ties.
If I am not mistaken, tie plates with smooth bottoms have been widely used in the past going back to at least mid-1900s.
tdmidget Thanks for the reply MC. Now I have to ask, "what would you rather have in this situation, adverse tie abrasion or lateral movement?".
Regardless of who made the screws (Lewis, Camcar, The Chinese, the Russians, etc.), all are watching to see what's going on and is there a random/ systematic/ materials/ application/manufacturing issue at play(?). Knowing the Lewis folks from my La Junta experience, I'm sure that they are watching this and seeing if there is anything that might better the type of screws or changing the Rail Foundation System somewhere else. (it could be something goofy in the system and the damaged or failed screws are a symptom of a larger issue nobody was even aware of... like the tie plate holes (round, hopefully not square) needing to be machined and finished differently...)
Bucky - You surmised wrong (again) on the bottom of the plates, especially with the older stuff. There are all kinds of variations.
mudchickenBucky - You surmised wrong (again) on the bottom of the plates, especially with the older stuff. There are all kinds of variations.
I did not surmise that there were not all kinds of variations.
I was responding to the comment by TD Midget where he seemed to believe that smooth bottom plates are something relatively new and not the emobossed plates that he is familar with.
Bucky, spiking rail directly to ties is not new either, but it is not acceptable in this day and age. Pandrol claims that their smooth tieplates have more surface area which is not true. A igh school geometry student could instantly see that the embossed plate has more surfface area AND the resistance to lateral moverment. Do not try to obfuscate this with tension on the screw. Any idiot can see that a steel screw will pull the threads from a wood tie long before the steel, any crap alloy , would fail. So it is obviously not a question of tension, but lateral movement that is a problem. A steel screw into wood cannot tension the screw to any significant degree. As a millwright I tension fasteners by torque, hydraulicly , and electromechanically for a living.You cannot come anywhere near the strength of that fastener in wood, probably not achieving the elastic state at all.
tdmidget Bucky, spiking rail directly to ties is not new either, but it is not acceptable in this day and age. Pandrol claims that their smooth tieplates have more surface area which is not true. A igh school geometry student could instantly see that the embossed plate has more surfface area AND the resistance to lateral moverment. Do not try to obfuscate this with tension on the screw. Any idiot can see that a steel screw will pull the threads from a wood tie long before the steel, any crap alloy , would fail. So it is obviously not a question of tension, but lateral movement that is a problem. A steel screw into wood cannot tension the screw to any significant degree. As a millwright I tension fasteners by torque, hydraulicly , and electromechanically for a living.You cannot come anywhere near the strength of that fastener in wood, probably not achieving the elastic state at all.
Did I say that a steel screw would not pull the threads from a tie from a wood tie long before the steel would fail? No sir, I certainly did not. Did I say that tension is breaking screws? No I never said that either. I also never said that smooth bottom tie plates are better than embossed bottom plates. I just attempted to illustrate that there must not have been a universal consensus that embossed bottoms were better than smooth bottoms in all cases.
You say that the steel screw is so strong that tightening it in a wood tie cannot generate tensile force in the screw shank of any consequence. Yet a steel screw will bend and break or shear before the displacing the wood of the tie that is resisting that lateral movement that causes the shear. And all it has to do to not break the screw is split the wood with the grain, yet it breaks the screw first. If the tensile strength of the screw in the wood is of so little consequence, why doesn’t the lateral force just tilt the screw by crushing the wood, and draw the screw out by stripping the threads?
I have a feeling that I'm beating my head against a wall here. IF the screw could achieve even middle of it's elastic range and the tie plate was embossed , there would be no lateral movement of consequence. Since it cannot achieve the elastic stage and the plate has no resistance to lateral movement, the screw sustains repeated impacts and fails at that point.
Waiting on the "yes, but".
tdmidgetI have a feeling that I'm beating my head against a wall here. IF the screw could achieve even middle of it's elastic range and the tie plate was embossed , there would be no lateral movement of consequence. Since it cannot achieve the elastic stage and the plate has no resistance to lateral movement, the screw sustains repeated impacts and fails at that point.
So I take it that you conclude that the screws in the UP wreck and the CN wreck were not tight enough to reach far enough into their elastic range for sufficient loading on the tie plates to prevent lateral shifting.
