Tornado

Seen this drivel before, if the trust was going to wait for a UK manufacturer to be able to build a new boiler, the loco would not be finished yet. And the cost would have been prohibitive. So many "experts", so many who glory in the problems, so many who are getting sick of this continued merry go round of finger pointing. If you are so clever, why not give your thoughts to the trust, and get your hands dirty, but no its easy to critisise from behind a keyboard instead. Grow Up....

 

Deleted

 

EDIT:

Removed in the spirit of mutual agreement.

 

My understanding is that with steel fireboxes the water space (and length of the attendant stays) is increased over that fitted with a copper firebox. Not for the benefit of water circulation, but apparently a steel box flexes more and for given movement of it there is less of a sideways force (or angle) imposed upon the longer stays.

Interesting in that what was the accepted material for stays has suddenly gone out of favour...............

That said, following some recent reading, I feel that the A1SLT may be putting too much faith in steaming cycles being the cause of their problems. This is what E. S. Cox had to say about the New York Central RR at the time the "Niagara" 4-8-4s were coming into service in late 1945:-

'As the engines came on to the shed they were first coaled, watered and sanded, and then passed over one of four ashpit positions where the fire was dropped and ashes discharged from the pan through bottom opening doors into deep water filled pits, which were cleared out by grab crane once every 24 hours. Fire and ashpan emptying took 20 minutes, using rocking grates and permanently fitted flushing pipes fixed to the ashpan rim.........Twenty to thirty minutes later after fire dropping and the engine was in the roundhouse, the drivers' report was typed on to a daily sheet set up in a glass case adjacent to the engine stall, and each examiner signed off as the work was succesively completed. Essential to these long runs was that boiler condition should be perfect to start with, and for this purpose, a succession of staff known as 'Hot men' clad in asbestos suits now attacked the job. .... Attention given to stays and brick arch (bricks replaced as necessary), also to the rocking grate and 'birds nests' removed from tubes.

While this was going on the blower was full on and the firedoor open to give maximum relief (!) by way of cool air to the men. Only the all-steel construction and welding of the tube ends made such treatment possible. Finally, the still warm boiler was connected up to the high pressure steam lines supplied by the shed stationary boiler, and brought up to full pressure again, in which time a pilot fire was laid on the grate and relit......By such heroic means it was possible in times of power shortage to complete the turn round in 2-1/2 hours between depot entry and exit.....This kind of thing was required wherever steam was being called upon to give maximum utilisation on the heaviest duties.'

The 'Niagaras' were running through from New York to Chicago (950 miles) and to St. Louis (1100 miles), and clocking up an average of 24,000 mile per month. One, loco 6024, ammassed a total of 228,849 miles in 11 months from May 1946 to March 1947. This averages out at 683 miles a day, and it is reasonable to assume that it was getting the treatment as described by E. S. Cox roughly once every 36 hours.

Remember, this was being done 65 years ago! Not that I am suggesting that 'Tornado' be treated like this, but it goes to show what could be done without the problems that 'Tornado' has experienced.

If the USA can give their locos this sort of treatment and they survive it, in gentler hands why has 'Tornado' boiler problems.? Something is wrong somewhere.

 

And they were sending men into the hot firebox regularly to deal with any problems. Can't see that being allowed these days.

 

I agree!

Sadly though I feel the merry go round will carry on regardless.

Dave B

 

I find your remarks about British Manufacturing a little disparaging. We have some fine manufacturing and innovative companies in the UK.............indeed in your neck of the woods, the Nissan, plant which is very efficient. With regard to boiler manufacturers, surely it wo'nt be long before one's made here in the UK? Pete Waterman I am sure would be capable of this as would Ian Riley.....

 

We indeed do have skills in this contry that are more than capable if you are prepared to pay for them, however the boilers been built and 'we are where we are' and whats now needed is a long term fix.

