Tornado

I can see why you'd think that to be honest with you chap but if I may respectfully offer an alternative perspective?

My gut feeling tells me that the A1 trust do whats best for the locomotive, no argument there. I honestly beleive that the steel firebox was overall the best choice. I couldnt tell you why not having studied the schematics but i trust the judgement of the a1 trust going on their behaviour and choices thus far to say that. What we don't know is all the facts, and neither do they. If the report comes back from the maufacturers that a copper firebox should have been installed then i'll hold my hands up and admit defeat but until we have all the info I think it's difficult for us to argue for either side. For all we know it could have been a manufacturing fault which if put right would create a better boiler than if it had a copper firebox. Then again it could be a design flaw in which case yes perhaps theres a case for a copper box.

I'll say this. I agree you could put a copper firebox in there and that it would steam well and probably last a long time. But I also beleive theres potential in the steel firebox design to be even better. They might not be there yet but they set out to make the design the best they could and the people putting money in knew that. I feel sorry for all involved from donators to Mark Allat himself for the problems the loco has endured, but I dont think for asecond the A1 trust has done wrong by anyone in their choice of spending.

That said its just my opinion, not my place to tell anyone else theirs is wrong just putting out an alternative way of thinking.

 

I'm not sure this post really takes into account the actual feelings of the covenators and supporters of the A1 Trust. I personally as a covenator trust Mark Allatt and his team unreservedly in terms of what's best for the locomotive. They did, after all, build it from scratch over a period of eighteen years (and had to run the gauntlet of "you won't build that bit - or that - you won't finish it"), and did so with monetary and physical support from people like my late grandfather, and many others who remember the original Peppercorn A1s at their best.

Now, the boiler has gone back to Germany. That's as much as any of the covenators know right now. The full details have been promised to us in the February newsletter. I'll happily post the contents on here (positive results or not) if it helps.

With regards the steel firebox - it staggers me more and more with every passing day that there is such a stigma over its use. Yes, there are problems here - Seanoc17 quite rightly pointed out the prototype nature of this particular boiler - but there are many hundreds of thousands of steam engines the world over, which have used steel fireboxes (riveted and welded varieties) in day to day use. Even our own Merchant Navy and Battle of Britain/West Country class locomotives in the UK have all steel boilers.

There's no doubt of the benefits of a copper firebox. But the overall cost of one, with copper prices increasing over the last twenty years quite markedly, was one which has in several cases delayed the return to steam of several locomotives in preservation. The A1 trust took the decision early on to have an all steel welded boiler, it was paid for, built, delivered, and worked very well for two years without mishap. Certainly 60163 has never been short of steam! Then of course, we had the first signs of trouble in June/July 2010. That the locomotive developed stay problems then, which were replaced as much as was known to require replacement, and now some further damage (which I must point out, the full extent is not yet known or at least in the public domain), and has been removed from running - is only natural to some degree when you have something as unique as Tornado.

Yes, unique - there were several new build locomotives already built in this country prior to Tornado's completion, but none of these new builds are required for 75mph running on a weekly basis, and expected to work out of the box, first time, and without problems. Tornado's first two years of traffic have been rather exemplary in most cases, the only two incidents I can think of which caused failure on a train were a small problem up at the NYMR in 2009, and the "clinker" problem late 2010.

Aside from those - the A1 Trust took Tornado out of service prior to any trains being pulled in order to assess the problems and replace stays as a matter of caution and maintenance.

We're all disappointed, trust members, engineers, covenators and well wishers alike - but I have faith in the A1 Trust to look after the locomotive they built, because their track record up to now reflects that entirely.

Something I perhaps should have remembered before in this thread - a phrase my late grandfather was very fond of with regards steam locomotive maintenance.

"Calmly await events".

There's nothing anyone can do now until Meinengen (forgive me if this is misspelled) has examined the boiler and produced their findings to the Trust's engineers in any event.

 

SAC Martin

That is one of the most sensible posts to have been put up.

Whilst I respect the knowledge of many on this thread, I can't help but feel there are a lot of people who think that the only railway engineers in the world are in Britain. May I suggest a read of Wardale's "The Red devil" for those who feel that knowledge of steam is an exclusively British club!

 

SAC Martin..

Here here, excellant post.

For those who are fretting over steel fireboxes..

The best example I can cite today would be to look at PKP in Poland. Wolstzyn's fleet does 200 miles a day, 7 days a week, for circa 30 days between turns..on a steel firebox.
And Germany more than most has experience of preserved mainline running with steel fireboxes.. Just look at the 01, 03, 18 201, 41 and 52s running. The only difference I would say, is they are used less often and have very long warm up/ cooling routines (sometimes as much as 10 days) before / after a turn.

But non the less, they work, very successfully... DR apparently built 686 of them.

Source: http://europeansteam.fotopic.net/c1610598.html

 

Absolutely so! As Kipling (who appreciated mechanical engineering more than just about any other writer) put it, "what know they of England, that only England know".