In your post last night, you said this:
“Do not try to obfuscate this with tension on the screw. Any idiot can see that a steel screw will pull the threads from a wood tie long before the steel, any crap alloy, would fail. So it is obviously not a question of tension, but lateral movement that is a problem. A steel screw into wood cannot tension the screw to any significant degree.”
So I conclude that when you say, “IF the screw could achieve even middle of it's elastic range and the tie plate was embossed, there would be no lateral movement of consequence”, you mean that tightening the screw to that extent is simply not possible; rather than being a matter of not having been done by the UP and CN in the two wrecks.
And since such unachievable tightening would be necessary to make the lag screw systems work, the systems are defective in their design. Is that a fair interpretation of your point?
Or maybe it is more accurate to say that the design is okay, but the UP and CN failed to replace their lag screw systems before their working life had ended.
Before further backing and filling on this, it might be useful to consider this recent PDF presentation detailing BNSF practice. There are several highly interesting points, including what appears to be a clear indication of where at least one type of lag screw is breaking.
Wish there was more info there. They show them in concrete ties so there must be some kind of anchor for the screw to engage. The screws in the picture, both broken and intact, for the most part seem to have very little thread engagement or else they were backing out.
FRA preliminary findings report, Jun. 23
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17964#p1_z5_gD
"FRA’s investigation found that multiple lag bolts in this section of Union Pacific track were broken and sheared, leading to tie plates loosening from ties. The loosened tie plates allowed for the rails to be pushed outwards as trains moved across them, eventually resulting in an area of wide gauge, leading to the derailment."
I note that the report blames the track but gives no specifics about the cause of that failure. Nor does it discuss the bolt failures. The BNSF presentation does allude to the bolt tension and talks about :
Lag screw does not bear sideload I would like more info on why it doesn't. Does the concrete tie have a depression where the plate fits?
Lag screw and insert can be replaced
Derailment-damaged clips and lags can be replaced
Clips can not be over driven
And it further has a slide on RSD (Rail Seat Distortion) and how it can be optically detected. Does any one know what derailments BNSF has had that were blamed on track deficencies?
Looks like the UP & Pandrol need to get this resolved. The preliminary report is woefully deficient in its attention to detail and root cause.
Electroliner 1935 I note that the report blames the track but gives no specifics about the cause of that failure. Nor does it discuss the bolt failures. The BNSF presentation does allude to the bolt tension and talks about : Lag screw does not bear sideload I would like more info on why it doesn't. Does the concrete tie have a depression where the plate fits? Lag screw and insert can be replaced Derailment-damaged clips and lags can be replaced Clips can not be over driven And it further has a slide on RSD (Rail Seat Distortion) and how it can be optically detected. Does any one know what derailments BNSF has had that were blamed on track deficencies? Looks like the UP & Pandrol need to get this resolved. The preliminary report is woefully deficient in its attention to detail and root cause.
And if these are used on wood ties what prevents side loads?
Well, at least Norm gets it. The BNSF link does show a depression for the rail to prevent lateral movement. We don't have any indication so far of what that screw engages but even if it not capable of producing the proper tension on the screw it is at least as good as a cut spike and probably better since the tie is doing the lateral location. In a wood tie, not so good. Distributed power could increase the lateral forces on the rail, making a bad situation worse.
Overmod Before further backing and filling on this, it might be useful to consider this recent PDF presentation detailing BNSF practice. There are several highly interesting points, including what appears to be a clear indication of where at least one type of lag screw is breaking.
There is no discussion about the circumstances surrounding the broken lags on Page 19 in the BNSF presentation. The slide title that shows the broken lags is "Broken Lags - Cajon Pass, Testing Lubricant is 2016." Is it possible that the focus of slide is lags breaking during installation and the lubricant reduces the friction torque and the chance of shearing the lag screw?
What might the relevance of the lubricant to broken lags be?
AnthonyV The slide title that shows the broken lags is "Broken Lags - Cajon Pass, Testing Lubricant is 2016." Is it possible that the focus of slide is lags breaking during installation and the lubricant reduces the friction torque and the chance of shearing the lag screw?
(Damn this shabby Web interface, the clowns who persist in leaving it poorly programmed, and the "architects" who make UI and IxD secondary. /rant)
I note that several of the illustrated lags exhibit signs of corrosion, which leads me to wonder if this is not entirely about new installation - it might involve redriving of removed lags, or maintenance tightening of those that have loosened or lifted to 'spec' tension or clamping, however that is determined. The lubricant might also be in part an attempt to make driving force better correlated to achieved clamping force, since in the current design of lag it doesn't seem possible to gauge the amount of actual clamping by any form of cost-effective direct measurement otherwise.