As I have said before on this thread the problem with commenting on the boiler is the lack of facts presented by the trust to make any real analysis of the problem. When I was at studying Engineering the mantra was always to “analyze the problem” and then “act on that analysis”. I do get the feeling that for whatever reason the first part of the above has been incomplete and they’ve rushed into the second part, hence some of the many comments that they may be facing the same problem in a few years time. Some or even all of the possible reasons discussed on this thread will contribute to the reasons for the extensive reworking of the boiler which by now is nearly complete.

As the money has now been spent in this headlong rush to get it back into traffic, time will tell if the same problems will resurface, but if/when they do, a proper in depth study is essential before any further repairs are undertaken don’t you think?

As I’ve also said before I find the stance taken by the trust mystifying in the way it’s presented the difficulties to the public, and would like to contrast the information presented on the net by the Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway’s landslip problems and those of Tornado’s boiler. Both are very differing problems and both are very worthy causes for any enthusiast’s hard earned dosh, however if I could only support one cause I know where I’d put my money, the one that is willing to discuss all the issues in a free and open manner and that ain’t Tornado so far. Come on guys get a grip.

 

If you look at the way 4472's boiler/ firebox was done, it was companies working together to produce the finished product, not one company doing all the work. That, I feel, is the way forward.

 

And a fine job has been done indeed......

 

Indeed until we have the facts, which we don't, all discussion is speculative, and a reason I think this is the first comment I have made on this thread, which I find has become somewhat wearisome. It is however the prerogative of the A1 Trust to reveal or not to reveal the reasons for the failure, but I feel they are in a no-win situation on this one. On the bright side it mght be up and running soon.............

 

However as a charity one has certain requirements, but besides that, for a group who may well have the begging bowl out again to fund a P2, it would be prudent to keep its target fund raising population informed and happy as the Gloc.War.Rly have done so proffesionally IMHO?

 

Maybe they ought to build a Hush Hush instead.............!

 

You might not have noticed that nobody has made a pacific boiler in 50 years.

How can you say thats a disparaging comment, the germans are still making them, the real reason that the boiler was not made in the Uk, was that it could not be built to a budget that was acceptable to the trust.

Yes, british engineering was too expensive, and they felt that building it at that time was beyond their capabilities.

Thats not my words, they came direct from senior management at the trust, they wanted the boiler asap, to jump start the completion process to the loco, a scenario they judged to perfection.....

 

I'm a covenator, and I have been more than content with the updates they have given. I don't have an engineering background: I just want to see it run. I have had no problem with the way they're spending the money I send each month.

I by no means speak for all the A1 Trust's covenators, but I feel misrepresented by the above statement.

 

Would you be so kind as to inform us which "requirements as a charity" the A1 trust is not carrying out?

 

And the reason that the U.K. industry would not build it to the Trust's budget was that they would not build it to the tender document spec. because they foresaw exactly the problems the Trust has been experiencing now. That comes directly from the Principal at one of the U.K. builders who declined to quote! Saving money upfront has not turned out to be such a good investment after all, either financially or in regards to public relations.

Guycar you questioned my credentials earlier . I have to tell you that I have been actively involved in Preservation since 1980, I signed up as a Covenentor with the A1 trust in 1991. I know many of the personalities involved (on both sides of the fence) on a first name basis.I am also a qualified Engineer. No one that I know takes any pleasure from what has happened, in fact many have been disappointed to have their suspicions of the potential pitfalls of the firebox design proved correct.

Add this to the somewhat curious stand of the trust on information handling of these problems when they are, after all a Charity and accountable to their members and it is easy to see how we have arrived at the current situation where , sadly, the issue of Tornado's boiler is causing a rift amongst those in the preservation movement.

Childish, boorish and aggressive comments such as those you published about me without knowing the full facts and which, if I chose to pursue the matter could be considered actionable, (my societies legal advisers words not mine, by the way) do nothing to help bridge the gap or resolve any issue.

 

Strange that all the relevant bodies who examined and approved the design did not see the problems perhaps in future they should ask all the experts on here.