Tornado

Thermal cycles is not hogwash. Even with correct boiler treatment thermal cycles take their toll on boilers.

 

Sorry perhaps I should have said

Put's all the hogwash about 'thermal cycles' causing "all" the problems into context me thinks. . . .

The number of cyles will play some part although it is difficult to quantify, however the reported quilting is unlikely to be due to this cause . . . .

 

As I and others have said, thermal cycles may shorten the life of a boiler but they are not the cause of the locos problems. If they were, every steam loco in use would be suffering the same problems because short cycles have ben the norm since 1968. You need to look elsewhere for the prime problems and IMHO, it is a fundamental of the design.
The vast majority of those contributing to this thread are not knocking Tornado or the A1 team. They are having a worthwhile discussion.

 

IMHO not every steam loco would be suffering the same problems because not every loco has a steel box for one thing. 21C123, 34059 and 34081 have had firebox problems in preservation, are you suggesting these were fundamental of the design?

 

Not in the least. Far from it. Did they have similar problems within the first few steamings?

 

More on here:- http://modeleng.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6135

 

And here:- http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30711

 

Thanks for this link I'd not had a look at this one before - most of what’s on this is mirrored on here although we appear to have a more technical debate on the other side of the pond???

I also had a look on there on the thread on the premature failure of tubes on 844 which makes interesting reading and in particular the amount of localised corrosion on the tubes due to differing material specifications - see

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29554&start=30

Now I know that the above does not relate to Tornado but it did get me thinking - now that the bulging side sheets are likely to be removed, has there been significant corrosion & is a metallurgist looking at them?

 

Given that 35028 and 34067 were probally the 2 most reliable engines on the main line , i wonder, did the A1 trust take advice on best operating regime for Tornado? Water treatment for any steel fireboxed loco is very important, from what ive seen, the system now used at MHR, KESR and others seems to do the trick, Recently Terrier No3 which has a steel box,i believe? was examined and found to be almost like new, after 5 years use , so prehaps using ro treated water might be one possible way to prevent future boiler issues as corrosion does not happen to the same degree

 

Any other covenators had their Tornado Telegraph yet? Still waiting on mine.

No rush mind, just like reading through it when it arrives.

 

Had mine by email a few days ago.

 

Ah! That may explain it. I will have to check which address I have down for the A1 trust. Thanks Sheff!

 

See on Tornado web site latest news page that the boiler passed its hydraulic test at DB Meiningen, Germany at 375psi.
http://www.a1steam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=123

 

My first shameless plug for my flickr account!
Tornado's tender is now more visible as the NSE GUV has been moved to the preparation bay.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamfj2/5577782864/

 

So just what has been done to the boiler to resolve the stay and foundation ring problems?

 

We'll probably never know the exact details, but I would be inclined to surmise a lot. So just what exactly caused you to ask the question that way???

 

From the Trust's website.

 

Yep the record has stuck

 

Care to elaborate, chap? I was merely repeating the information freely available on the trust's own website, and available to everyone who wants to know for themselves. Forgive me for doing the logical thing by pointing it out.

 

Indeed it is the logical thing to do, but I rather suspect there are many people who just don't happen to believe the Trust's excuse/reasoning/tale that it's perfectly normal to be renewing thousands of stays, welding in great chunks of new firebox and serious foundation ring repairs after around 300 steaming cycles.

As has already been mentioned on the thread, there are plenty of other engines whose boilers manage to last many more thermal cycles without needing such major work.

There is also the post made by Keith6233 on 25th March quoting Mark Allatt as saying that the stays will be tubular rather than drilled bar to reduce the occurance of hot spots and to prevent cracking. That sounds very much like a design change to me. Not a problem in itself, but surely it suggests the problems have been down to a little more than just the amount of use/cycles it's seen?? ...which is/was the Trust's official tale.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, but ultimately so long as they're happy - what does it really matter?