Tornado

Why elaborate when you are not prepared to listen, so if you could just try and suspend those rose tinted specs and face the reality of the situation, you might stop people making perfectly reasonable observations.

 

I think the use of tube for the stays and the refinements to the foundation ring corners are public knowledge. I forget exactly where I read this, but it's out there, and good news I'd say, as a like-for-like repair would have caused me much concern form the future.

 

Don't you just love the key board warriors on sites like this. They complain bitterly when owners/operators do not tell them what is going on, yet when they are told they do not believe the information (why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?). Is it any wonder that many key players just ignore the likes of Nat Pres.

 

Quite!

 

Sadly it's the great British disease, we just love to revel in the misfortunes of others.

 

I don't believe there is a conspiracy, but I (and no doubt others) do believe the A1 Trust have been a little 'economic' with the information when it comes to their press releases!

What's perhaps more amusing is how the fanboys seem to take what they read with blind faith and defend it vigorously! There are others who have contributed to this thread who actively own and operate boilers of varying sizes who have experience of locomotive boilers not needing such major repairs after 300 thermal cycles. They understandably have been questioning the Trust's stance that all their current 'issues' are simply a result of usage and are in line with what might be expected for boilers of that type.

The history of science and engineering has progressed as a result of individuals questioning what lies before them when things don't appear to add up, rather than just accepting what they're told as given fact.

 

I have a foot in both those camps, so I couldn't possibly comment. I hope in general my posting have been objective and balanced

 

I have read, I have been patient, I have even gone out of my way to read up on the problems of the Bulleid boilers, and commented on the similarities between them (see my post here).

It was asked what the current story was, and I provided it. No "rose tinted glasses" simply giving the "official line". I know about as much about the actual problems as the rest of you, why should I add to the speculation? It's not a case of fanboyism, simply not having enough information on the locomotive nor having seen any photographs of the damage.

If you feel you have information others do not have, by all means share it. Simply going around telling people they have rose tinted glasses on is neither a fair summation of the postings that have occurred in this thread, nor is it a particularly dignified way of having a debate.

I must add - I personally have no reason to distrust any member of the A1 Trust, they have been a delight to work with previously, and have always given me what I feel are straight answers when I've asked them (with my covenator's hat on).

If they are being "economical with the truth", and I've no doubt they may be, do you not think it somewhat justified when we on occasion see the amount of diatribe aimed at all and sundry on this thread, and elsewhere?

 

As I said some time ago the perceived problem is very hard to analyse due to the lack of facts presented by the trust which has led to some of the speculation on here. This stance by the trust is at best poor, and as a trust with all its tax advantages it has certain responsibilities to keep the public informed over its actions. As a member of the trust can remind them of their responsibilities?

I have pointed out quite reasonably as have many others on here that the number of steamings is only one part of the story, yet they keep repeating this as an excuse time and time again hence my comment that ‘the record has got stuck’.

Please don’t try and patronise me with comments like “nor is it a particularly dignified way of having a debate” it won’t stop the quite reasoned questioning on this page and elsewhere.

 

So nice to see the debate goes on..........

Didn't I read somewhere on the Internet that if Tornado doesn't get to give truly reliable service she is going to be scrapped? And the "remains" in whatever form, (including melted down and reformed), used to build A3 2750, Papyrus? The first steam loco worldwide to have reached 100 mph with fully supporting records and not a shred of controversy.

 

I think the answer to your question is quite probably no and surprised you could ask it with your tongue stuck so firmly in your cheek.
A new build A3 would be nice though.

 

I've underlined the missing word I think should be there.

My apologies of course if I have misread the above statement.

No one has tried to stop any reasoned debate. Your fairly demeaning "rose tinted" comment was unnecessary, particularly when it is clear we agree more information would be beneficial to all to prevent more speculation. However, I read their news reports back, and I am skeptical that any more information is required. They've given the full details of the fixes which will be in place, but not the causes of the problems (which I feel is what everyone is gunning for really). If the exact causes are not known, then what more is there to say apart from "we are fixing the boiler, by doing X, Y, and Z to it?"

Feel free to enlighten me if I have missed the point somewhat.

 

Apologies if someone has already answered this question, but with Tornado's boiler undergoing extensive repairs back in Germany, does this mean that the 'boiler clock' will be reset and that effectively she has a 10-year certificate from now? This would take her to about 2021, and 2018 on the mainline?

 

Not sure. Tubes aren't being replaced, I don't think, so probably not

 

The tubes aren't relevant, they're regarded as a consumable item. It is the general condition of the boiler that will determine whether it gets through to 2018 or 2021. But unless something has been radically altered at this repaired in the way it is subsequently maintained/operated I can't see any reason why it won't need more major work in a couple more years, let alone 7 or 10!

 

They have completely replaced the firebox sides, according to their updates. I think that's quite a radical alteration, along with changing the type of stays and various other fixes.

Again, I quote:

The implied need for drastic work in a couple years seems a little harsh.

Let them get the boiler back on and see what the changes have done to its overall condition in service.

 

All the statements to come out of the A1SLT so far seem to imply that there's nothing wrong with the boiler design and that the problems are the result of wear and tear consistent with the mileage so far.

I don't see anything in the statement quoted that says that different types of stays or other fixes are being tried. If they are it would seem to be an admission that perhaps there is more going on than routine wear and tear.

I've heard some explanations from people who might well know (i.e. boilermakers) of what the problems might have been but it isn't possible to say from the information released whether they have been addressed.

If there are problems and they haven't been successfully addressed, why is there any reason to think that the repaired boiler will last any longer than the brand new one?

It only took a year for the first round of problems to materialise, so we'll soon see, won't we?

I hope they don't.

 

IMHO, the basic problem is that the LNER design has been too closely followed in terms of water spacing (the distance between the outer and inner firebox plates). Steel stays are not as flexible as the copper ones of the original design. Short of a new firebox and major alterations, this has to be lived with. The stay mods now being tried are an attempt to overcome this, along with the attempt to minimise thermal cycling. Whether it is successful, only time will tell.

Someone tell me I'm wrong with this analysis/opinion...

 

I think that you are totally correct! With the materials change there should have been a greater change to the spacing of stays and a radical re-design of the firebox to take this into account. I also understand that it was not so much a case of no U.K. Manufacturer being able to build the Boiler/Firebox but no one in the U.K. was prepared to build it to the design in the tender specification.