Tornado

Right ok. So when the "original real steam men of the past" have gone, are you suggesting that steam should finish in this country?

 

Some interesting assumptions being made here. From the earliest applications of steel fireboxes and welding constructional techniques to locomotive boilers there was information gleaned from service in traffic indicating that these methods produced a boiler that required lower repairs than those of a more traditional construction. So, the boiler fitted to Tornado should, all things being equal, not be giving the problems it currently is. Are all things equal though? Is the boiler fitted with Tross stays or the simple solid bar drilled for crack detection? Has there been an error with regard to stay spacing or is there a lack of expansion compensation in the design? No one seems to know yet. Whatever the problem there will be a solution.

Also, donbenn2000, there are very few problems with mainline steam and if you don't believe that those involved know what they are doing, why don't you try to show them how it is done. Better still tell, Roger Barker and Bob M they don't know what they are doing. As for the old 'real steam men' 90+% of them could not understand the thermodynamic importance of full regulator and short cut-off working, or high superheat, or minimum backpressure, or the importance of low leakage ------ and so on and so on.

 

IMHO the "not invented here syndrome" has come in to play. 70013 has been out of action for major firebox repairs yet I do not recall anyone questioning the boiler design nor the quality of the work involved. (Not that I feel there is anything wrong on those fronts.) I feel that 60163's detractors are missing a major point here. 60163, and most other steam locos working in the UK today, are being used in a totally different way to BR days. Back then a loco would be in steam for many days at a time and thus the boiler kept nice and warm. Nowadays locos are subject to standing cold for several days at a time and the boiler subjected to several short thermic cycles a year. Unless they can provide a brand new original A1 and work it alongside 60163 they cannot say whether an original A1 boiler would have performed better than Tornado's.

 

Thanks for saving my typing finger 242A1! Old footplate men designing boilers - don't think so.

 

It's a learning curve, as with any engine. Tornado has racked up the miles extremely quickly for a preservation-era mainline engine over the last two years, and, whilst as a covenator to the Trust, I'm somewhat distraught at the prospect of "Big T" being out for repairs so soon after the summer's problems, if it needs to be done, it needs to be done.

The boiler - diagram 118a - is effectively the original design, modified to all steel welded construction, based on close observation of the practices found here, and elsewhere in the world. Don't forget - this boiler design was originally intended to be oil-fired, but changed a few years prior to actual ordering for coal firing. I can't comment as a knowledge on the matter, but I understood that oil fired boilers and coal fired boilers react differently in their thermic cycles. If the boiler design was modified for oil firing, and then perhaps not modified enough back for coal firing, then the problems we are seeing could well be design-related, as opposed any manufacturing problems.

That said, the boiler has proven itself to be an incredibly efficient steamer when handled carefully, and the coal good, so effectively we're looking at Tornado's performances - which, it has to be said, have been a credit to the boiler design - and this extra time out in which stays are being replaced as a precautionary measure.

I feel that rather than point the fingers at anyone particularly, finding an instance in British history - or indeed, foreign practice, where these issues have appeared with an all steel welded boiler, and finding out how they coped with such issues, may be the best way of moving forward in this thread. Such research might help us understand the problem better, and deign a suggestion to the Trust itself, who I am in no doubt is doing the same thing as of this very minute. Two brains better than one, as they say.

 

But 70013's boiler is not brand new!

 

There seems to be in the Insurance industry a huge Rumour Mill around this boiler. I was told 18 months ago that the foundation ring corners were machined from solid as the press tools for this item had been misplaced. now any mechanically minded person will understand that this is not a good thing and now they have cracked.......... I want to see Tornado back she belongs as soon as possible but fear that there is something fundamentally wrong with the boiler and at some point it will need to be replaced. Look at the amount of work Tangmere had racked up prior to repair, a 60 year old steel boiler didn't seem to have the problems of the new one.

 

if this is the case, then its a construction problem, that if we can be honest, could happen to any new boiler that has had to be re designed plus modern materials will never be an exact spec to what would have used in the 1960s when loco boilers would have had the correct material to the correct spec and the propper toools , this boiler in reality is a new design based on an old design it might be, but in essence where you have to have so many changes you are dealing with a new design and the problems that go with it .Footplate men might know about boiler craft but they are not designers and no one should be happy about this state of affairs 2 years on and the foundation ring needs work, but i should imagine that if the P2 does get built the boiler for that will be constructed in light of what has been found out from operating Tornado

 

My knowledge of boilers is exceeded by my knowledge of just about everything else, but there are two obvious points that can be made.

1) If there were any serious rumours circulating in the insurance industry about the safety of this boiler they wouldn't get insured. Not a chance. The potential payouts would be gargantuan and the companies just wouldn't be interested.

2) Even in the days when there were not the number of scum sucking layers and HS people around there are now, and when boilers could be operated for maximum life in terms of mileage, they were still to a good extent consumable items. Under the conditions this one has to operate it is certain it will need to be replaced or at least very heavily rebuilt from time to time. There must also be some kind of case for having a second boiler when heavy general repair time comes around so they can swap between boiler tickets, but I have not the slightest clue whether it would stack up financially.

