Tornado

^^^^^ this man talks much sense.

 

Seconded - thank you Steve for a very insightful post

 

This is my personal opinion. There are a few people at the A1 trust who have made some pretty lousy comments regarding preserved locos......even suggesting that the preserved engines should be denied a mainline certificate due to the inevitable metal fatigue. Interesting that it is metal fatigue (rumored) that has sideline this loco again.

This kind of arrogant attitude has alienated many in the preserved railway movement.

Not to mention writing Tyseley out of the A1's history. We made the frames way back when.

I do feel bad for the hundreds of shareholders that have contributed their hard-earned monies to the trust.

The engine itself is an amazing piece of engineering. I was able to get a close look when it was at our open day in 2009.

One footnote: the Germans that make the boiler treat them as disposable with a 10 year life. If you adopt a bit of aircraft lingo and start counting the number of heating and cooling cycles, I wonder how close it is to the original specified life?

 

I'm not going to get into any of the politics with regard to 60163 and Tyseley, or anything else. With regard to your comment on a 10 year life for the boiler. I'd suggest that the 'boiler' has a much longer life but the firebox is a disposable item and 10 years is about right for a steel one, based on published information and other organisations experience.

 

Never heard that with any members of the trust. I can only say that your experience of the Trust and my own must differ quite markedly.

Tornado visited Tyseley last in 2009, and the A1 Trust site reads:

http://www.a1steam.com/index.php?op...-qtyseley-101q&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=123

Not to mention there is a great deal of writing about the superb job Tyseley did on the frames on the website's record of her building. So I in all honesty cannot see where they have written Tyseley out of history, in any way shape or form?

Put simply - why? Every covenator I speak to and know of gains a great deal of satisfaction from supporting Tornado.

Thus contradicting your earlier statement, I might add.

When Tornado was getting her running in at the GCR, I noted that the reactions to a new build steam locomotive to be both ends of the spectrum. As to be expected - neither right nor wrong, just different takes. However the commentary here (not from your own comments, I must add hastily) seems to be of a significantly disdainful variety.

In any event - PM the full details of your own complaints and I'll pass them on for further consideration. I've had some dealings with the trust before (organized a lecture from David Elliott at the GCR for Loughborough University Students) so am happy to help in this instance if mediation would be preferred over chinese whispers. I don't pretend to be on a direct line to the Trust, but if the query comes from a concerned convenator, it could hold a little sway in sorting whatever perceived problems there are currently.

 

Not sure I totally agree with the ten year life comment re German boilers, but maybe my knowledge, like my hair, is a bit thin in that area.

I know that some German classes were fairly regularly re-built and re-boilered. But I believe the preservation era has shown that German boilers can last a long time. 012 100-4 was, I think, still on it's last normal steam days boiler, (which ended for that class in 1975), when a new one was needed circa 2005. And I have a feeling the Roaring Monster, 03 1010 may still be on it's normal steam days boiler. Which, being an East German loco would have been into the 1980s. Be an interesting subject for a thread away from this one and covering German locos. Might draw out some interesting, and for me, new information.

Maybe it's down to what the customer has specified when getting boilers built in the past. Possibly for some classes DB, (German Railways), didn't expect the class to last longer than ten years so specified a ten year boiler life to save costs.

And whilst I am certainly not commenting on the Tornado boiler situation, a loco I have close to zero knowledge and close to zero interest in, customer specification was the reason I was reliably told in Germany why a number of Meiningen customers experienced a number of problems circa ten years ago. Basically I was told they got what they asked for and paid for. Yet Meiningen Works was given a bad reputation in some quarters for the resulting problems at that time. I'm out of touch with the steam scene there now so I have no idea what the current and recent situation is, or has been over the past five or six years.

 

I think they is a lot of envy from some people in the preservation movement and that's what all the negative comment's are about.
In the latest steam railway there is a report on the account's saying they turned over £550,000 with £180,000 coming from merchandising Tornado is a very successful business and very well managed by the trust.

