Tornado

Is that supposed to be funny? If so perhaps you'd be so good as care to explain why? Your post appears to be totally in line with your nick name. WFM.

An apology is in order.

Iain

 

cool, any idea what steps... ?

 

I'd be most gratified to hear exactly how they dealt with it. I wasn't aware the 4MT tanks had all steel fireboxes - is this the norm for this class?

If it comes down to expanding and then cooling, as the main cause of concern, that can be dealt with by changing the maintenance regime, post and pre running.

 

80002's steel box is a one-off AFAIK for Std 4 tanks , fitted as a replacement for the life-expired copper box.

 

80135 was fitted with a steel firebox at the NYMR. However, the steel used was thicker than that used on 80002. Consequently, it did not suffer with the same problems experienced with 80002's firebox.
Also, I think I'm right in saying that both were stayed using screwed stays.

 

80135's steel firebox had to be nursed through to the end of its 10 years and is to be replaced by a copper one, so I don't think it can be regarded as having been a a successful experiment. I think the problems was cracks radiating from the stay holes.

The salient point with Tornado is that this is its second bout of problems in a boiler that is less than three years old. Tangmere, also steel fireboxed, doesn't seem to have had the same problems in the same timespan, yet probably was worked just as hard. I don't believe it has anything to do with where it was built, it's more likely to be a design problem down the the relative lack of experience of building all-welded boilers. Meneingen obviously had some input inot the design, but I don't thin they were solely resposible for it so there's no need for xenophobia on that score either.

 

I seem to recall a report was published in the in house mag 'push & pull', perhaps someone has a pile of the mags, or someone on the line has the answer

 

Bulleid users like to leave them for at least 4 days before draining the water.
Steam is never raised in anything less than 12 hours.

 

Who was bullying these "bullied" owners?

 

Is it correct to assert that making the firebox plates thicker i.e. more rigid, helps? Might flexibility not be an important attribute?

 

The fact remains though that Tangmere and the Bulleid pacifics ran for years without the problems that Tornado has had in its short life. In fact I mainly remember them for Bulleid's incomparable free steaming and largely trouble free boiler. And they got cold as well when set aside for other problems or when waiting for No 7 exams.


Maybe the issue with Tornao is the hybrid design and possibly the fact that it was originally built for oil firing, where the boiler goes from cold to hot very quickly as in the 012 pacifics eg. Whatever the cause of the problems let's hope they can be solved permanently.

Don

 

On the NYMR, 80135 and Lambton No.29 both had steel inner boxes fitted at the about same time and both need replacing after 10 years. Although I am no engineer, I suspect/believe that the stay spacing is vital. Clearly, fitting a steel inner box with a wrapper originally paired with a copper inner box means that the stay spacing for copper has to be retained. Copper and steel have very different properties - steel is more brittle and less maluable. Steel boxes will have different stay spacing plus a mixture of fixed and flexible stays. I know that the later pont - ensuring the design mix of fixed and flexible - is important as the steel boxes re-imported from Greece and Poland (3672 and 2253, for example) showed that the swapping fixed for flexible could assist in avoiding firebox cracks.

Part of the problem with steel boxes is getting water treatment right and 80135 and No.29 both showed extreme wear early in their boiler lives that was reduced by improved water treatment. Both inner boxes are now to replace - 80135 with copper, No.29 with another steel box (which is now in) purely on cost grounds - the hope is to go back to copper next time! The relative cost of a steel inner biox means one should not expect a long life - they are much more "disposable" but the work involved in staying makes this a chore!

The A1's boiler will have been designed with the correct stay spacing for all steel. It is possible that fixed/flexible stay mix may be an issue but the problem is stay cracking, not, in the main, cracking of the firebox material. Again, as a non-engineer, I don't feel qualified to make a guess at the reason, although the "easier to detect" hollow stays will help identify any problems that occur. The other possible cause is some problem with the stay material - perhaps the most interesting query is whether any stays replaced in 2010 need repalcing again now - if not, then the extra work may simply be a continuing programme to replace the original stay material. Were the issue a design fault, surely the same stays would be going again in the main?

