Tornado

And you are sure, they are not taking any notice of the findings....

 

Well i wonder if another test run is imminent if so

 

A search of the RAIB site gives a zero return.

 

I'm sure the RAIB informally take an interest in all sorts of things. However, your earlier statement was:

The point being made that if the RAIB are not undertaking an official enquiry, then the A1 Trust clearly can't be awaiting for the results of an enquiry that isn't happening.

Tom

 

It will do as it stated on the A1 Trust website that First Class Partnerships were secured to provide and I quote "an overview and independent opinion on both the immediate causes and effect of the failure and wider impact on the future main line running of No. 60163 Tornado". As of today, aren't we still awaiting the report from FCP? It would be very interesting the see how much the FCP report differs, if at all, from the statements the A1 Trust have made.

I don't think it's a case of Tornado bashing as you put it, what people are questioning in parts is how things have been announced by the trust. The latest statement regarding the priming and combination lever being a clear example of this with things not quite adding up. All people want to do is allow 2 + 2 to equal 4, not 3.8 or 4.2 as the trust tries to make out sometimes?

 

Exactly - nobody wants to see a kettle sit down on the mainline!

BUT when they start spouting guff all over social media, you do start to question what planet they're on....... & I'm referring to the 'incident' on the ECML kast year - the latest one just takes the biscuit......

Instead of trying to pin the blame on something that never happened - why not be honest from the start & admit their toy broke!

The sooner they wake up to the real world & start eating humble pie the better!

Makes you wonder now, just how arrogant they were to upset West Coast way back......... chickens, home, roost?........

 

Funny they have gone onto unprecedented success with mainline steam, with a impressive reliability record, bar recent events, with out WCR.

Seeing the big picture, there own stock coming, new additions to their stable, own operating base, stable financial base.

Maybe they have every right to be arrogant, a lot of hard work, and positive publicity generate this, something others could learn from.

As for the recent comments, not adding up, how can you comment, you, me, and most others are not party to the cause....

 

No, but some of us know what circumstances are likely to lead to what results, and when there is so obviously a mismatch, eyebrows will be raised.

 

I have no dog in this fight, although I will just add Tornado/A1ST to the list of organisations one is not allowed to query on here.... Amazing how aggressive some people get very quickly when someone dares ask?

Anyway, on a wider level noting the RAIB are not investigating despite the 'courtesy' of the A1ST, just out of interest why is that so when they did investigate when Tangmere had a motion failure at Winchfield?

 

Or how pig headed WC were? All this anti A1 drivel is simply jealousy IMO.

 

Because of consequence perchance ?

The Tangmere incident involved an approved Train Operator hence the RAIB needed to check that all appropriate rules had been followed.
The Tornado incident incident involved a privately-owned locomotive with main-line certification hence the RAIB investigation was a different procedure; the locomotive owner followed the appropriate procedures with the Train Operator taking the (appropriate and correct) lead actions which RAIB has checked and found no problems; subject to being kept informed there is no need for further RAIB involvement methinks.

 

Well share it then....

 

Possibly due to a failure at the little end could lead to pole vaulting where a failure of the combination lever and union link is less dangerous. (although thinking about it again, it all does somewhat depend on how much risk one puts on where the flailing bits end up after they failed!)

As for people jumping down people's throats, if there was not a problem in communication there would not be a vacuum for any speculation however wild. As I've said previously it's up to the A1ST to manage its supporters (of any kind and not just those that directly support £) - some obviously think they are less than perfect in this respect and maybe it's time to start to think how this can be improved in future, and that does not include some of the "your all against us"or "jealousy nonsense" etc etc type reply we see often on NP. Most want the A1ST to succeed but when you put stuff up that does not feel right, should you not expect a few knocks along the way as you are the maker of that very criticism?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As I've posted elsewhere, all this anti A1 nonsense is mostly jealousy IMO. Steam preservation can get very tribal/political at times. Human nature I suppose.
The self confidence displayed by the Trust will be interpreted by some as arrogance but it's that self confidence that got an A1 built and run at 100mph. They have an impressive publicity machine that has attracted many "normals" to the A1 cause and made it almost as popular as 4472/60103 amongst the general public. This publicity has no doubt
annoyed some but that's life. They have a business model that works and is probably the envy of some on here and elsewhere. I'd never claim that the Trust is perfect (no ot a member by the way) but all this talk of "real world," "humble pie," "humility" etc. is just childish nonsense if you ask me. I'm sure the travails of the past 12 months have come as a shock to the Trust but when you read some of the comments here and elsewhere it's as though some are revelling in schadenfreude over the A1's woes.

 

no doubt I will be told I am an idiot , but, from the point of view of outside looking in , I am forming the opinion there is something fundamentally wrong with this loco.
the A1s earned a rep. for running big mileages with excellent reliability - even with standards of maintenance in BR days that were not always what they should have been
Tornado has been a cossetted beast from day one yet it suffered a catastrophic failure - which it was in the context of steam on the modern main line .
it may be that the full extent of the damage was not realised , but a further failure beggars belief , to me at least . even Mallard was back in traffic in a couple of weeks with no further problems (AFAIK).

whatever the truth , a massive disservice has been done as far as high speed running with steam is concerned .I doubt we will see it again ,so i'm not gonna see a Duchess at 90 again. at least I have memories .most folk don't

 

I doubt you'd have seen a Duchess at 90 mph again even without the current A1 woes. Whilst one never knows what goes on behind the scenes, the current owners outwardly at least are showing no appetite for high speed running. Interestingly 4464 was given 90mph dispensation for three public runs only, the A1 was given carte blanche for 90mph - current troubles apart. IIRC this was down hammer blow and how the A1 was designed to produce less at high speed that other "heritage" steam locos.

 

There is no difference between the two operations: both involved locomotives with main line certification, which at the time of their respective incidents were being operated by companies with appropriate safety certification for running passenger trains on the national network.

As others have suggested, the RAIB's decision not to investigate the Tornado incident was based on a preliminary examination of the event and an assessment of the potential consequences. The RAIB has asked to see a copy of the industry's investigation report when it is completed, but has no say in any decisions relating to the locomotive's return to traffic.

Stuart J
RAIB

 

Probably none of the above. There is a duty to inform the RAIB but whether there is an investigation is a different matter. According to the Regulations, in making a determination, the RAIB shall take into account—

(a)the seriousness of the accident or incident;
(b)whether it forms part of a series of accidents or incidents;
(c)its impact on railway safety;
(d)requests from railway industry bodies, the safety authority, or other member States;
(e)the extent to which an investigation will improve the safety of railways and prevent accidents and incidents; and
(f)any other matter that the Chief Inspector considers to be reasonable in the circumstances.

They are not my words, but taken directly from the legislation. IMHO, I can't see the incident with Tornado ticking any of those boxes.

Edit: Seems like 5801 is speaking from the horses mouth.