Everyone who can should go to Mulhouse and look at 232 U1 very carefully. Even an A1 seems a bit basic by comparison.

 

Just out of interest, does any one know what screw thread system is used on German steam locomotives?

 

i should imagine it would be metric , i cant off my head think of anything else unless the german loco manufactorers used whitworth because it might have been an universal measurement ?

 

I can't answer that specifically but, at Middleton, there are two European built locos, one German, the other Belgian. Both these locos are imperial (BSW/BSP) throughout, including the nuts and bolts. They were built in the 1890's but saw service into the 1960's.

 

The traditionalist in me says a copper box and riveted construction but I personally think that the A1 team were 100% right in going down the route that they did. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a steel box and welding. I've never seen an industrial boiler with copper in it - steel (or wrought iron) has been dominant virtually since boilers were invented. It's a proven material and easily repaired. The problems with Tornado don't simply lie with the fact that a steel firebox has been used instead of a copper one. I do wonder whether the original A1 boiler design has been followed too closely, rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper but that is an unsubstantiated thought.

 

I had a conversation with someone today about steam in Germany. He referred to an oil fired pacific (I'm not into German steam so I don't know which one) and he commented that, as soon as the train arrived in the station at the end of the trip, the fireman turned off the oil firing. Oil firing also provides instant heat on demand. That goes against the argument of slow start up and cooling. And yes, I know that the boxes are often refractory lined to avoid flame impingement but that doesn't provide that much protection. If you want heat transfer, you can't have an insulating refractory; it defeats the object.

 

Class 01 had an oil-fired version (Wikipedia)

 

The 01 has several iterations, the original DRG being coal fired. (with the long "Wagner" smoke deflectors).
Some were late modified with the "Witte" deflectors - (similar to the style used by the LNER)
Also there is a larger 3 cylinder version (The 01.10 referred to above).

Following the war both DR and DB did their own rebuilds to oil firing.

01.5 is the DR variant, 01.0509 having returned to steam from Meiningen in March 2010. (01.519 having gone out of ticket).
01.10 was the DB variant, (though from the 3 cylinder series), 01.1066 and 01.1100 being currently operational.

Of the older series

01.118 and 01.066 are operational.


Similar to this is the lighter weight BR 03, and the experimental BR 18 (18 201)-my avatar.
The term "Rekolok" (recondition locomotive) applying to generically to all the DR varient rebuilds.

I am not an expert, but from conversation I understand the 01.5 and 18201 have 2 oil burners fitted, with separately regulated flow control and firebrick lining to protect the firebox structure, the Oil flow can be regulated / turned up, down, on, off at any time in motion or standing, making it much easier to manage the "flame" and matching boiler steam requirements than coal... I understand it can and does, quite happily sit in shed or station platform without a flame turned on.. and re-lit on demand... much like a diesel... but with a nice warm boiler full simmering away. It can be left on "low flame" for extended periods, and I understand that some have been "plugged" to a warm water supply for the boiler between use for longer periods.

01.0509 was originally rebuilt at Meiningen c1963, and was under overhaul at the same time as Tornado's boiler was being completed in 2007-2010. I believe it too has substantial new boiler components.

The UEF, who operate 01.0509 are running an appeal to overhaul 01 173.

 

Didn't the full height Wagner deflectors predate the A3 style Witte ones?

 

Sorry yes.. my typo.

The larger smoke deflectors were first.

 

That would indeed be a revelation. One comment I've heard on this story is that the firebox was designed as per LNER A1 standard drawing, that is to say the basic drawing was used, but substituting steel for copper in the inner box, without making any alterations for the different properties of steel over copper. If that is the case, it may well answer quite a few questions, since a well documented case where this was done is KWVR's 80002, which has had no end of issues since its copper firebox was replaced by a steel one of the same dimensions.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37833945@N00/2149426958/

A friend of mine sent me the above link a few weeks ago, and I meant to post it on here but with all the boiler talk, plum forgot! The above pic is a stunning portrait of 60114 W.P. Allen in the late BR green, and probably not two far from withdrawal when taken (within a year of withdrawal?)

Just imagine it - this time next year, Tornado will be in this livery, though I imagine not as workstained as 60114.

Whatever preferences we may all have for the different authentic liveries steam locomotives carry, the change from one to another to offer something different and appeal to everyone catches my interest, every time.

 

My thoughts all along. Do,nt forget if anything had gone seriously wrong, God forbid, resulting in injury, all design calculations and risks would have to be produced.

 

Un-tried Prototype?

post deleted

 

Re: Un-tried Prototype?

One point re locomotive foundation rings on BR locos. No way are they made from cast iron. Steel is used. I have not seen drawings for the foundation rings on LNER Pacifics, but the foundation rings on BR Standard locos were either four piece or eight piece steel fabrications welded together to form a complete foundation ring.