Again, of course, we are treated to just how irritating it is when a PowerPoint slide presentation lacks its actual presentation audio track... is there someone like MC who has seen this presentation or is familiar with the subject of lubricating these screws, new or used?
One original reason I thought the lag picture was notable is that there's a pretty consistent breakage (a couple of threads down from the supposed 'weakest point' where the shank necks down at the start of the threads) and unless I am mistaken there are other exhibits that show similar screws breaking in that range. So yes, I think it is at least possible that there is damage from driving, redriving, and perhaps tightening these screws in a dry bore (predrilled or perhaps "prethreaded", which lubrication is intended to address.
I confess that I am waiting for a detailed metallurgical analysis of the various failure modes observed in lag screws that fail in the particular Pandrol system under discussion (not the two-lag system with chairs in concrete ties, etc.) That would include analysis of whether driving damage may be contributing to the reported multiple points of corrosion stress raising that R12E0008 was describing.
rdamonOne also has to wonder if the move to copper based preservatives has aided in premature corrosion.
Here is a useful reference to get you started.
Note in particular the moisture range at which the effect occurs, the steepness at which small increments of additional moisture produce increased corrosion, and consider the likelihood of rainwater or other moisture intrusion along the shank of one of these lags if lateral deflection of the fastener (e.g. by a shifting tie plate) enlarges part of the bore in a tie.
I got laughed at a couple of years ago for mentioning copper preservatives instead of creosote/borate for ties. Here is the current RailroadTie Association FAQ entry for preservative information:
What types of wood preservatives are used to pressure treat wood crossties?Most hardwood crossties produced in North America today are pressure treated with creosote or creosote solutions. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved and registered creosote for this industrial application. Other approved standardized preservatives include Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) Copper Naphthenate (CuN) and Pentachlorophenol although Penta has not been used by railroads in decades. Some producers also use a dual treatment system where ties are treated with borate compounds prior to a second treatment with creosote. The borates diffuse throughout the hard-to-treat heartwood of many species and provide additional protection for wood used in high decay areas. In January 2010, the AWPA approved the use of ACZA as an accepted wood preservative for ties. For example, Douglas fir is a strong, plentiful species, well-suited for use as ties, but not readily treatable with standard preservatives. Tests of ACZA-treated Douglas fir ties have shown low corrosivity and excellent spike-holding characteristics. ACZA enables wood to resist termite damage and fungal decay and has been found to reduce flame spread in wood timbers.How far does creosote penetrate?Some species treat nearly 100% while in others only the sapwood treats easily. In refractory (hard to treat) species, many railroads use borates in a dual treatment process to provide protection to the heartwood.What are the other approved treatments for hardwood ties?98% of all wood crossties produced in the US and Canada are treated with creosote or creosote and oil blends. In addition to creosote, Pentachlorophenol and Copper Naphthenate (CuN) are approved preservatives for hardwood ties by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA). ACZA is now also approved for Douglas fir and hardwood ties. CCA (copper chrome arsenate) is not recommended for hardwoods but may be sometimes used for certain Southern Yellow Pine timbers and ties. Generally, CuN is applied with lighter oil carriers than creosote that may not provide the same extent of weather-proofing properties as the heavier creosotes. CuN is applied with oils that have lower flash points than creosote, some typical processing steps used when treating with creosote alone (sterilizing the ties under high heat to condition the wood and eliminate decay fungi that may have begun to grow while the wood is air-drying prior to processing) cannot be done. It is expected that CuN would be most effective in hardwood ties when used in high decay hazard areas if the ties were dual-treated with a borate pre-treatment. Mississippi State University has conducted studies on dual treatment with CuN which you can find here . Nisus Corporation has assumed the EPA registration for CuN and built a new manufacturing facility in Knoxville, TN, which will fuel more widespread use of CuN. At least five treating companies now offer ties or timbers treated with CuN for railroad use. Borate compounds are now used in dual treatment processes for roughly 7 to 7.5 million of the 24+ million or so ties produced per year. Over the years of testing (50+ documented years now for creosote - see the 1958 cooperative study) creosote has proven to be the most efficacious and cost effective wood preservative for hardwood ties. It has significant weatherproofing properties and is an excellent preservative for hardwood species. However, some wood species are refractory (hard-to-treat) and the heartwoods of those species are almost impenetrable by any wood preservative with the exception of borate compounds which diffuse through the wood over time. Thus, for these refractory species destined for high decay areas, it has now become relatively common practice to use borates as a pre-treatment to protect the wood prior to processing with creosote. Borate dual-treatment protects the entire cross-section of the wood tie providing excellent service life even in high biological-hazard service conditions. Each preservative system has its place in the wide variety of railroad applications and climactic conditions in North America. RTA is continually researching and testing other systems, but not one is in use other than those mentioned here. What is RTA doing to research alternate preservatives?RTA is working in conjunction with AAR to determine the relative effectiveness of alternative tie treatments with the ongoing Alternative Wood Protection Research Project (AWPRP) at Mississippi State University. The objectives of the project include determining the relative biological durability to decay fungi and subterranean termites of crossties commercially treated with existing and alternative preservatives exposed side-by-side in a replicated test on a site in AWPA Hazard zones 4 and 5, to determine the effectiveness of treatments against Formosan termites, to determine the corrosivity of alternative preservatives, and to determine the tie dimension stability effects of alternative treatments.
