Tornado

....is it just me? Or do some people seem locked in a small preservation bubble where commercial rules don't apply? When an organisation, in this case, is dealing with a multitude of suppliers or service providers, commercial confidence can often hamstring the organisation in the issuing of public statements and no matter how much their PR department might wish to share all the details about a failure or some such this has to be tempered by the Trust's relationship with other businesses such as NR, DBC, LMS. Pretending that full disclosure is possible on every occasion would be incredibly naive.

Foxy

 

As stated, a bush suffered damage, nothing else. During normal operation there is no problem, because it is a smooth operation, but if there is a sudden sharp shock then the weakest point gets damaged, which in this case is a bush.

 

I think then perhaps they should have said less, not more.

On the latest issue, their statement said:

“Following its test run earlier this month it was identified that No. 60163 Tornado had suffered some damage to a motion bush as a result of a minor deflection to the combination lever on the driver’s side. During the test run, Trust personnel had noticed that Tornado was slightly off-beat – something impossible to detect until the locomotive had left the 25mph Nene Valley Railway and picked up speed on the Network Rail main line.”​

All of which is pretty uncontroversial and should have been sufficient. But they then went on:

“Investigations to-date lead us to believe that this damage was caused during a priming (water carry over) incident whilst operating a photo charter train on the Nene Valley Railway during our last couple of weeks of operations.”
​

That looks to be, at least, something of a criticism of NVR enginemanship — particularly when, on closer examination it, doesn’t seem an especially plausible explanation for the level of damage they describe. There’s a mismatch between the damage they say they found and the mechanism by which they assert it occurred.

Had they simply left it at the first paragraph and said nothing about the cause, they wouldn’t have copped half the flak they have subsequently received.

Tom

 

I disagree Tom.

Identifying an incident which may have caused the issue is not the same as apportioning blame for that incident.

The trusts statement does not apportion blame to the NVR or its crews there explicitly.

If they had not identified any incident, but reported the damage, would the speculation here be on what could have caused it instead?

I feel strongly that what is happening now is trying to create an issue from what is a fairly basic statement explaining a mechanical fault, explaining that an issue may have caused it previously.

If people wish to infer criticism of the NVR that is another matter. But that is speculative, not fact.

I myself read no criticism of the NVR or its crews there at all.

We do not know the full details of the incident so assuming anything at this stage - and in particular assuming the worst of both the trust and the NVR - is wrong, and is unhelpful.

 

With respect Al - the statement simply says that they feel it may have happened during an incident on the NVR.

It does not apportion blame to any individuals, organisations or similar.

Inferring criticism is unfair to all concerned at this stage. It’s a very basic statement intended no doubt to placate those intending to travel behind the loco soon. And that’s it.

Mountains and molehills spring to mind.

 

I'm afraid that I have to go along with Eightpot on this one. The combination lever is a floating component, deriving its motion from the union link and the radius rod. and transmitting motion to the valve rod. It will react to whatever the union link or the radius rod does without damage. They cannot shock load it. If the piston seized we would be talking about something far more serious. If the radius rod seized it would be just like being in mid gear. The only load that can be applied which is detrimental is that which would be caused by a seized valve (or valve rod/guide) or pin in the union link or combination lever itself, which would inevitably result in a failure of the weakest link, whatever that happens to be. These are plausible causes. Priming isn't.

 

Not sure if it’s been posted already but at 3.55 in you’ll find what is probably the incident in question. Pretty barbaric and all to please a few photographers.
What was the owners rep doing to allow that to happen?
Interesting to note a nice whisp coming from what looks like the front cylinder end cover.

 

Are you sure? In all the priming incidents I've seen, the exhaust is very white and wooly. That sequence doesn't fit the bill.

 

The sound is different too, the exhaust becoming rather 'wooly', and I didn't hear that.

You need to bear in mind that this is a big engine on a small train; the train is probably little heavier than the engine and tender. It was being worked to produce the sounds, but that gave rapid acceleration up to line speed so was of short duration. I would not have raised any objection to 2968 being worked as here.

 

Well, that is my theory eliminated, back to the drawing board.

 

I gain the impression that the slight difference in sound at 3.55 in is caused by it being in the tunnel.

 

I can’t see anything wrong with that, it would have to work a damn sight harder taking 12 over the S&C and if there was any leakage from the cylinder cover it would have failed it’s FTR for the load test run. In any event I believe the bent combination lever was on the fireman’s side. Don’t go blaming photographers they paid a lot of money for their day so just as illogical as blaming the passengers if it had been on a normal service train

 

Who said anything about the combination lever, I’m talking about the leaking end cover which in the video you can see leaking.

I’m not blaming the photographers I’m blaming the driver for hammering the engine up to speed like that and pandering to the photographers. Totally unnecessary.

 

This is probably a daft question, but il ask it anyway. Is there a guide or book that defines "good" or "competent" driving techniques for these machines?

Im conscious that it is as a rule open to interpretation on what constitutes good driving. As we all know, there are good drivers out there but also less good drivers.

One of my own gripes is leaving the cocks open forever and a day, or just using them too often! But is it written down anywhere?

 

I don't know, however what I do notice is that cocks seem to be used a lot less than I recall them being used when I was a kid when they seemed to be opened if a loco had been stood for even a minute or so?

On the wider issue this thread is just going round in circles, the A1ST do not appear to be issuing any further information so its a dead end really, likewise the argument that the A1ST is arrogant being addressed by their supporters suggesting its jealously just rather perpetuates the perception of arrogance and being above scrutiny for many - like everywhere I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the grey bit. Ultimately it will steam again on the mainline soon and everyone will rejoice and hopefully calm down.

 

Complaining about the cocks being left open is slightly strange in a discussion about whether or not there was water carry over!

But on the question of correct use of the drain cocks, the Black Book says:

"Cylinder cocks should always be open when the locomotive is standing or at any time when there is an indication of water in the cylinders."
​

and also

"During the time an engine is being prepared, care must be taken to see that the safety precautions have been carried out and, before entering the motion, that the hand brake is hard on, the reversing gear in mid position and the drain cocks open in accordance with instructions carried out in permanent Notice B.R. 32709/1"​

Tom

 

He was probably doing what he was asked to do and there is nothing wrong in it. I repeat if the front cylinder cover was leaking it would have failed the FTR for the test run and the problem was on the fireman’s side of the loco

 

Just to prove that I and others are not going mad, the A1ST's statement says (copied from above)

“Following its test run earlier this month it was identified that No. 60163 Tornado had suffered some damage to a motion bush as a result of a minor deflection to the combination lever on the driver’s side. During the test run, Trust personnel had noticed that Tornado was slightly off-beat – something impossible to detect until the locomotive had left the 25mph Nene Valley Railway and picked up speed on the Network Rail main line.”

 

Hammering up to speed? What nonsense. A featherweight train being accelerated to less than 25 mph is not hammering by any stretch of the imagination. As for the leaking end cover, you’ve had it explained that a leaking end cover would have caused a failed FTR and it didn’t fail.