Tornado

The counter argument is that these vehicles ran for decadeswithout oil warning lights, this particular one has run for 100,000 miles without the slightest hint that this might happen and its forebears did likewise. Perhaps when the cause has been ascertained this kind of thing might be considered but implementing such a system makes a rod for backs it becomes an integral part of the locomotive and as such if it isn't working the loco itself could be deemed unfit to run without it. Pressure on other Locomotive managers to install such systems then follows... like air conditioned coaches - maybe that's a good thing/ maybe its not.

 

Not to mention that the real challenge is to design a system that doesn't generate false alerts.

I've no doubt that it's possible - I can't believe that a steam locomotive is that uniquely difficult and hostile an environment to instrument - but suspect the real issue would lie with calibrating the monitoring. That then becomes an issue of time and effort - on what are still very limited resources compared with the other examples given up thread.

 

Indeed its not, but you have a ready stable power supply, you don't have that same issues with steam, extreme heat, horizontal driven rain or snow or the same range of differentials in operating environment. A steam loco makes a marine engine room look like a lab environment in comparison.

 

Gentlemen a number of steam tours get canceled because of the failure of the existing mandatory electronic systems, and they are in comparison simple systems. You seriously want to get more tours cancelled because of the inevitable spurious failures of relatively trivial warning systems?

 

In this instance it is doubtful whether temperature monitoring would have made any difference. It is perfectlty feasible, in a situation of reduced or no lubrication, for a piston valve to seize in its liner within its normal operational temperature range.

 

I dispute they are all much more severe in electronic environmental terms than a steam loco.

 

I agree, quite apart from the extremes of heat vibrations caused by converting reciprocating motion to rotary motion at speed won't be kind to delicate electronics. The cure would probably be worse than the problem. An enforced stop to examine on a busy mainline because of a red light due to a malfunction of the equipment could become a frequent occurrence. The loco has run 100,000 mile with just one major failure which is a pretty good record so no need for any knee jerk reaction

 

Deleted, I'd best try keep out of this, IMO that Mr Bunkers statement/email said all that needs to be said until the A1 lads have got to the bottom of it.

 

Nail on head! It is sometimes worthwhile to monitor the temperatures of parts that should normally run cool, notably the inside big end, as was done routinely with the stink bombs and in a more sophisticated way on the 100 mph test run. (But even that can give you false positives. Some railways have trackside hot box detectors, which get excited when a steam loco with a hot ashpan goes past.) Monitoring the temperature of a piston valve head would not only be challenging to implement but, with steam flowing in and out some of the time and being shut off some of the time, you would get a mass of data containing very little useful information.

 

Having read all the comments and viewed the Video of the Loco at Peterborough, from what I can see I do not believe that the damage had been caused by a seized Valve as the video at Peterborough shows the inside Radius rod to be completely intact. You get a good look at the 2.03 mark in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=00N0Y2UCuuo If a valve seized I would expect the radius rod to bear the brunt of the forces involved, and end up severely bent or broken. The damaged components in the 4 foot look very similar to a failure that occurred in another country a few years ago, however this was on a Loco with outside valve gear and at a lot less than 90Mph, and the Combination Lever did not end up broken.

 

As a consequence I don't see why the discussion is about temperature measurement where an oil flow sensor would suffice.
Kind regards
Jos

 

I remember LMS 5000 at a Severn valley gala back in the late 70s had a valve seize at low speed, the only damage to the valve gear was a broken combination lever.

 

This thread reminds of those that appear on pprune after an aircraft crash. All manner of people claiming all manner of expertise chip in with their theories as to what happened, almost all of which turn out to be wrong.

 

According to the A1 Steam.com's archive page
https://www.a1steam.com/category/history/
This from the 2003 section
Cylinders and valves – Ufone machined all six valvechest liners and the front steamchest covers were machined by North View and delivered to the works. Meanwhile A1 Trust volunteers were making good progress producing the cylinder draincocks.

Richard.

 

Wasn't it linings which led to the fall out with WCRC?

 

Suppose it depends at what point in the cycle the sieze occurs. ie is the motion being crushed or pulled. also break will always occur at the weakest link. which to some extent will vary from design to design or even from loco to loco.
The fallout with WCRC was a cylinder liner rebore(skim ) using a contractor not on WCRC 'S approved list iirc

 

That's a brave thing to say when you are about 10,000 miles further away than those on the spot!