In January 2010, the AWPA approved the use of ACZA as an accepted wood preservative for ties. For example, Douglas fir is a strong, plentiful species, well-suited for use as ties, but not readily treatable with standard preservatives. Tests of ACZA-treated Douglas fir ties have shown low corrosivity and excellent spike-holding characteristics. ACZA enables wood to resist termite damage and fungal decay and has been found to reduce flame spread in wood timbers.How far does creosote penetrate?Some species treat nearly 100% while in others only the sapwood treats easily. In refractory (hard to treat) species, many railroads use borates in a dual treatment process to provide protection to the heartwood.What are the other approved treatments for hardwood ties?98% of all wood crossties produced in the US and Canada are treated with creosote or creosote and oil blends. In addition to creosote, Pentachlorophenol and Copper Naphthenate (CuN) are approved preservatives for hardwood ties by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA). ACZA is now also approved for Douglas fir and hardwood ties. CCA (copper chrome arsenate) is not recommended for hardwoods but may be sometimes used for certain Southern Yellow Pine timbers and ties.
Generally, CuN is applied with lighter oil carriers than creosote that may not provide the same extent of weather-proofing properties as the heavier creosotes. CuN is applied with oils that have lower flash points than creosote, some typical processing steps used when treating with creosote alone (sterilizing the ties under high heat to condition the wood and eliminate decay fungi that may have begun to grow while the wood is air-drying prior to processing) cannot be done. It is expected that CuN would be most effective in hardwood ties when used in high decay hazard areas if the ties were dual-treated with a borate pre-treatment. Mississippi State University has conducted studies on dual treatment with CuN which you can find here .
Nisus Corporation has assumed the EPA registration for CuN and built a new manufacturing facility in Knoxville, TN, which will fuel more widespread use of CuN. At least five treating companies now offer ties or timbers treated with CuN for railroad use.
Borate compounds are now used in dual treatment processes for roughly 7 to 7.5 million of the 24+ million or so ties produced per year.
Over the years of testing (50+ documented years now for creosote - see the 1958 cooperative study) creosote has proven to be the most efficacious and cost effective wood preservative for hardwood ties. It has significant weatherproofing properties and is an excellent preservative for hardwood species. However, some wood species are refractory (hard-to-treat) and the heartwoods of those species are almost impenetrable by any wood preservative with the exception of borate compounds which diffuse through the wood over time. Thus, for these refractory species destined for high decay areas, it has now become relatively common practice to use borates as a pre-treatment to protect the wood prior to processing with creosote. Borate dual-treatment protects the entire cross-section of the wood tie providing excellent service life even in high biological-hazard service conditions.
Each preservative system has its place in the wide variety of railroad applications and climactic conditions in North America. RTA is continually researching and testing other systems, but not one is in use other than those mentioned here.
What is RTA doing to research alternate preservatives?RTA is working in conjunction with AAR to determine the relative effectiveness of alternative tie treatments with the ongoing Alternative Wood Protection Research Project (AWPRP) at Mississippi State University. The objectives of the project include determining the relative biological durability to decay fungi and subterranean termites of crossties commercially treated with existing and alternative preservatives exposed side-by-side in a replicated test on a site in AWPA Hazard zones 4 and 5, to determine the effectiveness of treatments against Formosan termites, to determine the corrosivity of alternative preservatives, and to determine the tie dimension stability effects of alternative treatments.
