On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:41:49 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

On Jul 26, 12:17Â*pm, Andy Breen wrote:

And also, possibly, once (to use the term obligatory in uk.r)
elfandsafetymadness stepped in in the form of regulations on
construction and inspection of boilers (when government started to
impede industry with red tape/legitimately question the number of
people getting blown up - choose one explanation according to dogma or
sense...)

This just didn't happen in the UK. UK regulation was some Thatcherite
wet-dream, where the private market efficiently self-regulated itself
(one of the very few cases).

Factory owners (for this issue was addressed amongst stationary engines
first) wished to insure against explosions. They didn't mind explosions
so much, there were always plenty more paupers to feed the dark satanic
mills, but it did rather get in the way of business. So the Manchester
Steam Users Association came into being. This was a mutual insurance
society. Boilers of any condition were insured, as no- one yet knew what
good practice was and there were no independent or competent boiler
inspectors to judge boilers anyway. Gradually the Association worked out
best practices for design, manufacture, maintenance and operation.
Premiums also began to be calculated on the basis of risk, judged from
compliance with these practices, not merely size of plant. Later
inspectors also came into being and eventually it became impossible to
insure a dubious boiler, thus uneconomic to continue operating it.

Many thanks for that. I understand it a lot better now (gosh, it's good
to find out when you're wrong...)

OK. I'd been extrapolating - without due evidence - from marine practice,
where the practices laid down by the Admiralty for their boilers formed
the basis of what the insurance companies used as "good". This produced
a very rapid drop in the number of boiler explosions in UK-registered
ships - quite different from the US where such things weren't happening..

--
From the Model M of Andy Breen, speaking only for himself