Tornado

Due to lack of sleep just noticed had put "nodal".......have now corrected to modal

 

Seems very strange practice to build a boiler with a firebox which is known to have problems!!
If stays are leaking on an all welded boiler, they've either not been welded properly or they are broken and leaking out of the tell tale hole up the centre of the stay, either way its not good for a two year old boiler which despite all the comments hasn't done anywhere near as well as boilers fitted to other LNER pacifics running around that have done equal if not more work in the same period.

 

It would seem to indicate that the design of this boiler has inbuild flaws,, as far as i can tell Bulleid boilers dont seem to suffer with cracked stays to the extent that tornado has, Tangmere for instance as far as known has not needed extensive re staying during its recent main line carreer
would the best option now be that if another boiler is built for the p2, that the bulleid firebox be copied and scaled up? because the Bullied boiler is a prooven design that works, and if its the stays or the method of staying thats the week point of Tornado's boiler, adopt the same design and fixing method, im only saying this because these are the only long searving welded steel boilers that we can use as a pattern for future development for new designs of boiler

 

If these problems were known, it seems a bit odd (to say the least) to replicate them in a new build!

I've heard about built in obsolescence, but this sounds like built in failure.

 

I maintain the 'Continental practice' built in is the source of the problem here. Traditional solid stays and a traditional foundation ring would not have, in my opinion, given these problems.

Now I know there are some on here who cry 'Xenophobia' if you uphold British practice over that of our European neighbours, however from what we can see so far British practice would, with the benefit of hindsight, been a better option.

As it stands out of two years service we have had 5 months unplanned downtime for firebox problems. Not a good ratio.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the Doncaster Loco Works Drawings Lists the A1s 60114-162 and the A2s 60525-539 had the same boilers (Drawing No. N1193) and fireboxes (Drawing No N1167). So 60532 Blue Peter's boiler would be the same as an A1's. I was not aware that either class had steel fireboxes. If so, what problems has 60532 had with its firebox over the years?

 

Little of note!

 

But - how much work is now needed before 60532 can steam again?

I suspect that the A1 Trust may not object to a month's stay changing each year if they don't have to spend £ 1/2 million at 10 years (that said, you shouldn't be spending £ 1/2 million on a boiler every 10 years).

I suspect the cracking discovered may well concern them more than the stay replacement.

I also suspect it is the hollow, tell tale stays that make the problem more obvious than solid stays would, thus allowing repalcement with, hopefully, less damage to the surrounding boiler structure.

Steven

 

However Blue Peter's boiler is more like 50 years old rather than a couple of years old!

 

The interesting question here, I think, is: "was the initial cost saving of going for a welded boiler/firebox over a copper firebox to the original design great enough to also outweigh the cost of the repairs we are now seeing?" -and presumably will continue to see at regular intervals. I'm not aware that the original A1 boiler design was particularly troublesome so in the future mantenance costs might be worth considering! With LNWR Crewe making a new copper 'boxes for a number of locos the ability is still there.

 

Bulleid designed MN & WC boilers did not need stay or firebox bottom corner replacement at two yearly intervals. (First 10 MN had conventional foundation ring anyway) They were re-tubed fairly often, like all high mileage locos.
Tornado's problems are unlikely to be caused by corrosion, but could very well be the result of thermal cycling. Or the basic boiler design. Or both.
Don't blame the comparatively high mileage - by today's standards - Tornado's work is a fraction of what express locos used to do.

 

[QUOTENow I know there are some on here who cry 'Xenophobia' if you uphold British practice over that of our European neighbours, however from what we can see so far British practice would, with the benefit of hindsight, been a better option. QUOTE]

I do not know whether or not xenophobia is playing a part in some of these postings but everyone should remember Kipling's comments "what knows he of England that only England knows"

 

[QUOTEeveryone should remember Kipling's comments "what knows he of England that only England knows"[/QUOTE]

Apologies, this should have read "what know they of England that only England know"!!

 

I would agree that using Bulleid's superb boiler design would have been a good option, but of course it's easy to say that with hindsight. The Bulleid pacifics in service had very few boiler problems despite doing vastly more miles than Tornado has done or will ever do. Whilst not wishing to rub salt into the wound or in any way denegrate the superb performances which Tornado has achieved, I am very pleased that an old Nine Elms footplateman friend of mine has been proved to be right about Tornado and a (well known) writer wrong! IMHO many of the problems with current main line steam operation stem from the loss of experience and know how of real steam men from the past.

 

Then it wouldn't be a Peppercorn A1 Pacific, would it?

I feel a lot of people have missed the point about the locomotive entirely. "To build and operate a Peppercorn A1" was the mantra.

The boiler is having problems - let them get on with it. I've no doubt they'll work something out - they've got this far, further than any of the new builds for standard gauge. It's a learning curve with any group/society, and any new pieces of engineering. Worst comes to worst, when Tornado goes in for her ten yearly overhaul, the option of modifying the boiler with a copper firebox/traditional foundation ring will still be there.

In the meantime, let them be, and let them get on with it.

 

We will - but why not gossip about it? That is what a forum like this is for, I doubt the A1 Trust will pay much attention to it or be bothered by it. Anyone who really wants to help will surely join the Trust or give them money.

 

Was the original A1 type of boiler fitted with a copper inner firebox ? if so you have the problems when you change the materials to steel, so you have to look at what has worked, after all stay spacing and material would not be the same so whilst tornado might look like an A1 from the outside, under the skin she is a very different beast , so what is wrong with looking at a design that has stood the test of time and adopting it to fit your needs? what ever design you may use , its hidden away by cladding

 

Sorry to hear Tornado has problems again.

Hoping they are soon put right and Tornado back in action.

Im sure all involved are dissapointed and perhaps its now our turn to give a little back and send them a few bob to help cover the repairs and loss of earnings.

Stan

 

Personally I think that's sad. I don't see why anyone would be ""very pleased" about the A1 Trust having problems with their loco when they've had the guts to try something that no-one else ever has, and put in 19 years of hard work to achieve it. You sound like you've been sitting there for the last two years just hoping it will fail. What a pathetic attitude.