The links are live in the original FAQ page.
Overmod Again, of course, we are treated to just how irritating it is when a PowerPoint slide presentation lacks its actual presentation audio track...
Again, of course, we are treated to just how irritating it is when a PowerPoint slide presentation lacks its actual presentation audio track...
I share your frustration. In my earlier days working for a large engineering consulting firm, we always included key points on the slide (we called them topical sentences) rather than using the slide as a prop for the audio. This avoided the frustration you mention above, in which no one can remember the purpose of the slide once the presentation is complete.
Such a slide might read:
Broken Lag Screws and Lubrication
Reports from the field indicate that about 5 percent of lag screws fail during retightening, possibly due to high friction torque between the tie and bolt.
(show picture of broken screws)
Testing of a teflon-based lubricant intended to reduce the friction between the tie and lag screw during retightening is underway. Preliminary results indicate that use of the lubricant reduced the frequency of broken screws to less than 0.1 percent.
Of course the above info is total fiction, but it illustrates how adding a few sentences to a slide can help retain its meaning long after the presentation is given.
The following might be of interest?http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2014/r14w0137/r14w0137.aspThank You.
NDGThe following might be of interest? http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2014/r14w0137/r14w0137.asp
Not sure I see the relevance to the thread topic here -- please be more specific. Are you referring to a parallel between this incident and Mosier (or Fabyan Bridge) in the frequent claims of inspection and 'remediation activities' like surfacing in the effective absence of recognition of or attention to critical faults in the track?
The track fixation in the report's area is spiked construction (albeit with more than 4 spikes per plate in some places) and the proximate cause is sun kink. (A rather obvious and predictable sun kink, in my not-so-humble opinion, on the hottest day of the year with the stress in one rail recently relieved, and many places where tie bearing was not sufficient. Perhaps there is intentionally-understated terminology in the report, perhaps I am reading too much into the semantics.)
Something of concern, reading between the lines: It would appear that telemetry with a certain amount of what looks to me like good data fusion was in use ... in raw data fed to TC, but not evidently used effectively by the railroad. We see what I consider clear (and knowing the details of recent 'maintenance', alarming) indication of a developing kink, clearly identified by video and lateral accelerometer ... and not reported by the crew as out of the ordinary, or apparently flagged for attention at the time by any sort of program reviewing data. Unless of course there were so many similar combinations of data in this section of track that this one was filtered out with 'others'. I cannot imagine that sun kink would be depreciated in importance vs., say, vertical accelerations indicating poor areas of tie bearing that might lead to increased rail breakage, but after reading this report ... I find I don't know. Likewise, I imagine that TC could run some sort of analysis for trends on the data it evidently receives, and issue some sort of notice when it 'sees' a developing critical situation exacerbated by known maintenance factors ... but for all I know there were hundreds of competing problem areas in this section of line, and it would be like the security situation in the week prior to the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing.
Your Diagnosis IS OCD, Sir.
There can never be too much info regarding Safety esp when so much Placarded material is moving by rail, and others who are responsible for Track Maintenance might well take pointers from any of the information presented in these threads regardless of track, ties or fasteners. Wide Gauge can have many causes, some right under one's nose, IF he knows where to look beforehand.
The old saying was 'Sun Kink' and I have 'chased a few' down the track on a Unit, often a H-16-44 in hot weather after sledding for ballasting, 50 years ago.
Safety First.
There can also be too much information presented, seemingly in an obessive fashion? regarding locomotives scrapped half a century or more ago. ( Groan! )
I like steam, but, there is overkill.
Younger folk will wonder about forum folk and may well get turned off by steam overkill? if they had any interest to begin with?
Some people have had a life, some have not?
There is a world of difference in changing and spiking ties in real life, than reading about it in an obsure manual.
As just mentioned. Forums are a place for old guys to voice their opinion, no matter what it is.
Some have no other reason to contribute that to overlord others with their knowledge, much of which may not be of interest to others.
Safety is No. 1, regardless of the source.
One is not likely to experience a superheater element failure on the road in Oregon? Nor shed a tire by too much Independent on the engine.
When the Post Count reaches 5550, will there be a party?
Thank You.
I'm going to empty my catheter bottle, shamble to the kitchen, take my Meds and go back to bed and try to dream of Steam, and Youth, esp the latter.
God Bless Lawrence Welk and Depends.
Get out the popcorn.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.