 

^^^^^^ Agree entirely with SACM and Keith6233. I'm another satisfied Covenantor and Bond Holder, who is also unaware that Tyseley's contribution has been air-brushed out in any way. Of course the work on the frames was also carried out on a commercial basis and as such Tyseley are no different to any other supplier to the project in respect of recognition due etc. Personally I have the greatest respect for Tyseley Works and the VT operation.

 

Each to their own but I find the above statement a tad odd. I am interested in steam, Tornado is a steam loco, ergo I am interested in Tornado. IMHO anyone who is a true steam enthusiast is interested in any steam loco no matter where and when it was built.

 

A valid point - thanks Steve.

 

Strikes me as a rather low expectation compared with steam road vehicles. I can think of a Foden tractor of 1930 whose original firebox lasted until around 1972. Also a pair of Fowler ploughing engines still with their original fireboxes dating back to 1919.

 

Then on that basis I accept I can't be a true steam enthusiast.

But I'm very happy with my very specialised interest in ex SR steam locos and some of those from Germany and South Africa. Keeps me going. And keeps me happy. So I'll live with that.

Doesn't mean I don't understand the enormous enthusiasm there is for Tornado. Or the tremendous achievement in it's building. Or have sympathy with it's very many supoprters over it's current problems and hope they get it back working reliably as soon as possible.

But even when it's gone through Kent, (I think it went through West Malling once, only a mile from home), I don't bother going out to see it. It just does nothing for me at all. I'd rather go down to the K&ESR and photo an A1X, even if not in steam, that I last saw in September 1962.

 

Hi Bryan,

And that's absolutely fine, and as it should be. Each to their own: that's my mantra.

 

This engine does seem to focus a huge amount of debate on both sides of the fence.

Please don't quote press releases to me - it's what happens behind closed doors that counts. We all put on a smile for the press.

The only bigger achievement that building it was raising the money. I tip my hat to the marketing folks for achieving that.

However, IMHO, the A1 trust appears to be extremely arrogant regarding heritage steam. I am assured that I am not the only person in the business that shares this opinion.

Hopefully it's just more stays and not anything more serious.

 

Absolutely.

Then I must ask why you feel it necessary to air your dirty laundry in public, on a public forum?

No doubt. But equally there are many people who have a great deal amount of respect for that they achieve on a daily basis.

I note you did not respond to my question as to what exactly you meant by this comment:

I would appreciate a response on this claim, which I feel to be rather unsubstantiated.

Heartily agreed.

 

Tyseley WAS written out of the history. In the initial press articles it mentioned nothing about Tyseley. Your claim that the frames were just another commercial job is way off the mark! A lot of Tyseley personel's personal time and effort went into Tornado in the beginning. It might be blurred with time, but it was more than just a commercial job! To say this is just insulting!

What gives the A1 Trust right to be more arrogant that the rest of us who run steam engines? I'm sorry, but we all put in major hours to get them ready for trips. Does the A1 take more time to get ready than Lizzie? Is it harder to operate, coal, lubricate, clean, etc? NO! It just like the rest, so why the high horse? Or is it that it has lights than makes it so superior to all the other preserved steam engines!

Again, I would like to see the trust humble themselves just a bit.

 

Blimey Ben

Just what have the A1 trust done to upset you this much?

Dave

 

I am rather saddened to see 'muck slinging' between people who work or support (voluntarily or otherwise) for either of the two organisations that seem to be squaring up to each other in this thread. It does not matter who 'started it' - I'd like it to stop.

Yes, this is a discussion forum, but IMHO such accusations are not welcome in this thread and, if you MUST carry on with your rants, please keep them private, or they will be moderated.

Such posts do nothing for the reputation of the organisations concerned, the posters themselves or the name of this forum.

 

LOL.

As I said earlier, there does seem to be a lot of emotion about the A1.

It's good for business though - as long as people are passionate one way or another, it will be a point of discussion!

I have found that most people in this industry are very willing to help each other out if a situation arises. I'm not saying we wouldn't help the A1 out, of course we would, but since we have a large facility for servicing engines in the middle of the country with a lot of expertise, maybe the trust would be a bit more.....I can't think of a word that will not invoke a deluge of hate-mail! You know what I mean!

 

Sorry - I'm blaming the flu medicine. It should knock me out soon! LOL