Tornado

Unlined froth, this’ll never do!!

 

Perhaps it's the wartime austerity version...

Steve B

 

Wrong drink!

 

The boiler redesign was contracted out and was not handled by the trust. In light of the problems encountered by 3801 and in the knowledge that the change of an established copper firebox fitted design to one fitted with a steel box is not without its problems then the refinements made to the design in the light of running experience were not to be unexpected. The design is to be further improved/modified for the P2 build. Meiningen took on a contract to produce a modern version of a UK boiler type that was 60 and more years old and some aspects of the design did not work very well in UK conditions. I find David Elliot to be rather helpful, go to a roadshow and ask a sensible question.

 

Update: https://www.a1steam.com/category/news/

 

Not going to lie - feeling a bit choked up this evening. Odd to be this sad for what is a collection of metal bits, but I am.

I am sure this decision hasn’t been taken lightly. I wish everyone at the Trust the best. 2019 will be better I’m sure.

 

Not odd to be that sad at all, when you have such an affiliation with the loco. I hope that whatever has 'stopped' the engine can be swiftly rectified...ye Gods, it's about time the trust had some good luck!

 

I must say that I felt the same. Really disappointing news. Even the tweet that was posted earlier used a rather sombre black and white photo. Best wishes to all at the Trust for getting Tornado back to full fitness for 2019.

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

Im getting the feeling that there's is more wrong with the loco than has been disclosed. In the past there would be more information provided than just 'following discussions with our operator' and the operations director going doesn't bode well.

 

Oddly enough, I'd heard mention of Tornado not leaving the NVR when I was there on Sunday.

I'm left wondering if the recent "I 'heart' 60163" appeal will raise enough cash to cover the original shortfall now.

However... a thorough report on the site about the failure which makes interesting reading.

 

My guess is it's sensible caution on the part of DBC in the context of what happened in April. Tornado appears to have run in successfully on the NVR after the repairs, but trundling along a flat 25mph railway is very different from the demands of hauling a loaded train at 75mph on the main line. A more progressive build up with thorough testing at each stage would seem a wise move. It's not just about Tornado resuming normal service. Restoring everybody's confidence in the loco is just as important.

 

Agreed; if it fails on a main line, does DBC take a financial hit as its operator?

 

If it doesn't leave now it will have to wait until the Mainline connection is remodelled as I understand it will be severed for several weeks

 

What site would that be?
https://www.a1steam.com/category/news/ just refers to recertification to DBC’s satisfaction, with no explanation of why DBC is at present dissatisfied.

 

Try yesterdays entry on the same page...

 

In fairness it may also be a certification issue for the repairs. We simply don’t know.

We could speculate wildly, do the rounds again - or accept it has happened, it was never going to be a quick fix, and just calmly await events.

***

On a side note, part of me feels there is merit in the Trust - in association with any and all other interested parties - doing a theoretical exercise in investigating high speed steam both in the past and most recently. the reason I say that, is that the change from the single pawl ratchet to a three pawl ratchet in the lubricator setup which now matches the A4 Pacifics (agreeably, a high speed class).

The reason for my suggesting is this is that it seems logical that if the intention is for high speed running over 75mph to become the norm, learning from the methods of the past and present can inform our future. I have been lucky to look around a couple of big Pacific locomotives recently other than Tornado and the setups and approach to things such as the valve rings could in some way inform changes in procedures across the industry.

We accept of course that all locomotive owners are ultimately competing for work in the same industry. That doesn't, to me anyway, preclude the potential of an information gathering exercise that could be cross industry and undoubtedly useful to us all. We have a number of big locomotives that have similar setups (3 cylinders, three sets of valve gear, covers the A1, A2, and Bulleid Classes) together with other three cylinder machines (Jubilees, Scots, A3 and A4s) that are also very capable machines.

Maybe I am being unfair, and I apologise for this in advance - but it feels like things like the pawl ratchet setup could be a modification to be made permanent in the future for - just throwing it out there - Blue Peter as well (she has an identical setup more or less, I am led to believe, that is single pawl and not the triple one).

Sharing information for operations' - and ultimately, safety's sake - could be the necessary order of the day.

My apologies ladies and gents, waffling somewhat, spitballing, yes. Just thinking on matters arising whilst glancing at my signalling diagrams at work.

 

One naturally wonders what the DBC engineers were not happy with, may be just that a scenario B in the event of a failure /
problem was difficult to plan for at this time/place...

 

I thought the Fletton Branch was relaid only last year?

Mind you, it's only a stone's throw to the A1 by road....

 

Perhaps all supporters of Tornado should dip into their pockets and send £10 as a 'Get well soon present'. I am sure that the cash flow is nowhere near what it was expected to be.

 

Hence the "I 'heart' 60163" appeal - donate £601.63 in six instalments and get your name on the Roll Of Honour at Darlington