Tornado

Any news on Dave Elliot?

 

Can't really comment on this as I don't know what you are referring to. I have copies of BR requirements for boilers but these are photo copies and in B&W. Is that what you are referring to? I've got them for LM region and NE region and there are some differences so I don't know that they ever ruled, as such. I'm sure Swindon practice would be different, as well. The different railways and locomotive builders all adopted their own standards, generally based on what worked and what didn't work. The nearest British Standard is BS 931 'Loco-Type Multitubular Boilers of Riveted Construction' dating from 1951 and now obsolete. However, as the title says, it applies to loco type boilers and Clause 1 of the standard states: "It does not apply to boilers for railway locomotives or to boilers having shells less than 24" in diameter." If you try and apply the standard to existing railway locomotive boilers you will find that, quite often, they will not stand up to it. Girder stays, stay size and the need for stay tubes are three that spring to mind
This is going off the Tornado problem, though. Looking at the A1 Trust news pages, the photo of the tube ends being removed from the smokebox indicates that they have simply been expanded and not welded with the tubes beaded around the plugs, which is pretty much UK practice. I haven't found any photos of the firebox end to indicate what was done there. However, The February news stated that the hydraulic and steam test would be done in the UK so has the problem been found on the hydraulic test in the UK and was no hydraulic test carried out in Germany? My interpretation is that this is the case but I could be way of the mark. The news page states "....we are not able to confirm if this is a material or welding issue..." so this adds weight to my interpretation. In my past life I've had experience of welded tubes failing a hydraulic due to the tubes cracking when expanded. That is British practice - to expand the tubes before welding. German practice is to not expand the tubes and simply weld them. I once made a boiler maker replace 528 2½" tubes because he hadn't expanded them as required by BS2790. He argued that BS2790 was wrong because they didn't do that in Germany but the truth came out that his reason for not expanding them was that, when they did so, some of the (Italian supplied) tubes cracked.
All speculation but interesting for us technically minded chappies.

 

Sorry Steve, I should have stated the proper title " B.R. London Midland Region Locomotive Boilers 1950. I believe there is a later edition, as well.

 

Obviously can't comment on the present matter, but some years back I attended an engineering talk about the building of Tornado, in which I was given the impression that 'Meiningen' were not 'Happy' with the variations between British and European standards for welded boiler construction. I believe that this led to Meiningen employing British sub contract welders in order to comply to British standards, particularly regarding weld preparation. There was also concern regarding the grate area within the overall boiler dimensions, which I took to refer to the length and therefore flexibility of the firebox side stays. I believe that this led to (A1SLT?) having to arrange there own CE compliance.

WRT the boiler tube problem, again no comment on the present situation, but I remember during the first restoration of 71000 'Duke of Gloucester' the then BR Boiler Inspector Sam Foster required a newly fitted set of tubes to be removed because the paperwork showed that the tubes had been in store for over seven years.

 

Can I just say something here as it's beginning to grate, and badly: It's Meiningen.

 

OK if I have to post It again I'll try to remember

OP edited.

 

Thanks @clinker but you're not the only guilty party here

 

I can't see why the tube having being in store would be a reason for removal - I've fitted tubes which owners have bought years before. Providing the paperwork is correct and they have been stored in suitable conditions they shouldn't deteriorate. It's not all that unusual to order one of the more obscure sizes and find from the material certificate that the tubes have been lingering in the supply chain for two or three years before they got supplied to us!

If a boiler has sat around for a long time tubed but unused, that's perhaps a more tricky question, especially if it isn't strong on openings where it can reasonably be inspected internally with the tubes fitted.

 

You mentioned the words "suitable conditions". In fact, I would say that you are arguing against yourself.

 

Like Yourself I cannot see this as a reason for removal, but back in the day, for whatever reason Sam Foster deemed it to be so.

 

With regard to the tale of woe that is Tornado's boiler history is it fair to say that the design is poor and also that the project management of repairs has been very weak? Tornado is rapidly turning into another money pit similar to Flying Scotsman.

 

Clickbait, go do one...........

 

Obviously a boiler designer....

 

I am sure, as with every loco owner, there will be lessons to be learned and developments going forward, but the facts remain:

• Every all steel welded boiler encounters issues such as this, that's part and parcel of the material and the water quality of the UK, and the constant complicated assurance process we need to follow
• The design of the A1's boiler is a development of the original 118 boiler and has done more miles in service, and probably more heating/cooling cycles than the originals did before overhauls, the advantage of the original A1s having more than 49 boilers available to be fitted than the 49 members of the class, together with more work in a year than our charges see (hence, reduction in cooling cycles)
• There's been no issues with the 118a boiler from the perspective of its ability to raise steam and to do so safely
• "Poor" or "good" descriptions of boiler design are far too simplistic and flimsy assessments of what is a complicated piece of engineering set against the background of a frankly traumatic last three years for everyone

I take issue with the comparison to Flying Scotsman; the direct criticism of the latter is also unfair given how well it has done in its latest stint of operation. Moneypit or moneymaker?

I find myself longing for a time when people used their actual names in general life and were perhaps less bold in being aggressively antagonistic, because their actual name and reputation was on the line when they said something that was patently wrong or unnecessarily offensive.

I don't know what's happened with Tornado but the owning group have my sympathies as we are going through a similar story at 73A currently (but that's another story and from my POV is being ably handled by our amazing engineering team, all volunteers).

For those who don't volunteer but feel the need to throw their tuppence in the manner above - it's singly unhelpful and distressing for those who are working round the clock to bring you steam on the mainline.

Thought we were all in this heritage industry together?

 

Well said Simon.
Another factor is that boiler inspectors have to comply with much higher standards I believe. Certainly some repairs and repair techniques, as done in BR days, would not be tolerated today.

 

To reinforce that point, I've just had a look on BR Database for the details of the longest-serving A1, St Mungo. Into service in March 1949, it had boilers replaced at Darlington and Doncaster in November 1951, September 1954, February 1956, September 1957, November 1960 and December 1963 (dates are entry to the works) in just over 17 years of service to 1966. Including the original fitting, that's 7 boilers in 17 years.

 

Go play up your own end.

 

I think that is misleading. The boiler changes were done, solely, to speed up overhaul time.

 

No, that's the actually the entire point. Boiler swaps were commonplace to put locomotives back into service. Having a fleet of A1s and more boilers available than A1s is not the same as having one locomotive and one boiler running in preservation. You can't swap it in, it's likely in this day and age going to be subject to much more variable water quality and external factors that means it's not as simple or straightforward as it used to be.

You can put virtually every mainline and preserved locomotive into that category actually. What we do now isn't subject to the same conditions and advantages of having major works and spares available.

 

I've had conversations with our chief engineer and some things I thought could be done today, can no longer be done. Material quality for steel specifically is also way more variable, so I understand, mainly due to a different % content of carbon and other materials that might make older steel more resilient but new steel not.