Steven

 

I think it was Wayne who pointed out the enormous difrence between steam locos hauling 200 ton trains at 25 mph, and those, like Tornado, hauling 500 tons plus at 75 mph.

I think the 25 mph steam is the assured future. 50 years and going very strong indeed. Plenty of selfless and generous volunteers, established bases, good customer bases, pricing from very low upwards and skills that are being maintained and developed for their own local routes and for their own locos. Plus a self contained operating environment where delays don't cost large fines or disruption to the big railway. All IMHO of course.

So far as the 75 mph steam loco on the main line. Very limited future as far as I can see. Not that some of the factors within the Heritage Railway don't apply. Of course they do. Selfelss volunteers etc. But it's an operation that impacts on the big
railway all the time and a big railway that, again IMHO, will become more and more intolerant of a form of motive power increasingly out of step with modern traction etc. More so as old skills for steam will slowly die away. Never fully being replaced by dint of the main line steam oprating environemnt just not having the concentration of resources, amongst other things.

I've hinted before at a future main line steam operation that would see just a very few busy operational bases where skills could be developed on an almost daily basis. Where issues such as that faced by Tornado could be handled as it would have been in the early 1960s. With locos running on a small number of routes with an infrastructure developed to speed such operations. But do such locations and routes exist? And would there be sufficient customer support? Probably not. Neither would the enormous funding needed be found.

So, I feel the ravages of time on the golden oldies won't spell the end of steam operations. But I think we should brace ourselves for accepting that within a few years Tornado and others will be spending an easier life trundling along at 25 mph on Heritage Railways.

 

This is a fascinating subject and there are lots of interesting and some amusing ideas being put forward. Stay breakage has always been a problem. As an example, Cook cites LNWR 'Cauliflower' goods locos with Belpaire fireboxes as averaging 13.5 stays changed /month. Stay breakage is generally due to fatigue and this is directly related to the number of stress reversals the stay sees. In other words, the heating and cooling cycle.

I've no idea why the stays on 60163 are giving problems. When designing the firebox, the steel stays can be made flush with the plate and welded with J preps or made proud and fillet welded; they can be drilled at right angles to the outer plate or right angles to the inner plate; they can be fitted into clearance holes or into tight holes. That makes eight possibilities. Any stay experts on here care to say (a) how 60163 has been done and (b) which way should it have been done?

As for Bulleid fireboxes, they don't have welded stays; they are screwed, and that allows the use of Monel metal, which I believe was generally used in these boilers. Monel is more flexible than steel. Somewhere, I have a copy of a paper detailing experience with Bulleid boilers and I'm sure that stay problems featured very much in the early days. However, I can't lay my hands on it to prove that my memory isn't that bad, or otherwise.

 

Wayne is in his Mid-fifties. So in no way "old steam man".

 

Some is; some isn't. There are many different steels and fewer but still many monels. Also their moduli vary with temperature. I haven't the faintest idea what is used in Bulleid boilers or how to approach a boiler design analysis. These days finite element analysis is probably used but this method didn't exist when steam ruled the railways. Any proper engineers following this thread who can outline what's what?

 

"Any proper engineers following this thread who can outline what's what?"[/QUOTE]

Well yes, youve just passed by/off an outline by one of the UK's senior and highly respected steam locomotive engineers!

Mike

 

Many monels ? I can find 5 at the most and suppliers seem to deal in 2 or 3 of those. Are you refering to nickel alloys such as inconel etc?
Also the type of steel used for stays is very specific.

 

I don't think xenophobia has caused a brand new boiler to fail - design and/or construction issues seem far more likely.

 

Oh dear, Steven! What tipple were you on over New Year? It's obviously having a lasting effect. To put 'cooper' once, could be a mistake but, after five times, you can't use that excuse!

Back to Tornado. I can't see Meiningham simply replacing the first set of stays without an investigation and explanation, nor can I see the A1 team letting them do so. This being the case, some reason (and, hopefully a solution) must have been given for the initial problem. I have not heard anything on the technical grapevine (as distinct from the trackside gossip) but does anybody know what official reason has been put forward?