 

When were you told this, and by whom? Clarification needed, otherwise it's simply another case of "I heard from a friend" unsubstantiated and potentially libelous commentary.

If the above was the case in any event, Tornado's boiler wouldn't be insured, and she definitely would not be running, or have been run, on Network Rail's lines.

And Tangmere's 60 year old boiler is not her original boiler by any means - like all the Bulleid Pacifics, she has had fitted whichever compatible boiler was ready for outshopping when she went in for heavy general overhauls. That, and the fact that her boiler, in all likelihood, has needed locomotive works standard repairs, including no doubt to the foundation ring and stays at some point during its working life, makes your point on Tangmere a fair bit mythological!

I wonder, do owners and operators of preserved engines get this sort of rampant speculation too?

Oh yes, the Flying Scotsman and Royal Scot threads. Forgive my short memory!

 

Blue Peter's boiler is also to diagram 118. There have been no unusual problems with that. So that throws your design theory out of the window straight away.

 

Blue Peter's boiler is not the same, by any meaning of the word. Tornado's is to a different internal design, using different materials. Hence 118a was used as the diagram number for this boiler. Note I used the word "modified" - Tornado has her steam passages further streamlined, amongst other modifications made to the internals of the original design, the 118 diagram boiler.

A little bit of research on the trust's website would have shown that, frankly.

I never claimed to give a answer that was correct - merely a theory as to why these problems might manifest themselves now. I only wish I had David Elliot on speed dial to ask him myself - the engineering behind this locomotive, and the problems they have had to overcome, fascinates me. But your response indicates a severe lack of understanding of the specific differences between Blue Peter's boiler and Tornado's.

 

But I bet any money you like that had the boiler been overhauled abroad and still run into the same problems, the xenophobia on here would have been just the same as it is regarding Tornado's boiler.

 

Are you refering to Tornado's boiler being designed for oil firing originally rather than the A1s boilers? If so, I withdraw my previous post.

 

Has anybody stopped to think that the recent problems with bad "coal" (on the return leg of the Christmas Coronation) could be a contributing factor to what has occurred - ie the extra stresses & strains put upon the loco whilst a gelatinous mass was forming in the firebox as the crew attempted to keep the train moving ?

 

I have heard it from 3 pressure vessel inspectors working for two different Insurance companies so make of it what you will, it could all just be a rumour, as to it not being safe, I didn't say that. Machining from solid induces stress points in material that can cause cracking, exactly what appears to have happened, when steel is pressed or forged the grain of the material is altered to follow the shape of the component, this simply doesn't happen when steel is machined from solid.

I'm not sure when the last Bulleid Boiler was overhauled by BR but assuming it was 1965 the boiler fitted to Tangmere is 45 years old, no doubt it has been repair since its time in Barry and it has just having some boiler work done atm. It is the closest comparison we have for a hard working mainline registered steel firebox locomotive. No point comparing it to days of old as the steaming cycles of the two locomotives today must be pretty much the same.

What ever the cause of the problem the effect is the same. Tornado is spending extra time away from where she should be and I wish for a speedy return to traffic.

 

Yes indeed.

I understand the theory, but I'm curious as to why these inspectors would not at least air their concerns to the people in question. Or maybe they have, I don't know.

Again, a fair point. But I don't think Tangmere and Tornado can be compared even at this stage. The differences between the setup of the two locomotives is quite marked, and the way they are handled in traffic, due to their differing designs, must have some impact on the durability of their components.

I don't disagree its the closest approximation we have to the 118a boiler, however, in terms of material setup.

Same here.

 

As DB Meiningen are once again involved one has to wonder if - whilst every effort was put in at the design stage to make the boiler as close as poss to a '118' (which is the ideal for which the Trust has always strived)' - any of the normal practices/ parameters that are applied to DB boilers have been compromised to make this happen. If this foundation ring speculation has any truth in it it its a prime example. If this component is flexing under heating/ cooling in a way contrary to that expected at the design stage, then sorting that could be problem solved.
Its easy for us armchair engineers to speculate and point fingers, but however close we are to the truth the A1SLT and DB Meiningen not going to publicly apportion blame or air any dirty washing, and are in fact more interested in sorting the problem in such a way helps both parties move on and make a better job of next time ?...

Presumably DB Meiningens boilers and boiler repairs keep German mainline steam in a healthy state and their work has attracted orders from around the world.
The differences in locomotive working practices have been noted. I do wonder if their machines are better lagged as a matter of course which allows for a more gradual cool down....

Any speculation aside lets be thankful that Tornado has put the possibility of new build steam on the table and generally given a shot in the arm, indirectly, to the many UK companies
and workships now engaged in steam restorations and newbuilds that might have just been dismissed as pipe dreams a few years ago...

 

Some years ago, 80002 on the Worth Valley had firebox probs, this was also all steel, and it was found the cause was in the rapid cooling of the boiler. Steps were taken to counter this and since then all has been well. 80002 is now a proven performer on the line. Could there be a similarity here with Tornado.

 

Whats for pudding on their come back tour for the support crew, (Humble pie)