Tornado

Then there is no barriere to rebuildin as a 4-8-0 slim firebox wood dust burner?
You can have my advice for free.

 

As ar as I am aware all the LNER Pacifics were fitted with one live steam injector, and one exhaust steam example, also the higher powered BR Standard locos were also so fitted. common arrangement at the time.

The only comparable size locos that are contrary to this 'normal' arrangement I can think of were Bullied with his Pacifics and the 'Leader' with two live steam injectors. The only reason I can assume here is that exhaust steam from from the ESI could have interfered with the TIA water treatment due to particles of getting cylinder oil getting into the boiler that he was using on these locos.

 

Would you like to have a go at hand firing one?

 

That sounds correct to me, so the mystery remains. Once upon a time this change would have featured in the regular Tornado Telegraph bulletin sent to supporters with an erudite explanation of the justification from the late David Elliott. Now the Trust prefer to keep us in the dark.

 

Of course not.
The dust is sucked in by firebox vacuum and burns completely before reaching tubeplate.
It was done in DDR with great gusto and the ash from lignite dust burning accepted by the lower classes as a price to be paid for progress.
In a country ruled by green women this will not do, but wood dust contains order of magnitude less ash.
I think some power stations in UK still run on rainforrests-dust.

 

This seems completely irrelevant to the general drift of this thread?

 

I think most people just want to know when it will finally move under its own power!!

 

If I was the loco's engineer I would probably do the same thing. Exhaust injectors are a cost saving in operation but that saving soon disappears if they aren't running on exhaust steam all the time. Certainly on heritage railways their cost saving is insignificant because they will spend most of their time running on live steam and I suspect it is not too much different when running on Network Rail due to the relatively frequent stops. Exhaust injectors are expensive to buy compared with a live steam injector and can be temperamental and maintenance heavy when compared with the BR standard injector which is relatively trouble free. The time was when a loco would be put into traffic with a temperamental injector but that has not been the case for a long time.

 

Thinking this proposed injector change over, I'm left wondering why they are bothering. ESI's do run on exhaust steam, but they do have live steam supply, too. When the regulator is shut (no exhaust steam supply), there is an automatic change to live steam operation. Regulator re-opened and they automatically revert back to exhaust steam operation. If one wants the ESI to run on live steam all the time all one would have to do is blank off the exhaust steam connection. So what they are are trying to achieve is lost on me.

Not forgetting the cost of the injectors - anyone know the current prices of these devices?

 

It seems an odd time to be adding new changes.
If required changes are not going well, why add further changes.
I don't buy this "new board bad old board good" line, but to be changing injectors now smacks of things being worse than admitted.
(Yes, there may be good reasons for changing them, but also change gives risk and complexity. Two things the A1 really doesn't need right now)

 

Lower boiler pressure for tests and future revenue service to diminish boiler costs?

 

Please elaborate.

 

If there sometimes is a diesel at rear end ,lower boiler pressure can bring lower boiler maintenance costs, but injectors will have to pump more as an IHPH takes more steam?
Are injectors insensitive to boiler pressure?

 

Why change injectors, though if the engine isn't even undergoing test runs? Most large engines, have an Exhaust steam injector, and a live steam injector, with the exhaust injector having a live steam changeover valve so you're not achieving anything by this change, I am bemused by all of this, mistakes do happen, but not on the scale as seems to have befallen Tornado, project management, seems to have been missing, right from the decision to overhaul the boiler, then the need to turn down new tyres, and delay and problem seem to follow each and every stage, the boiler upon return was found to have issues, new tubes having to be scrapped, and then the foundation ring and platework issues, were found, clearly someone was not checking the contractors were complying with the required work standards and methods agreed of repair, , then there is the problem of the new signalling equipment in hind sight, it might have been better to had waited until the engine had actually ran and been tested before installing this new system, did it need the engine to be dismantled to fit it? could it have been done with the engine finished and with working systems, so testing could have been done in stages? I get the impression that those at the top either do not understand the complexities or are merely reflecting in the past glories of what the A1 trust achieved, and are more interested in self-glory, and the prestige of the position they hold, whist being unable to grasp the situation that's rapidly unfolding.

 

All very sound, but that doesn’t explain why for the P2 the appeal is to fund one live steam and one ESI?

 

Nothing new here surely ? Use of both was in the plan 10 years ago.

 

That’s a very good summation of the situation as an ever increasing number of us see it Martin. The only observation I’d make is that I think the ETMS installation would have been even more difficult with the loco assembled and in service due to the significant amount of additional pipework and cable runs around the frames. That said, I’m far from convinced of its worth, given all the delays, and hence loss of goodwill in the industry. Who will operate it on the ECML now? I think the opportunity to have the system installed at NR’s expense played too big a part in the decision making process, and far too little effort went into the actual planning and management of the installation. Was it ever realistic to expect this to be completed in 6 months, even ignoring all the rest of the overhaul work?

 

Admittedly without specific knowledge, but I would be inclined to say "it made sense to have the locomotive in bits to fit it".

 

But if the arrangement is now seen as non-optimal for the A1 then why continue down this more expensive route for the P2? Or if there’s good reason to then surely they should refurb those now surplus from the A1?

 

A few years ago we could have looked forward to a spoof of 'Downfall' to amuse us while waiting for 60163 to re-emerge.
Pat