Tornado

Let's not forget also, that "back in the day", David Ward was well-known as an outspoken LMS / BR (LMR) man, who often got away with his own wishes to see his favourite Locos on the front of specials. I remember forming an opinion way back that he had a definite bias against Ex-LNER & SR types being allowed to go mainline.
As others have said above, his time has come and gone - But putting out a letter such as he has done to SR could be putting a poker to the embers, depending on just who reads it and what opinions they hold.

Richard.

 

'tis of little importance but the Scotch Goods loco was an A4 . Silver Link if my memory serves

 

Following on from an earlier exchange, I had a look at the LNER Pacific loco cards in the NRM. The only locos where I noted issues more closely related to Tornado's derangement were "Middle piston valve seized" in August 1947, and "combination lever bent" in October 1947, both for A2/1 60507 (followed a few months later by a middle cylinder fracture), and "Middle Cylinder and motion damaged" in March 1948 for 60508 (the middle cylinder having been replaced a month earlier). Being of a different class, these may or may or may not be of any relevance. One wonders what sort of investigation was carried out of these incidents back in the day.

I don't know to what extent the cards pick up every incident, and general headings are sometimes used, but I note that cylinder fractures on A1s were common, there seem to be more suffering from this than not, plus occasional frame cracking (frame cracking not as prevalent as on the A3s). 60159 had middle connecting rod damage (unspecified), and 60139 crosshead and cylinder fracture (cylinder not specified). It is surprising to note how many of them were involved in collisions.

 

Don't think so but in the book on Bill Hoole I'm sure it's an A1 he was given to take over from a failed EE Type 4 and he set about regaining lost time with a vengeance. No plodding along at 60 involved then.

 

We need to examine the actual facts appertaining to the failure and DW's claims that somehow A3's and A4's were suitable for high speed operation and the A1's were not

Simplistically, the relevant design differences, I would say, are the a) the conjugated vs individual valve gear; b) Piston and valve diameter c) single drive axle vs divided drive and d) streamlining (A4's only). I assume (big assumption) that lubrication systems are basically the same.

So which of these factors would result in the A1 being an inferior 'high-speed' machine?

We can dismiss streamlining in support of DW's claims as he doesn't differentiate between the A4'a and A3's. (Also at 90 mph it would be beneficial, but not to any great extent).

The divided drive I can only see as being beneficial.

Individual valve gears to me are a bit of a curates egg. I believe that Gresley's gear was beautiful in its simplicity and, properly maintained, very reliable. With individual gears you've more bits to maintain and lubricate, but I don't think this makes it less suitable for high speed, and plenty of other express locos have this feature.

So this leaves the piston and valve diameters. The A1 has 1/2in larger pistons and 1 in larger valves. The piston stoke is the same as the A3/A4s but I can't find data on valve travel. The piston speeds are therefore identical to the A3/A4s for a given speed and hence not relevant. This just leaves the valves. The increased diameter MAY result in valve heads of greater mass, which would increase the inertia as the valves change direction. This effect will be amplified if the valve travel is also increased, resulting in greater forces on the valve gear. HOWEVER - the designer will have taken this into account; the Gresley gear has to operate 1.5 valves per gear; Tornado has run at 100 mph without issue; Other loco's run at high speed with 10in valves etc etc. Therefore I'm pretty confident we can dismiss the valve heads too.

So to my mind, DW's claims are unfounded.

 

They are relevant - the setup is very much the same (three sets walschaerts, divided drive to front and centre driving axles) however they have the same connecting rod lengths throughout (Thompson classes A2/1, A2/2, A2/3 having virtually identical front ends in this area) whereas Tornado has a more heavily inclined middle cylinder and a different length connecting rod to it from the lead driving axle. This is the main difference between the longer Thompson wheelbase and the more compact Peppercorn alternative. Virtually everything else is the same in many details, including the bogie type, kylchap exhaust, careful attention to the steam circuit, lubrication systems and more besides. Placements may be slightly different, and of course there were clear aesthetic differences, but from Gresley through Thompson to Peppercorn it was evolution, not revolution.

You would be surprised. Thompson had a number of different failed sets of walschaerts and conjugated gear kept back for analysis. These were then used as evidence to back up the independent Cox report.

The collisions stat is indeed surprising, given that the other 100 or so Pacifics of Gresley and Thompson didn't have as many combined as the A1s!

A really good post there. And I completely agree, hence my rebuttal.

 

Mr Ward wasn’t just a snob when it came to LMS over other big 4 locos.
It was his snobbish refusal to use 48151 any more than 3 or 4 tours per year, that lead David Smith to set up WCR to run his loco.

 

I think this is a fair point, and worth reiterating. I take issue with what the gentleman in question has said and its accuracy, I am not passing comment on the man himself. Perhaps that would be fairest?

 

The attitude of SLOA and Mr Ward was certainly an influencing factor.
On the plus side wasn't Mr Ward an advocate of air braking for steam locos and established some form of underwriting scheme of the costs for the early adopters?

 

That's three or four more than he allowed fellow 8F 8233. This engine went to Long Marston over the main line in 1987 without seeking his permission; it was a positioning move only so no passengers, his remit was steam hauled passenger workings. But he never forgave the 8F Society and they never reached the main line again until after he had gone.

 

Distinctly remember Mr Elliot explaining once to the 'How fast can she go' question that although Tornado developed as much, if not more power than an A4 - running at really high speed ( guessing he meant 120mph ) was not an option for Tornado for reasons of; Permission obviously, Streamlining because of the energy it saves, and vibration/stress that a divided drive produces ( which a single axle drive doesn't)...in anything less than perfect alignment.

 

Is human faults not a possibility?
I remember some aircraft mechanics changing engine oil on a Boing 727 and forgetting to put in the bottom plugs .

 

Any new build locomotive that aspires to run on the national network (at any speed) must provide an audit trail for every critical component. The technology available to modern engineers enables them to computer model every aspect of the working of an engine and the associated stresses. The hoops that the Tornado team had to jump through to be allowed to run at 100mph were exhaustive. Permission to run at 90mph would only have been granted if there was a demonstrable safety margin for considerably greater stresses than would occur at this speed. Speculation about the lack of soundness of the design for 90mph running is at best, idle speculation, at worst mischief making. Something went wrong, let's wait and see.

 

The mists of time have descended but I recall that, admittedly, self proclamation, I think during 6233s sojourn at Bury 1993/4.
There was also a letter from Mr W in a recent Heritage Railway mag which made some allusion to same.

 

Goodly number of people in boiler suits gathered around the front of Tornado today...



(again, apologies for the poor quality - I had considered bringing the SLR but only remembered it after I'd set off for Wansford)

 

Middle valve cover still off. Any sign of the outside pistons being reassembled? 3 weeks since we had an update from them.

 

I'm told that a team arrived en masse this morning, so give them a chance...

 

A bit off topic, but bearing in mind how quickly Tornado was made ready to be towed I wondered whether in steam days if an attempt could have been made to slowly work the train on to the next station on just the two outside cylinders if no pilot was readily available ?